canon ?

[LKaven]

One of the things I am waiting for, actually, nobody has yet ... and that is 4K video capability.

I have a feeling that "the next" high mpx camera (from Canon or from whomever) is going to have 4K video capability, and (since I just purchased a 70" 4K TFX-certified Television) I am wondering if I should delay pushing the "buy" button on my next camera purchase, until I see the 4K technology in that camera as well.

I have a feeling it's coming sooner, rather than later ...

The Samsung NX-1, for one, produces stunning video, where each frame is derived from a full 28MP readout of the sensor.  Though I haven't seen it on a 4K display, the 1080HD output (downsampled) is of the highest order of fine detail-retention.  DPs might like the "look" of the Alexa, but Samsung lept way ahead of the DSLR market with this.  Canon and Nikon have some serious catching up to do.  Sony could match it, if they finally find their focus.

[John Koerner]

What is interesting is that, as I have been TV shopping, I learned that Sony has had 4K capability in its sensors for quite awhile, and that over 90% of all high-end movies are shot on Sony sensors. IMAX theatres are running 4K, and now the TVs are beginning to come out with the 4K technology.

I learned that Samsung TVs for example, offer the 4K rendering, but their mid-level TVs only have mid-level rendering engines, while their high-end televisions offer their best rendering engines. Sony, however, offers its best engines, even on their smaller, less-expensive 4K televisions.

The newer Sharp 4K televisions are the only ones that are TFX-certified by movie-industry standards.

It seems Sony has a virtual lock on sensor technology leadership, and that the next camera sensor which comes out with 4K technology is going to be of Sony (or even Samsung) technology, as Samsung recently impressed with its new camera offerings.

However, in person, the Samsung televisions seemed cheap compared to the Sony televisions. Samsung is offering a "curved look" which does nothing for me, actually, except make the TV appear smaller and less impressive IMO.

Jack

[John Koerner]

The Samsung NX-1, for one, produces stunning video, where each frame is derived from a full 28MP readout of the sensor.  Though I haven't seen it on a 4K display, the 1080HD output (downsampled) is of the highest order of fine detail-retention.  DPs might like the "look" of the Alexa, but Samsung lept way ahead of the DSLR market with this.  Canon and Nikon have some serious catching up to do.  Sony could match it, if they finally find their focus.

Funny, I was just posting about Samsung when you were also

I should also add their rendering on their better TVs is stellar also, but most were very thin and fragile-looking in person.

The Sony's and Sharp's appeared more "robust" and more like quality furniture IMO. The Samsungs looked like "thin, plastic," curved things ...

Jack

[allegretto]

Doesn't Panny's GH-4 do that trick?

the A7s too with some kind of outboard device?

The 6D does impress in its color rendition, true. That is one of the reasons Scott Kelby switched from the D4 to the 1Dx, the Canon's rendering of skin tones was superior (in addition to other highly-useful scrolling/image-tagging features the Canon had).

One of the things I am waiting for, actually, nobody has yet ... and that is 4K video capability.

I have a feeling that "the next" high mpx camera (from Canon or from whomever) is going to have 4K video capability, and (since I just purchased a 70" 4K TFX-certified television) I am wondering if I should delay pushing the "buy" button on my next camera purchase, until I see the 4K technology in that camera as well.

I have a feeling it's coming sooner, rather than later ...

Jack

[allegretto]

Oh, shyte. Not this again

Please hear me instead of commenting on what you somehow think I said

I never used an 810... I cannot comment on the 810. I did have a D4 and it was a super-focuser. That's all I'm saying. You're attributing far too much to my comments. I do not comment on things I do not know of.

Had a 7100 as a lightweight alternative... some may like it but I felt it was not for me. Tried a 600 and truly disliked it.

Was going through a LR catalog and was just scrolling images. Suddenly I said, "...wow those images are great. What camera did i use? Metadata says Canon Mk III. Went out and bought a Canon 6D and the 24-105 "L" . just loved the renditions. Then went through my Nikon images and tried to match the Canon's color. It wasn't that easy for me anyway. Sold the D4 and some tasty N-glass. Have never looked back

Now I'm going Sony and while the images come out initially too red as well, it's easier to make them likable

Now before all the Nikonistas start, don't bother. My preferences are mine alone. There should be no inferences that I suggest this for others. We should all make ourselves happy and comfortable, not follow anyone else.

Using a Metabones adapter or EF-mount lenses but still keep the 6D body since I think for portraiture it can't be beat.

Different horses for different courses. The Sony A7s for walking around and the a6000 for video is a potent combination

If you don't like the colour rendition, you can adjust it easily in post-processing. You can't add more DR in post-processing if the original file doesn't have it.

I personally prefer Nikon's default colour rendition. Canon gets things far too yellow/orange most of the time.

Then you're doing something wrong with your Nikon.

The D810 has a monster of an AF system - the equal of the 1Dx in tracking accuracy, easily better than the 5D3. The D800/D800e is another story entirely.

[BernardLanguillier]

The 6D does impress in its color rendition, true. That is one of the reasons Scott Kelby switched from the D4 to the 1Dx, the Canon's rendering of skin tones was superior (in addition to other highly-useful scrolling/image-tagging features the Canon had).

Let's be clear.

Scott Kelby was shooting Nikon when he was on Nikon's payroll, he is now shooting Canon because they wrote a bigger check. Camera performance has absolutely zero to do with it. If it had this would be the worst timing ever to change, Nikon's full frame line up has objectively never been that clearly ahead and that's precisely why Canon marketing needed someone like him to influence those guys who buy based on references.

Besides, skin tones are probably his least concern considering his published work... wouldn't you think?

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

Let's be clear.

Scott Kelby was shooting Nikon when he was on Nikon's payroll, he is now shooting Canon because they wrote a bigger check. Camera performance has absolutely zero to do with it. If it had this would be the worst timing ever to change, Nikon's full frame line up has objectively never been that clearly ahead.

Besides, skin tones are probably his least concern considering his published work... wouldn't you think?

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Everything you say is perfectly true, but my D4 experience has been so lousy that image quality may have influenced Scott's decision a bit if he was using a D4. To make a long story short, I will try to never buy a Nikon product again.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

Everything you say is perfectly true, but my D4 experience has been so lousy that image quality may have influenced Scott's decision a bit if he was using a D4. To make a long story short, I will try to never buy a Nikon product again.

Edmund,

I respect your point of view. I have never shot with a D4, I can't comment about it.

Thom Hogan is pretty neutral about it but doesn't describe it as worse than the D3s, which he describes as better than the D3 that I used to own and found outstanding. So I am a bit surprised by the "so lousy" strong comment, but again, I have no first hand experience.

It seems at least clear that the D4 isn't Nikon's most outstanding body ever. The good news is that odd numbers have all been revolutionary and that the D5 can't be that far away.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

Let's be clear.
Scott Kelby was shooting Nikon when he was on Nikon's payroll, he is now shooting Canon because they wrote a bigger check.

Yes, let's be clear Bernard: you know nothing of why the man changed brands. Nothing.

Camera performance has absolutely zero to do with it. If it had this would be the worst timing ever to change, Nikon's full frame line up has objectively never been that clearly ahead.

Actually, your opinion has zero to do with anything.

The Canon's performance actually is ahead of Nikon, on many functional levels, with slightly less, but very comparable, resolution/DR/ISO.

More importantly, according to most, the Canon has better color rendition, is faster, scrolls easier, has more user-friendly features that are important to those who have to think/act fast, and don't have all day to tinker with their camera while shooting subjects that aren't moving.

Besides, skin tones are probably his least concern considering his published work... wouldn't you think?
Cheers,
Bernard

What I think, or you think, really doesn't matter. What matters is what the guy himself has to say.

I believe you've seen Kelby's video on his own website, with the explaining his reasons himself.

I am pretty sure he directly stated his reasons: skin tone, speed, ease-of use, filing/tagging, etc. What more do you want?

It seems you have serious difficulty accepting the reality that some people really might prefer Canon, just as some people really might prefer Nikon.

I have heard people switching to Canon for their Tilt-shift lenses too.

Why is this so problematic for you?

Anyway, enough bickering, Happy Holidays

[fdisilvestro]

It is very simple:

When a photographer produces an outstanding image:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
  
• if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
  

When the photograph sucks:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
  
• if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera

 

Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!

[BernardLanguillier]

John,

I don't care the least bit who uses what. I'll buy Canon cameras the day they help me take better pictures at a price point I can afford taking into account my heavy investment in the F mount. Today I don't see how they would. Among the points you mention I clearly agree about the superiority of the Canon T/S lenses. The rest is... to put it kindly very subjective opinions, including the claimed color superiority.

All I am saying is that the odds that mr. Kelby picked Canon because of camera performance are about equal to those of you taking a sharp image of the Lochness monster dancing salsa on full moon summer night.

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

It is very simple:

When a photographer produces an outstanding image:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
  
• if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
  

When the photograph sucks:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
  
• if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera

 

Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!

TRUTH here!

Merry Christmas to you too

[John Koerner]

It is very simple:

When a photographer produces an outstanding image:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
  
• if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
  

When the photograph sucks:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
  
• if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera

 

Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!

 

[DeanChriss]

Equipment differences between brands and between models within a given brand can give you an edge in some situations, but the differences and their consequences are hugely exaggerated, especially in forums like this. You make a lot more difference than your camera ever could. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many great photos taken with low to mid-range cameras, nor would any great photos from more than a few years ago.

In the end the camera you use will never garner praise or condemnation of an image you create with it. That just doesn't happen. What people really see are things like subject matter, composition, and use of light and color. IMO most photographers would be far better off taking some fine art classes relating to those things in painting and applying it to their work than buying the latest "best" camera. Frankly, just visiting a good art museum and studying paintings you like to determine why you like them can be extremely beneficial. Technical aspects matter, but with few exceptions I think they are far from being the most important contributors to the success or failure of a photograph. The last time I checked, that's what actually matters.

Happy Holidays, and best wishes to all.

[Tony Jay]

I might as well toss my 0.02c worth in here.

I have shot for several years with Canon equipment - most recently with 5D mark III's.
The 5D mark III is a very usable camera and exceptionally versatile.

I have also recently acquired a Sony A7r predominantly for landscape work.
In this application it absolutely excels providing me with exquisite image quality and jaw-dropping dynamic range, and certainly at base ISO is practically noiseless.

Nonetheless the Sony A7r has several dramatic weaknesses that practically exclude it from my other great loves of bird and wildlife photography. The autofocus is appalling, especially if using an adaptor to mount 3rd party lenses, such as my Canon lenses. However I have turned that problem into a virtue because with this camera I shoot almost exclusively from a tripod and I only use manual focus in setting up my shot. The various tool such as focus peaking and the focus magnifier are really helpful here. Admittedly in really low light it can be tough to get focus using an electronic viewfinder but not impossible.

Basically, neither camera is the perfect tool for all applications but appropriately used each camera helps to solve specific problems. Owning both these two cameras has expanded my creative potential. But it is just a potential help since none of equipment guarantees a good result. Although I delete a lot of images I am still in possession of a myriad of images that prove, beyond reasonable doubt, just how easy it can be to shoot complete rubbish with the best of equipment. The A7r is particularly unforgiving if a shot is not set up correctly.

In reality my incompetance and inattention limit my camera's ability to produce outstanding images rather than the camera limiting me. However, when I apply myself on a technical level and match that with good creative thinking either camera rewards me with beautiful striking images.

Merry Christmas!

Tony Jay

[eronald]

Bernard, the D3s is reconned to be the best of the bunch, and superior to its successor.

If you see one cheap, get it.

Edmund

[LKaven]

Bernard, the D3s is reconned to be the best of the bunch, and superior to its successor.

If you see one cheap, get it.

The D3s is a great camera.  But I don't like my D4 less than I liked the D3s.  I don't know what happened with your D4 Edmund, but it doesn't match up with my experience.  At base ISO, the D4 is fabulous, with much more DR than the D3s, more akin to the shadows on the D3x.  I've used the D4 for a lot of extreme low light work (ISO25600+) and gotten better color response than I ever got from the D3s.  The D3s was however a fine piece of kit that obliged in all the ways it was intended to.

[eronald]

The D3s is a great camera.  But I don't like my D4 less than I liked the D3s.  I don't know what happened with your D4 Edmund, but it doesn't match up with my experience.  At base ISO, the D4 is fabulous, with much more DR than the D3s, more akin to the shadows on the D3x.  I've used the D4 for a lot of extreme low light work (ISO25600+) and gotten better color response than I ever got from the D3s.  The D3s was however a fine piece of kit that obliged in all the ways it was intended to.

I had a defective camera (everyone makes some of those) and a lot of Nikon service issues.

Nikon are now in the business of making money. Canon are in the business of business as usual.
I'll gladly swap my D4 and D3x together for a 1Dx, in fact I'll throw in a new 85/1.4 . The D3x was great -ask Bernard-  and the D4 is whatever a D4 is supposed to be.

I think the Nikon gear is all going to go up for sale in January. I think I need video stuff more now than film gear, and my old Canon stuff can handle stills.

Edmund

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nikon are now in the business of making money. Canon are in the business of business as usual.

+1!

That really is the bottom line, Edmund.

[dwswager]

It is very simple:

When a photographer produces an outstanding image:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
  
• if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
  

When the photograph sucks:

• if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
  
• if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera

 

Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!

LMBO!  I know this was written in jest, but it is important to point out that any decent DSLR is capable of executing a Good Quality image in just about any situation.  It is incumbent upon the photographer to know his camera and understand when a particular situation plays to a strength or weakness of it and adjust his technique accordingly.

Bottom line is in almost every situation, an image of quality that SUCKS, is the photographer's fault.  I shoot the D810 and D7100.  Neither is particularly speedy in frame rate.  So when I shoot sports, for example, I know that neither the camera and usually the shutter speed I am able to use supports point and blast shooting.  Any photographer using these cameras for fast motion subjects expecting to do so is failing their primary responsibility.  So I must anticipate the moment and get it.  While I shoot short bursts of 3-5 frames, it is almost always the initial frame in the burst which is the one I was after.  Later frames sometimes show good reaction though.

What I like about these 2 cameras is that when I do my job correctly, they reward me with images of higher DR, better color depth and lower noise than most other camera options available in their sensor format FX (D810) and DX (D7100).