Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: henrikfoto on March 19, 2016, 08:31:17 pm
-
I have been away from photo for some time. I have a Nikon 800e and
now I am thinking of buying an Otus lens. The question is:
Should I buy Otus for Canons 50mp or for my Nikon?
Hopefully Nikon will upgrade the 800e soon?
-
Having used a D800 for 2 years and a D810 for 20 months, my view is that you would get more value from a D810 than from a 50mp D800e and both options are IMHO superior to the 50mp Canon thanks to more DR.
I own the 3 Otus and use them on the D810, the files at ISO64 are nothing short of stunning. I didn't find P1 100mp with tech camera lenses to offer a significant advantage, if any, from a pixel quality standpoint. A few images shot with those after the link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/albums/72157639077058796
As far as a 50+ mp D820/D900/D5x goes, I would expect one to be announced no later than the Kina in Sept. Those are likely to be the last DSLRs with a mirror, the digital equivalent of tye F6. A must buy for that reason alone. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you, Bernard!
Very nice pictures!!
So I will go for Otus for my Nikon. Which of the 3 Otus lenses are you most impressed by?
Henrik
-
Thank you, Bernard!
Very nice pictures!!
So I will go for Otus for my Nikon. Which of the 3 Otus lenses are you most impressed by?
Hum... tough question. The 3 are outstanding in most regards, it really depends on your applications. The new 28mm may be the one offering the largest advantage compared to the other 28mm lenses I have used, but I really like the rendering of the 85mm... The 55mm is great for stitching/DoF stacking.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you. I think I want to start with the 85. :)
-
Hi,
I have not seen any rumors…
Nikon used to have Sony sensors in it's high res cameras. Those sensors take something like three years to develop, AFAIK (or guess). The latest full frame Sony sensor is 42 MP, and Nikon doesn't use that one.
42 MP is a minor step up from 36 MP.
Bernard says that he would prefer the D810 vs. the Canon 5Ds/5DsR due to the advantage of the D810 in DR. I am less sure, there is more to a camera system than megapixels and DR.
Would I be a Nikon user I would not switch to Canon for 50 MP, and would I be a Canon user I wouldn't switch to Nikon for DR.
Best regards
Erik
I have been away from photo for some time. I have a Nikon 800e and
now I am thinking of buying an Otus lens. The question is:
Should I buy Otus for Canons 50mp or for my Nikon?
Hopefully Nikon will upgrade the 800e soon?
-
Bernard says that he would prefer the D810 vs. the Canon 5Ds/5DsR due to the advantage of the D810 in DR. I am less sure, there is more to a camera system than megapixels and DR.
Erik,
True, but what are the aspects you have in mind where the 5Ds has an advantage that is not sensor related? Personally I don't see any but find the auto iso implementation of the Nikon superir enough that I would pick it for that reason alone (leaving DR aside).
Btw, have you worked with these cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is the difference from D800e to 810 worth upgrading for?
-
Erik,
True, but what are the aspects you have in mind where the 5Ds has an advantage that is not sensor related? Personally I don't see any but find the auto iso implementation of the Nikon superir enough that I would pick it for that reason alone (leaving DR aside).
Btw, have you worked with these cameras?
How is the D810 auto ISO better than Canons? With the 5Ds(r) you can set auto ISO range to full native sensitivity of the sensor, specify a 1-2 stop faster than reciprocal of focal length parameter or manually spec shutter speed range. What more do you need?
As far as the sensor goes I would have to concur, even as a canon 5ds user that the flexibility and incredible noise performance of the D810 (and D800's) do make them more flexible cameras than the canon, their Raw files have a plasticity every bit as good as medium format. You simply can't adjust the canons files as brutally. I do prefer the colour rendition from canon though.
That being said I think 50mp is a significant step up from 36 when, and only when everything is set up with complete precision. The difference between the two brands in practice is minor, understanding or ergonomic preference of one system over the other is of much greater importance than the real world sensor performance.
If I was a Nikon shooter I would not be swapping over and likewise as a canon shooter I have no intention of switching either. I am extremely pleased with my 5ds though. For architecture it is unbeatable in my opinion.
-
I stand corrected, I had not realize that Canon had improved auto-ISO on the 5Ds.
I totally agree that those bodies are too close to make a switch a sensible move. The investment in lenses pretty much feezes everything and there are no lenses today better enough either way to make a significant difference.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How is the D810 auto ISO better than Canons? With the 5Ds(r) you can set auto ISO range to full native sensitivity of the sensor, specify a 1-2 stop faster than reciprocal of focal length parameter or manually spec shutter speed range. What more do you need?
Do Canon's now allow Auto ISO in manual exposure mode? This was a great addition when Nikon finally added it and made Auto ISO so much more useful. I shoot manual mode almost exclusively now with the D810 because of this feature.
-
Would I be a Nikon user I would not switch to Canon for 50 MP, and would I be a Canon user I wouldn't switch to Nikon for DR.
Best regards
Erik
That is a function of investment in equipment, assessories and interface learning curve and I certainly would agree up to a point depending upon the type of photography one does. When the D500 appears (assuming it is properly executed), there isn't a Canon I would recommend to a new user however. The 7DmkII was the one Canon camera that Nikon could not compete against. The 50MP 5Ds just isn't enough over the advantages of the D810. Doesn't seem that long ago, that I wouldn't have recommended a Nikon to a new user over a Canon even though I've been shooting Nikon since switching from Canon during the FD/EOS mount switch.
-
While the Canon may excel at 50 mpx, it lags pretty far behind in not just dynamic range but also in color rendition.
According to SenScore (http://www.senscore.org), the 5DS R measures only 850 in DR (compared to Nikon's 1028) and only 751 in color range (compared to Nikon's 1073).
While the Canon does have exaggerated resolving power, it also has pretty glaring deficits in these other important elements, making the Nikon 810 the more balanced overall tool.
While the Nikon may not (yet) have quite the resolving power, it also has no glaring weaknesses either.
Even the new Sony really doesn't make enough of a jump in any category to warrant a gear switch.
I am quite anxious to see the specs on the anticipated Nikon D900.
-
While the Canon may excel at 50 mpx, it lags pretty far behind in not just dynamic range but also in color rendition.
According to SenScore (http://www.senscore.org), the 5DS R measures only 850 in DR (compared to Nikon's 1028) and only 751 in color range (compared to Nikon's 1073).
Hi John,
It's irrelevant how a studio camera performs at high ISO. Yet the SenScore DR score is measured and averaged across all available ISO settings. They do not explain how the colors score is determined, maybe the DR also plays a role in it. Of course focusing on a single number is never useful, and that's why they reach a somewhat more balanced conclusion for the Canon 5DS R than you do by cherry picking the numbers that suit your opinion best:
Comment:
The best Canon sensor to date, raising the bar considerably when it comes to resolving power, with marked improvements in dynamic range, color range and tonal range. The new #1 in the studio camera category.
While the Canon does have exaggerated resolving power, it also has pretty glaring deficits in these other important elements, making the Nikon 810 the more balanced overall tool.
Why is it 'exaggerated' instead of higher? Why are you qualifying it as having 'glaring defects', when resolution has improved and noise even improved a bit despite the huge increase in resolution (much smaller photosite areas)?
While the Nikon may not (yet) have quite the resolving power, it also has no glaring weaknesses either.
Even the new Sony really doesn't make enough of a jump in any category to warrant a gear switch.
I am quite anxious to see the specs on the anticipated Nikon D900.
Spoken as, what comes across as, a true Nikon fanboy. Everything that the competition does sucks, and whatever Nikon does is the standard ... Better scores of competitors are 'exaggerated', lower scores indicate 'glaring defects'.
Fact of the matter is that both Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras for photographers, and they can produce great images with them. The cameras have specific strengths and relative weaknesses, and are used with a vast array of lens choices and accessories. A good photographer knows his/her tools and copes with what the cameras are capable of.
As for the thread's topic, it mostly depends on what Sony does whether Nikon will come with a high resolution model.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi John,
It's irrelevant how a studio camera performs at high ISO. Yet the SenScore DR score is measured and averaged across all available ISO settings. They do not explain how the colors score is determined, maybe the DR also plays a role in it. Of course focusing on a single number is never useful, and that's why they reach a somewhat more balanced conclusion for the Canon 5DS R than you do by cherry picking the numbers that suit your opinion best:
It is not just a studio camera, it has outdoor/variable light applications as well, so how it performs in varying light conditions is relevant.
Why is it 'exaggerated' instead of higher? Why are you qualifying it as having 'glaring defects', when resolution has improved and noise even improved a bit despite the huge increase in resolution (much smaller photosite areas)?
Having a 1300+ resolution score, while also having a 700+ color rendering score, is a glaring defect and imbalanced camera. (5DS R)
Having a 1070 resolution score and having a 1050 color rendering score = a balanced camera IMO. (D810)
Spoken as, what comes across as, a true Nikon fanboy. Everything that the competition does sucks, and whatever Nikon does is the standard ... Better scores of competitors are 'exaggerated', lower scores indicate 'glaring defects'.
Spoken like a man who invents things to say, rather than a man who speaks honestly.
Can you show me where I said "everything sucked" about Canon?
I speak as Canon owner for 8 years, still as a Canon owner, but as someone who switched to Nikon because I want my images to look the best they possibly can.
I also read charts, see what EVERY sensor-analyzing outfit has to say, and make my decisions accordingly.
Fact of the matter is that both Nikon and Canon make excellent cameras for photographers, and they can produce great images with them. The cameras have specific strengths and relative weaknesses, and are used with a vast array of lens choices and accessories. A good photographer knows his/her tools and copes with what the cameras are capable of.
I agree. I said on another thread that I have produced better images with my Canon 7D than I have with my Nikon D810.
But this is only because of the time I was able to spend "out there" with my 7D vs. the minimal time I have to enjoy my D810.
That said, I am glad I have my D810 now, and wish I had it back when I was in FL.
But your point is well taken: at this point, with the available technology, anyone can take great images with any of the brand names ... IF they spend the time, and gain the knowledge, of how to do so.
As for the thread's topic, it mostly depends on what Sony does whether Nikon will come with a high resolution model.
Cheers,
Bart
I am waiting for the Nikon D900 and will probably buy that as my second camera, dumping my last Canon in the process.
I am quite sure that, if Canon could not surpass the 2-year-old D810 overall, with its newest camera, that Nikon's next generation will be something that will last for quait a while.
After that purchase, I am not going to purchase another camera for quite some time ... but will instead concentrate my efforts on maximizing my opportunities to utilize them.
I also agree that no further negative comments are needed.
Cheers back,
Jack
-
Is the difference from D800e to 810 worth upgrading for?
In my opinion, no. I am keeping my 800E as its capabilities still far eclipses my capabilities as a photographer.
The 810 is a sweet camera and anyone considering moving to Nikon or upgrading from DX, should consider the 810. But while the 810 is a better camera than the 800E, it is not enough better to justify spending money on a new body.
-
Bernard,
I own the 3 Otus...
These lenses suck (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Bz0eLwRlY).
-
Bernard,
These lenses suck (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Bz0eLwRlY).
Rob, they need a touch more of Topaz Clarity than lenses with fewer optical elements/groups, that'll make the differences in local contrast smaller. It also helps to use a proper lenshood. Bokeh on the other end, is often more pleasing with somewhat less well corrected spherical aberration.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Got to love that video, all the preview is done on an iPad. Great tool to really check out overall quality in a lens. Sorry, not for me.
Paul C
-
Bart,
Please tell me you did not take my previous post seriously.
-
Hi,
What he says is that modern lenses with many air to glass surfaces reduce microcontrast. I think it is absolutely true, depending on what you mean by:
- Microcontrast
- Reduce
- True
- False
A lot of terms have been invented to describe magic properties of lenses, leaving interpretations pretty free. Unfortunately, I have not seen that many samples from Otus lenses, though. Jim Kasson has made some serious research into short telephoto lenses, with a lot of interesting findings: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=13065
My take is really that a lot of effort goes into designing a lens having excellent performance at large apertures and I would say that effort gives diminishing returns once you stop down to medium apertures. Originally I considered the Otus 85/1.4 (to much money and to heavy), looked at the Zeiss 135/2 APO (wrong focal length), Zeiss Batis 85/1.9 (no delivery schedule/no test data) so I finally ended with the Sony 90/2.8G Macro (overhyped).
In the end, we have the stuff we have, and we need to learn to make best use of it. Decent quality stuff, properly used, will deliver excellent quality. By the way, "properly used" may be the most important factor in that equation.
Best regards
Erik
Got to love that video, all the preview is done on an iPad. Great tool to really check out overall quality in a lens. Sorry, not for me.
Paul C
-
Bart,
Please tell me you did not take my previous post seriously.
Of course not Rob, but in case someone might not understand what Yannick Khong was describing on his blogpost, and how to deal with that, I thought it might be useful to offer a solution. The video was about a lot of hot air from someone publicly making a bit of a fool of himself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bernard,
These lenses suck (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Bz0eLwRlY).
:)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon has absolutely the best shadows and file "push-ability" of any camera in the world, and also better than Sony. Nikon seems to use Sony's sensors better than Sony themselves.
However, I can't get away from Canon's ability to make amazing lenses. The new 35 1.4 seems to be just about as good as the 28 OTUS. What will the new 50 1.4 or 1.2 L lenses be like? What about a new 85 1.2L? Also, I far prefer Canon's colors over Nikon, although, with Capture One, every camera has very good color. That lab test is hilarious, because Canon obviously has a color advantage.
Also, you either see this or you don't: Sony and Nikon look very digital to me. Canon looks like cinema, or fantasy, which I prefer. Kind of like a really sharp video camera (Nikon/Sony) versus a beautiful cinema camera (Canon).
I expect the 1DX2 and new full-frame Canon cameras to have slightly better DR than the new 80D, but still far behind the current and future Nikons. Everyone has pros and cons.
-
I expect the 1DX2 and new full-frame Canon cameras to have slightly better DR than the new 80D, but still far behind the current and future Nikons.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421137
granted you might want a 2nd source to confirm, but still...
-
Yeah, I've been looking at the 80D files from imaging-resource in Capture One (CR2 converted to DNGs, Phase didn't update C1 yet), pushing the files how I usually would push with my workflow, and it's a good improvement. However, all of this 80D testing made me discover how insane the Nikon D7200 is. What kind of special sauce did they put in that thing?
-
However, all of this 80D testing made me discover how insane the Nikon D7200 is. What kind of special sauce did they put in that thing?
And that's a one year old camera seen by many as a minor upgrade... ;)
The reality being that it beats all P1 backs in DR except the last 2 CMOS ones.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
The info could be interpreted that Canon finally put column-wise ADCs on the sensor, like Sony does. Would be major news.
Best regards
Erik
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421137
granted you might want a 2nd source to confirm, but still...
-
I can't speak to the D7200 itself, but if that is same chip that Fuji used in the X-Pro2 (with their x-trans array), then Kudos to Sony, as it's a excellent chip in the X-Pro2. Vastly superior in noise and DR to even the X-T1 at least to my eyes, which was a total and pleasant surprise.
Paul C