Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: kevs on December 11, 2018, 03:13:56 pm
-
I'm rip Van Winkle. Don't pay attention to much about gear. But as a old time Nikon film camera user who switched over to Canon digital 12 years ago, as Nikon was so behind with full frame, what is going on? This 850 is like a full 3-4 year cycle ahead of the MarkD series? 45 mb over the 30 mb mark 4, etc etc.
I'm still on Mark 2.. but is anyone going back to Nikon who came from Nikon?
Really Canon should make the mark 5 kill everything: be best in video (over sony/ panasonic), be best pixel count -- 75 mb.. etc etc.. What up the Canon? I'll pay a bit more.
Finally what up with wifi in cameras? Only goes to a smartphones? It can't cut the tether cord to a computer yet? Is that coming down the pike? Thanks.
-
I'm rip Van Winkle. Don't pay attention to much about gear.
That's a good approach. No need to change it IMO.
Finally what up with wifi in cameras? Only goes to a smartphones? It can't cut the tether cord to a computer yet? Is that coming down the pike?
Zeiss, of all companies, has a camera—the ZX1—in the works that (apparently) addresses this. Fixed lens, though. In this regard the other makers all seem to be asleep.
-Dave-
-
But as a old time Nikon film camera user who switched over to Canon digital 12 years ago, as Nikon was so behind with full frame, what is going on?
Nothing really, they're still market leaders for FFS cameras.
https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-continues-to-outsell-everyone-in-the-full-frame-segment-according-to-bcn/
Don't pay attention to much about gear.
Very sensible. Most of the noise about Canon's supposed demise seems to come from gear freaks whose only interest is in specification. <yawn>
-
Thanks guys, yeah, just buy the camera and shoot, don't obsess with next model, but still, you don't think odd that Canon would allow Nikon to have the leading reviewed top Full frame camera. It does seem Nikon is now 3 years ahead of Canon, no? (file size at least)
And video, I don't even shoot, but still why would Canon allow Panasonic to take over?
And is up with Wifi? Sounds like great idea, tethering unrecorded.
-
you don't think odd that Canon would allow Nikon to have the leading reviewed top Full frame camera. It does seem Nikon is now 3 years ahead of Canon, no?
If you've any significant investment in glass and accessories, you'll stick with your manufacturer, unless all you care about is spec numbers.
Would a Nikon 850 be worth upgrading to from a 5Div if it was going to cost £15k once you've swapped whole systems ? How much of a difference in final prints would you see anyway ?
Sure for a few niche uses it might just be worth the expense, or if you have shed loads of spare cash, but most of us can just get on without having to have the absolute best numbers and keep the cash for going to places to photograph.
-
Thanks Rhoss good post.
But are you surprised than Nikon has taken the lead of best digital SLR?
-
Firstly, though Canon seems out of favor amongst forum pundits, it is by all measures I have seen still the most successful maker of interchangeable lens digital still cameras. Maybe lens systems weigh more than sensor differences and such for many photographers.
On the video side, Panasonic (like Sony) has long been a major player in video; it is not an upstart suddenly surpassing Canon in that sector. In fact, digital camera technology probably has more in common with video cameras than still film cameras—especially now with EVF cameras on the rise—so I am not surprised at Panasonic and Sony doing well.
-
Thanks B, good points.
-
But are you surprised than Nikon has taken the lead of best digital SLR?
'Best' is just a subjective assessment. The differences between the top end DSLRs are really pretty subtle, what's 'best' for one application isn't the 'best' for another.
If all my kit was stolen, I'd still buy another Canon system, the 5Div is 'best' for me right now and the foreseeable future.
-
At least a big part of what's going on isn't actually Nikon's doing, but Sony's sensor division (which benefits Nikon, Fuji, etc. as well as Sony's own camera division). Sony is well ahead of anybody else in the manufacture of large CMOS image sensors (anything bigger than a phone sensor is "large"), and they sell those sensors to whomever asks. Those asking include essentially the entire camera market not named "Canon" (there are weird exceptions like some Leicas).
Sony-sensor cameras have a large dynamic range/noise advantage over Canon-sensor (and the rare other options) cameras. Within Sony sensors, the choice between Sony themselves, Nikon, Fuji and the smaller players comes down to lenses, familiarity and compatibility with what you already have. Given similar sensor size and pixel count, image quality is going to be very similar with a similar lens. Sometimes, even sensor size doesn't matter that much - Fuji, with their beautiful APS-C lenses, has come surprisingly close to the image quality of 24 MP full-frame cameras.
Canon's obvious choice is to keep making great bodies and lenses, but buy their sensors from Sony... So far, they've been too proud to do it - but there are consistent rumors that they might.
-
Dan, interesting post.
Canon, billion dollar company, and been working on digital photography 15 years before it exploded...(way ahead of the curve), How can they be behind Sony in sensors..???
(so that is why Nikon flagship DLRs is now several year cycle ahead of Canon?)
-
Dan, interesting post.
Canon, billion dollar company, and been working on digital photography 15 years before it exploded...(way ahead of the curve), How can they be behind Sony in sensors..???
(so that is why Nikon flagship DLRs is now several year cycle ahead of Canon?)
Yet Canon appears to have the larger market share. Tough to figure. Must be either lens selection or an entrenched user base.
-
Yet Canon appears to have the larger market share. Tough to figure. Must be either lens selection or an entrenched user base.
The other factor is that they might just be getting the whole feature set and usability right.
There's more to a camera than just the sensor. It's not just about numbers.
-
But my question was not that, is was, "How can they be behind Sony in sensors?"
Actually they have the 50 mb in a dlsr, and should have put that in the Mark 4, no? Then they would be considered ahead of the curve.
I would doubt their sensors are not as good as Sony's.
Does Nikon really buy their sensors from Sony?
Similar question on video. They pioneered video in a dlsr. How could they then let Panasonic be perceived as superior in video for dlsrs?
-
I think Nikon shot their wad hang on for the big C to release a pro version the recently released Canon mirrorless was a bottom end solution. Anyway neither one nikon or canon will effect your image they both can do the job. The bigger question is can you?
-
Thanks BAb, but that does not answer either of my question at all.
-
Sony is bigger in electronics than Canon, has been making sensors for longer (going back to video camera stuff) and earns far more from them because it supplies so many other companies, across the range from phones to medium format. So it is not so surprising that it is for now a bit ahead of Canon—and mostly in one spec, dynamic range. If anything, it is surprising that Canon had a sensor technology lead for a while, and that was primarily due to one good decision to pursue CMOS sensors while most rivals were still focussed on CCDs.
-
But my question was not that, is was, "How can they be behind Sony in sensors?"
Actually they have the 50 mb in a dlsr, and should have put that in the Mark 4, no? Then they would be considered ahead of the curve.
I've been shooting in the L.A. area for over 30 years. In the big name studios and rental houses the most common headshot/portrait/fashion/catalog camera is a Canon of 24MP or less. The 1DX II is probably the most common. I know several guys who shoot product with a Canon 5DSr and deliver outstanding work. A popular rental camera as well for the 1DX II guys when they shoot larger set ups.
Lots of people working, all different styles, happy clients, nobody pixel peeping and geeking out about DR being a stop or 2 less than some other camera. They're working and getting what their client needs/wants/likes.
-
thanks BLJ, Nikon is buying it's sensors from Sony, that is true?
thanks Kirk, I never get the 1DX II, why people buy that.
But good post, in that no one really cares, which is nice... about the image content.
-
But my question was not that, is was, "How can they be behind Sony in sensors?"
Actually they have the 50 mb in a dlsr, and should have put that in the Mark 4, no? Then they would be considered ahead of the curve.
No, you're missing the point; It's not about numbers, who makes the sub-components or where some reviewers think of their position in the marketplace.
It's about; Is it a good camera that I want to buy ? Canon are getting that right.
-
I'm rip Van Winkle. Don't pay attention to much about gear. But as a old time Nikon film camera user who switched over to Canon digital 12 years ago, as Nikon was so behind with full frame, what is going on? This 850 is like a full 3-4 year cycle ahead of the MarkD series? 45 mb over the 30 mb mark 4, etc etc.
I'm still on Mark 2.. but is anyone going back to Nikon who came from Nikon?
Really Canon should make the mark 5 kill everything: be best in video (over sony/ panasonic), be best pixel count -- 75 mb.. etc etc.. What up the Canon? I'll pay a bit more.
Finally what up with wifi in cameras? Only goes to a smartphones? It can't cut the tether cord to a computer yet? Is that coming down the pike? Thanks.
Canon has a DSLR with 51 mpx since 2015.
-
thanks BLJ, Nikon is buying it's sensors from Sony, that is true?
...
Nikon gets a lot of its ILC sensors from Sony, though with some being joint design efforts (Nikon contributing some design technology). Pentax also uses Sony sensors in all its ILCs AFAIK, as does Fujifilm (some with Fujifilm's own "X-trans" color filter design over Sony's chips), and Olympus uses a mix of Sony and Panasonic sensors. The realm of fixed lens "compact" cameras seems to be dominated by Sony sensors these days, though Panasonic uses its own in some models, and Canon might be using a mix of its own and Sony's sensors.
Sony strengthened its dominance of the market for bigger "ILC sized" sensors when it bought Toshiba's sensor business in 2015; Nikon had been using some Toshiba designed sensors. That leaves only Sony, Canon and Panasonic as significant makers of sensors for ILC's, apart from the far lower volume sensor suppliers that Leica uses for some cameras. With Panasonic now partnering with Leica and Sigma on the 35mm format L-mount system, I expect that Sony, Canon and Panasonic trio to be consolidated as 1-2-3 in sensors for ILC's, in that order.
P. S. a fun fact is that Canon's first "pro" DLSR, the EOS-1D from 2001, used a CCD from Panasonic; it has been all Canon CMOS since then.
-
Sony is bigger in electronics than Canon, has been making sensors for longer (going back to video camera stuff) and earns far more from them because it supplies so many other companies, across the range from phones to medium format. So it is not so surprising that it is for now a bit ahead of Canon—and mostly in one spec, dynamic range. If anything, it is surprising that Canon had a sensor technology lead for a while, and that was primarily due to one good decision to pursue CMOS sensors while most rivals were still focussed on CCDs.
Oh you are missing a very big spec that Sony sensors contain and that is readout speed which affects things like fps, focusing and EVF refresh rates. If it was truly only Dynamic range that Canon lacks then that is nothing...but it's the stacked sensor design from Sony that Canon just does not do.
-
This was hard to understand, "eadout speed which affects things like fps, focusing and EVF refresh rates. If it was truly only Dynamic range that Canon lacks then that is nothing...but it's the stacked sensor design from Sony that Canon just does not do."
And also, I don't know what ILC means!
-
I use Canon. When it comes to firmware updates, they’re a non-event. cf. Hasselblad, constantly improving their gear.
Plenty of independents have shown what Canon cameras are capable of, if you’re brave enough to risk bricking your camera.
When it comes to sensors, it’s pretty much accepted that they’re behind the Sony curve.
But, in everything to do with digital, good is good enough. So, Canon can continue their vein of mediocrity.
If I was starting again, or if I was a pixel-peeper, I’d be using a Sony a7r iii.
But, I’m neither.
D.
-
I use Canon. When it comes to firmware updates,
I think Canon regard firmware updates as only ever for bug fixes.
I've never understood why they haven't offered updates to add new features (as ML have shown to be possible) even if they charged for them.
When it comes to sensors, it’s pretty much accepted that they’re behind the Sony curve.
Yes, but it's marginally for most users. It's just that DR is the current obsession on internet forums.
But, in everything to do with digital, good is good enough. So, Canon can continue their vein of mediocrity.
But sales don't support that view and neither do the reviews. DPReview; D850 = 89% D5 = 89% or 5D iv= 87% 1DxII =89% There's nothing mediocre about those scores.
There's really little to chose between either brand.
-
This was hard to understand, "eadout speed which affects things like fps, focusing and EVF refresh rates. If it was truly only Dynamic range that Canon lacks then that is nothing...but it's the stacked sensor design from Sony that Canon just does not do."
And also, I don't know what ILC means!
What's hard to understand? The faster you can read the data off the sensor the faster you can process that data so things like viewfinder blackout, AF tracking, exposure computations etc... are done at a much quicker pace...thus allowing up to 20 fps shooting.
ILC -> Interchangeable Lens Camera
-
Yes, but it's marginally for most users. It's just that DR is the current obsession on internet forums.
Like I said previously, there is much more to a sensor than megapickles and DR. Do some research on the sensor inside the Sony A9 and see all the technology in that sensor that drives the rest of the camera. In the digital world...the camera is the sensor.
-
@kevs:
ILC=Interchangeable Lens Camera;
SLRs and mirrorless system cameras
-
I think Canon regard firmware updates as only ever for bug fixes.
I've never understood why they haven't offered updates to add new features (as ML have shown to be possible) even if they charged for them.Yes, but it's marginally for most users. It's just that DR is the current obsession on internet forums.But sales don't support that view and neither do the reviews. DPReview; D850 = 89% D5 = 89% or 5D iv= 87% 1DxII =89% There's nothing mediocre about those scores.
There's really little to chose between either brand.
That's precisely my point. In order to continue to sell in huge numbers, you don't have to be the best, just be a recognizable brand that is good enough.
There's a reason why a camera, which can practically make the dinner, is sold for small money (relatively) compared to the overpriced lenses (designed and made mostly by computers and machines) that you're stuck with afterwards.
Thanks heavens for the likes of Sigma. They give us choice.
D.
-
In the digital world...the camera is the sensor.
Exactly what I said, it's only the internet forum pixel peepers that obsess about numbers, because that's all there is to argue about.
In the real world there are plenty of other factors that make people choose cameras. Size, comfort, other facilities like GPS, legacy support of accessories and lenses, battery life, ergonomics, decent software available to use with it's files. There's a lot more to a camera being good and successful than just it's sensor.
-
Dinarius -others, on subject of Sigma, I've never bought a 3rd party lens, but thinking of 11-24 Canon. So expensive, I'll look at Sigmas 12-24. Ever done A/ B test on those 2? (or anyone else here?) Thanks.
-
thanks Kirk, I never get the 1DX II, why people buy that.
It's a big step above the 5DIV in build quality, it's faster focusing, has a faster frame rate, dual Digic processors, great video quality and better battery life. To me, and to many people I know, it feels like a Pro camera where as the 5D series have always felt like prosumer cameras.
-
Dinarius -others, on subject of Sigma, I've never bought a 3rd party lens, but thinking of 11-24 Canon. So expensive, I'll look at Sigmas 12-24. Ever done A/ B test on those 2? (or anyone else here?) Thanks.
If you're considering Sigma, only buy lenses in the ART series.
I have the 85mm 1.4; one of the best lenses I've ever owned. Consistently raved about and rightly so. But, it's NOT a carry around lens. It's quite heavy.
The 24-35mm is also raved about, but I don't own one.
I find DXO (https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings) as good an indicator of lens quality as anywhere else.
D.
-
I just woke up and thought I was on DPReview. I'm going back to bed. :-[
-
Probably, right now, the best sensor overall image quality (short of medium format) on the market is the 45.7 MP Sony sensor (with a side order of Special Nikon Sauce) found in the Nikon Z7 and D850.
Just behind it is its close relative the 42.4 MP Sony sensor from the A7rII and III.
The difference between them isn't the 3 MP - that's not actually noticeable. It's that the Special Nikon Sauce enables ISO 64, and ISO 64 is utterly noiseless with extended dynamic range, if you have the light for it. At ISO 100, good luck telling them apart (the Nikon version is a slightly newer design, and may be a little bit ahead in one parameter or another, but it's very close).
The 50 MP Canon EOS 5Ds sensor trades a tiny bit of extra resolution for about a stop and a half less low-ISO dynamic range than the class leading Sony/Nikon sensors. In many ways, the Canon 50 MP sensor is actually behind the older Sony 36 MP sensor in the Nikon D800/D800e, Sony A7r and A99, Pentax K1 mk1 and mkII and possibly another camera or two in low-ISO image quality.
In APS-C, the champ is some version of the Sony 24 MP or the newer Sony 26 MP sensor - probably the model with Special Fuji Sauce (although that may be due to the Special Fuji Lenses it's often found with).
Unless you shoot landscape (which I happen to), the right sensor for you may not be the low-ISO image quality champ. You may prefer the fastest sensor around, the sensor with the best video bitrate, the sensor with a particular set of colors you like, or the sensor that comes in the camera that fits your hand, or comes in the camera your favorite lens attaches to. All modern sensors are good enough that any of these are good reasons to choose a system.
. I'm lucky enough that the sensors that match my shooting style happen to come with bodies and lenses I like a lot (my collection includes Nikon Z7 and Fuji APS-C, and what I'm likely to add to right now is my Z system - I can't believe the detail, dynamic range and noiseless performance I'm getting out of that system). I never bought into the D850 (too heavy for how far I hike, especially with the better lenses), nor Sony FF (weather sealing and controls), despite their superb image quality potential, because the Fujis were a better overall fit for me. When the Z7 came out, there was D850 quality in a smaller, lighter, stabilized body with D850 sealing, along with the beginnings of a line of superb smaller lenses (giving up f2.8 )... I have the 24-70, and anxiously await the 14-30 and a lightweight tele zoom (how about a PF diffractive zoom in z-mount, Nikon?).
-
Thanks Dan, good, info, but why was Nikon 10 years behind Canon in digital and then lost 90% of their film users who are now on Canon? Like me...
Should we now switch back to Nikon or Sony? I think I concur with previous responders here, that's it's just best to stay with Canon... but annoying of course, what you are saying, that Canon is now behind the curve, which is another question.. point of this post.
-
Before you let the Sony/Nikon fans warp your perspective on the current mirrorless market, this actual direct comparison might provide some insights...
Mirrorless Camera Comparison: Canon R vs. Nikon Z7 vs. Sony A7R3 (https://youtu.be/v2Rpg6Xb-Ek)
-
Guido, I have no current interest in mirrorless or watching 17 min of video. How does it turn out?
-
If Nikon ever was
... 10 years behind Canon in digital ...
it was the era when Canon had developed the first good, low noise CMOS sensors while Nikon and most others were still using CCDs. Then Sony and others also developed good CMOS sensors, improving on Canon's sensors by moving to a next-generation "column parallel" design with an ADC at bottom of each column of pixels while Canon was still using sensors that required transporting the signal off the sensor chip to external ADCs.
BTW, Canon had now also developed sensors that use the column-parallel approach.
-
They're behind on one curve, and it's one with an easy solution (buy publicly available Sony sensors), which they're too proud to do. If BJL is right, Canon may be close to coming up with sensors that do what the Sonys do. I haven't heard of a Canon with Sony-sensor DR yet, but they are a big organization with a lot of research focused on making great images - they are certainly capable of it.
They also have a weird corporate structure where their Cinema EOS division gets to tell their still camera division "reduce video features to protect our products". Many of their competitors (Nikon, Fuji, Olympus) don't have pro video divisions to worry about (Fuji makes broadcast lenses, but not $5000-$10,000 video bodies) - and Sony and Panasonic have taken the attitude "if you get started making movies with our hybrid still cameras, maybe your next purchase will be our dedicated movie camera". They're right up there on everything else - so much of the experience of photography today is whether your camera matches your needs and your tastes, and Canon is a great match for a lot of photographers.
Canons are excellent bodies with a remarkably broad lens range, especially in FF. The difference in sensor performance is only noticeable in certain kinds of photography, and then only if you use very broad tonal ranges or print very large...
I may not be a Canon shooter, but I have proudly printed on Canon for years (I have a Pro-2000 right now, and I love it). They're certainly capable of anything in imaging that they decide to do, and I suspect they have something up their sleeve in the EOS R line - you don't make two gorgeous exotic lenses like the 28-70mm f2 and the 50mm f1.2 for one midrange body...
-
Thanks Dan, what does DR mean?
Yes, staying with Canon, but I think they should just get their next Mark 5 to 50 mb pixels, match dynamic range, and the video should match Panasonic GH5. Someone who buys the 5D series should not have to think, "hey should I also buy Panasonic for video". A friend who shoots a lot of video mentioned what you just said about their cinema dept.
-
Before you let the Sony/Nikon fans warp your perspective on the current mirrorless market, this actual direct comparison might provide some insights...
Mirrorless Camera Comparison: Canon R vs. Nikon Z7 vs. Sony A7R3 (https://youtu.be/v2Rpg6Xb-Ek)
I watched this, and it is a really flawed review. I use two of these cameras (Nikon and Sony) and the video they show from both is too bad to be credible. (I don’t know how they set them up, but if you were trying for worse possible picture they’d be contenders.)
Also, the Nikon they used was not functioning properly, and they made no attempt to account for differences in exposure between the cameras.
My guess is that this is a review of what the cameras will do if put on fully auto, as they come out of the box, with no actual photographers involved.
If I haven’t been clear, it’s a worthless review.
-
There are lot of reviews that compare the three cameras, you can always choose one that say other things: https://m.dpreview.com/articles/8606487746/sony-a7-iii-vs-canon-eos-r-vs-nikon-z6-which-is-best?utm_source=self-mobile&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
DR=dynamic range
I think that the current Canon 50 MP sensor is a disappointment in a lot of ways - Canon's own most recent sensors have much better dynamic range than the 5Ds series. As an example, Photons to Photos shows the 30 MP 5D mkIV as having about an extra stop of low-iso dynamic range over the 50 MP 5Ds (and even the 5D mk IV is about a stop behind the best Sony/Nikon sensors). The 30 MP sensor in the 5D mk IV and EOS-R is probably Canon's best effort yet...
Sony's next move is going to be a 60-61 MP sensor with 16-bit output if the rumor sites are right (if they actually need 16-bit output, that suggests that the upcoming sensor records at least some information over a range >14 stops). The extreme dynamic range of the current Sony sensors is between 13.5-14 stops (of which around 12 stops are really useful in an image) - pushing right at the limits of what a 14-bit output can handle. If they've squeezed an extra half stop out of it, 16-bit output makes a difference at base ISO.
Canon could either buy that sensor or develop something comparable themselves if they had an interest in competing in the "ultimate image quality at low ISO" part of the market. Alternatively, they could keep improving the 5D mk IV sensor, focusing on a great all-around image, rather than maximum resolution and dynamic range in very specific low-ISO conditions. They could leave that particular boxing match to Sony, Nikon and Fuji medium format, selling 24" and 44" printers to the owners of their competitors' cameras. If you don't own a big ol' printer, you don't need a 40-60 MP camera (and only Canon and Epson are serious players in big printers - with nobody else knocking at the door).
Dan
-
They could leave that particular boxing match to Sony, Nikon and Fuji medium format, selling 24" and 44" printers to the owners of their competitors' cameras. If you don't own a big ol' printer, you don't need a 40-60 MP camera (and only Canon and Epson are serious players in big printers - with nobody else knocking at the door).
Dan
HP just released their new large format printers. If they are anything like their Z3100 / Z3200 printers...they will be fantastic. I've been using both a 24" and 44" Z3100 for over 8 years without any major issue producing some of the nicest prints I've ever seen. Your narrow view of available printers is biased to say the least.
-
I have used a lot of HP CAD/GIS printers (and home/office printers), and I wish they maintained their photo lineup better. The Z3200 sat on the market for a decade while their competitors made major strides, and I haven't yet seen anything that makes me believe the Z9+ isn't vaporware (like a review on Luminous, Northlight or any other photography site, or even experiences posted in the printing forum here). I'll believe Hp's back when I see some experiences from someone who's used one of the new ones...
The Z3200 is contemporary with the Canon iPF6100... Since then, Canon has upgraded to the iPF6300 (major upgrade), done a minor tweak to produce the iPF 6400, then a complete redesign to the Pro-2000. If the Z9+ makes it out of limited release, will it get updated, or orphaned? I have no question at all about HP's ability to make a great photo printer - but I do question their commitment to the market.