Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Yakim Peled on April 28, 2012, 04:38:09 pm
-
Hi Michael,
I searched but couldn't find it. Have I missed it? Please send me a link.
OT: I know it's a smartphone but if you ever get a chance to play with the Nokia 808 I'd be grateful if you could write a few words on it. It interests me a lot.
TIA.
-
Haven't received one yet. Also, not high on my priority list because it doesn't really move the state of the art forward that much, and given my limited time and resources that's where I'm focused right now, those products that do.
Michael
-
Got it. :'(
-
... because it doesn't really move the state of the art forward that much...
Isn't that a perfect mini-review in itself! ;)
-
Ouch!
-
I guess it depends on what you're shooting - it seems to do pretty damn' well with things that move around a bit, as Art Morris' recent experiences of it eloquently attest to.
Not being a seminal landscape body doesn't mean it's not a superlative camera.
-
It's not going to get much love (except from some who use it), that's clear. I got one, like it a lot, it's a fantastically useable camera and a lot better than the II's I've been using the last 3.5 years. The II's are still great and can produce excellent files, I've kept them as backups.
Whatever the test results show doesn't matter much to me, it's much better built, better AF, VF, etc. And I notice less noise at all ASA's.
Will get a second one in 6 months if the 1dx performance isn't noticeably better for my work and Canon doesn't announce something like a 5dx.
If Nikon comes out with lenses to compete with the 17tse and 24tse (and the in camera and tethered live view isn't futzy as I fear it may be) I will happily consider using that system as well, or even switching completely.
Haven't loved any digital camera yet. Really really liked the Alpa a lot, didn't like any digital back that went with it. Last cameras I loved were the Makina 67's and 8x10 Deardorffs I shot in the 90's.
-
I didn't say that it isn't a worthwhile improvement over the 5DMKII, or that it isn't a worthwhile camera. Only that it covers no new ground and so takes a back seat to those products that do. It also has the misfortune of having come out during the same month as the D800. Who wants to read (or write) a review of the latest Camry when there's a new Jag available for a test drive?
Put another way, the prettiest girl at the dance always gets the most attention. Doesn't mean that's the one that the guys go home with though, or marry.
Do you want to read Consumer's Report or Car and Driver?
And that's enough of those analogies.
Michael
-
Here, I'll sum it up for you...it's a FF 7D ;D
-
Here, I'll sum it up for you...it's a FF 7D ;D
OUCH!
-
a FF 7D is no bad thing -- at the right price
-
Here, I'll sum it up for you...it's a FF 7D ;D
Owning a 7D for the past 2 years or so and playing a bit with the 5D3 I could not agree more. I did not like the 5D and 5D2 concept (great sensor in a mediocre body) but this one is a complete package which excel in every point and fails in none. I actually consider it the mythical 3D we've wished for, for so many years.
-
Put another way, the prettiest girl at the dance always gets the most attention. Doesn't mean that's the one that the guys go home with though, or marry.
I know what you mean. I'd certainly give her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_H8TOKcfjg&feature=player_embedded) all my attention and go home with her and ask her to marry me.
Please don't be crossed. I just couldn't resist. ;D
-
I did not like the 5D and 5D2 concept (great sensor in a mediocre body) but this one is a complete package which excel in every point and fails in none.
Ironically the 5D Mark III is a great (or at least good) body with a mediocre sensor. You win some, you lose some.
-
"Ironically the 5D Mark III is a great (or at least good) body with a mediocre sensor."
Ironically, its predecessor the 5D Mark II was the other way round.
Michael
-
Ironically the 5D Mark III is a great (or at least good) body with a mediocre sensor. You win some, you lose some.
I don't think so. The sensor of the 5D2 was simply so good that only minor modifications were necessary.
-
"Ironically the 5D Mark III is a great (or at least good) body with a mediocre sensor."
Ironically, its predecessor the 5D Mark II was the other way round.
I don't think so. The sensor of the 5D2 was simply so good that only minor modifications were necessary.
Yakim,
I somewhat agree with you that criticism of the 5D3 sensor is a bit exaggerated: the 5D2 had, for its time, a great sensor (maybe even better than that of the well-received 1D3) at a good price, with the main weakness being that Canon cut a few too many corners elsewhere in the body, especially when compared to the D700 and A900 that arrived soon after at about the same time. So Canon's priorities for the 5D3 were understandably along the lines of offering an ”EOS 3" class of body with things like improved AF and VF, which now are Canon's best, not its second best. Oh, and improved video.
But there is one respect in which even that sensor's being "state of the art" when it arrived four years ago is very different from "needing only minor modifications": it was well-noted even then that for some scenes of high subject brightness range, the 5D2 (along with every other sensor in existence then!) could fall short, to the point that this was the one aspect of performance where digital still trailed film, or at least required more careful handling than with film. So Canon's failure to progress in maximum dynamic range is not fully justified by the claim that "only minor modifications were necessary". At least not in a model that is the highest resolution offering in the entire Canon system, and so the best Canon option for some photography of landscapes, architecture, and such.
By the way, it seems that you too have offered your own 5D3 mini-review; all this forum user feedback is even more reason for Michael not to do a review!
-
Here, I'll sum it up for you...it's a FF 7D ;D
LOL, funny. Would be really funny though if it had the corresponding 46 mpx so we would get endless discussions about mpx vs dr.
-
As I wrote, the 5D MKIII sensor would have been fine if it didn't have the D800 to contend with. But, this is a marketplace issue, not one related to the ability of the camera and sensor to produce great IQ, which the MKIII certainly can.
start of metaphor
As the saying goes, I wouldn't kick it out of bed. But the beautiful girl from the dance sure has captured a lot of people's fantasies.
end of metaphor
Michael
-
Yakim,
I somewhat agree with you that criticism of the 5D3 sensor is a bit exaggerated: the 5D2 had, for its time, a great sensor (maybe even better than that of the well-received 1D3) at a good price, with the main weakness being that Canon cut a few too many corners elsewhere in the body, especially when compared to the D700 and A900 that arrived soon after at about the same time. So Canon's priorities for the 5D3 were understandably along the lines of offering an ”EOS 3" class of body with things like improved AF and VF, which now are Canon's best, not its second best. Oh, and improved video.
But there is one respect in which even that sensor's being "state of the art" when it arrived four years ago is very different from "needing only minor modifications": it was well-noted even then that for some scenes of high subject brightness range, the 5D2 (along with every other sensor in existence then!) could fall short, to the point that this was the one aspect of performance where digital still trailed film, or at least required more careful handling than with film. So Canon's failure to progress in maximum dynamic range is not fully justified by the claim that "only minor modifications were necessary". At least not in a model that is the highest resolution offering in the entire Canon system, and so the best Canon option for some photography of landscapes, architecture, and such.
I am no expert in sensor design. I was only speaking in general terms.
By the way, it seems that you too have offered your own 5D3 mini-review; all this forum user feedback is even more reason for Michael not to do a review!
My 5D3 mini-review? Where? I don't recall doing so. I only have an opinion based on reading user reviews and ~1 hour play with it. This will by no means match Michael's experience and knowledge. That's exactly why I was interested in reading his view on it.
-
I am no expert in sensor design. I was only speaking in general terms.
Expertise in sensor design is not needed: the advantages of the D800 over the 5D3 (or any Canon DSLR to date) in both maximum dynamic range and resolution, and the fact that these are not merely abstract lab results but have visible, practical consequences for certain types of photography, are well established. Saying that the 5D3 "excels in every respect and fails in none" borders on denialism, unless qualified that this is judged only by your needs, not everyone else's. Hence my revised version of your comments in my subject line above!
I was being flippant about your mini-review: I was just indicating that if enough of this forum's highly competent and demanding participants try a camera like the 5D3 and report on their experiences, a formal hands-on review from a not-so-interested Michael would not add much. I prefer Michael to give a thorough shake-down of gear that he is sufficiently interested in to use extensively and scrutinize carefully, leaving the more dispassionate and technical testing reviews to others.
-
To continue with Michael's metaphors about girls and dancing floors, 5Dm3 reminds me of the one who sits in the corner all evening, waiting for someone to ask her to dance. Don't believe me? Check this out:
-
Owning a 7D for the past 2 years or so and playing a bit with the 5D3 I could not agree more. I did not like the 5D and 5D2 concept (great sensor in a mediocre body) but this one is a complete package which excel in every point and fails in none. I actually consider it the mythical 3D we've wished for, for so many years.
Unless you shoot landscapes in difficult light....
-
I don't think so. The sensor of the 5D2 was simply so good that only minor modifications were necessary.
Unless you shoot landscapes in difficult light.....then it doesn't come close to the new Sony sensors :(
-
Went back to one of my recent images taken with my new 5dm3.
Sure enough, when I tried to push the hell out of the shadows, it really looked like crap, at least until I did a little NR in LR 4, then it looked ok. I'm sure from all the reports that the d800 would handle the push better.
My conclusion? I don't care. I have the choice to either clean it up in LR or not push it to start with.
All the Nikon fanboys will now be doing extreme push in the shadows of every pic they take and then print it at least 20x24, well, if they wish to differentiate their prints from all those clearly inferior non d800 captures.
Y'all have fun with that. ;)
-
Unless you shoot landscapes in difficult light.....then it doesn't come close to the new Sony sensors :(
No camera/lens/system is ever perfect. It always a matter of which compromises you are willing to make. For me, given unlimited funds a 5D3 + 17/4 TS + 24-70/2.8 VC + 70-200/2.8 IS II setup is my dream setup. However, before that could happen I have another dream. To find a job. :'(
-
Expertise in sensor design is not needed: the advantages of the D800 over the 5D3 (or any Canon DSLR to date) in both maximum dynamic range and resolution, and the fact that these are not merely abstract lab results but have visible, practical consequences for certain types of photography, are well established. Saying that the 5D3 "excels in every respect and fails in none" borders on denialism, unless qualified that this is judged only by your needs, not everyone else's. Hence my revised version of your comments in my subject line above!
Indeed it relates to my personal preferences.
Camera wise: Better high ISO is more important for me than better dynamic range in low ISO. Also, I prefer the spatial distribution of the cross type AF sensors in the 5D3 to the D800.
System wise: I prefer the EF mount to the F mount due to it's friendliness to old MF lenses and better lens lineup (for me of course).
Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to say that the 5D3 is better than D800 or that Canon is a better system than Nikon. I do say however that for me, and given that prices of similar items is similar, the 5D3 is better than D800 and that for me, Canon is a better system than Nikon.
I was being flippant about your mini-review: I was just indicating that if enough of this forum's highly competent and demanding participants try a camera like the 5D3 and report on their experiences, a formal hands-on review from a not-so-interested Michael would not add much. I prefer Michael to give a thorough shake-down of gear that he is sufficiently interested in to use extensively and scrutinize carefully, leaving the more dispassionate and technical testing reviews to others.
I think that a formal hands-on review from Michael always add much. It's actually the main reason I enter LL.
-
From a none 5D user point (I'm 1DsIII) of view the 5DIII was built around video, but so as not to upset other plans Canon has for video they did not go to town on that either. So we have a camera that fails to deliver what the market expected and wished for on many fronts.
The 5DIII now does what you wanted from the II and ignored the fact the World is moving forward with others like Nikon and Sony. I have little faith in Canon even seeing the 800 as a wakeup call, they looked to be obsessed with what other Canon depts plan for their products. The result is they tiptoe around the fringes of greatness. I will wait and see what the "X" delivers before buying into the Nikon system, but honestly getting a 800 and a few lenses is not much more of an investment than the "X".
Kevin.
-
To continue with Michael's metaphors about girls and dancing floors, 5Dm3 reminds me of the one who sits in the corner all evening, waiting for someone to ask her to dance. Don't believe me? Check this out:
Drink more beer and wait for a slow number, then drink some more. Going to look pretty dam beautiful any moment now.
Kevin.
-
The D800 has to be considered a disruptive technology. It will reorder the market and our expectations and as such it has made what would have appeared a great camera--the 5DMKIII--into a mediocre entry.
This is all lost on people who are invested in one brand or the other. With my Canon investment, I have considered whether I could sell out my lenses and move to the Nikon, but I honestly believe that in 18 months, the landscape could be reverse. I don't relish jumping back and forth between systems and the loss of my photographic productivity that would result.
...and great pictures can be had by all.
-
The 5DIII now does what you wanted from the II and ignored the fact the World is moving forward with others like Nikon and Sony.
Kevin.
+10. Canon has finally come through and delivered competent AF in 5D body, but the world has moved on. So it is a case of too little and definitely too late, and to boot it is priced significantly higher.
People mention that 5D Mark III has awesome AF, but forget that D800 has all that and more, and at lower price.
Nikon has its own share of deficiencies, but it has captured the though leadership crown. In 2007, it swayed the whole world of Digital Photography with crazy high (at that time) ISO while keeping the MPs low. They unleashed a high ISO competition which Canon was forced to follow (mostly by improving its NR in jpeg). Now Nikon has captured the attention again with crazy high MPs while keeping the Noise level low and improving on DR. This is significant and why everyone is gungho. It shows how Nikon has been able to sway the industry from right to left, and then back to right.
-
This is all lost on people who are invested in one brand or the other. With my Canon investment, I have considered whether I could sell out my lenses and move to the Nikon, but I honestly believe that in 18 months, the landscape could be reverse.
The usual release cycle is 3-4 years for a new FF sensor / camera.
18 months would be unprecedented.
-
The usual release cycle is 3-4 years for a new FF sensor / camera.
18 months would be unprecedented.
+1
The recurring speculation that Canon either
- will respond to the D800 by whipping up a fundamentally improved sensor technology by Photokina this year, or by next year, or
- has another top of the line camera coming in the spirit of a 1Ds Mk 4, and so is just lying when it describes the 1D X as _the_ new top model
is clearly baseless. I would call it wishful thinking, but perhaps some of it is the opposite: fearful thinking due to doubts about where Canon is going with respects to the needs of "high quality, low ISO" photography. To which I say: just be a bit more patient, and wait till about Photokina 2014.
-
In 2007, it swayed the whole world of Digital Photography with crazy high (at that time) ISO while keeping the MPs low. They unleashed a high ISO competition which Canon was forced to follow (mostly by improving its NR in jpeg). Now Nikon has captured the attention again with crazy high MPs while keeping the Noise level low and improving on DR. This is significant and why everyone is gungho.
It shows how Nikon has been able to sway the industry from right to left, and then back to right.
Does this mean that Nikon knows where it's going?
-
I wonder what Nikon were doing all those years when they said 12Mp was enough ;D ;D? Canon have led the way for some time and seem to have slowly succumbed to Nikon's advances.
I'm no pro but am happy with A2 (23.4 x 16.5) or the occasional A1 (33.1 x 23.4 in) prints from my poor old 5D. I would love to know how many users will actually print at the size the D800(E) is capable of.
-
I don't shoot full frame.
I am not sure if the three-year cycles are more function of manufacturers inability to release Si that fast or them wanting to maximize their ROI. Nikon has clearly been hungrier over the last few years, but Canon can't wait another three years to fix this imbalance, and they know it.
This is my 800th post. It only took me seven years at LL Forums to get there.
-
I wonder what Nikon were doing all those years when they said 12Mp was enough ...
When did Nikon say that? At the release of the 24MP D3X? Offering one 12MP camera adapted to high frame rates and controlling the high ISO dark noise encountered with the sensor technology availablenin 2008 is very different from saying that 12MP is all that will ever be needed by any users and regardless of technogical progress.
-
I am not sure if the three-year cycles are more function of manufacturers inability to release Si that fast or them wanting to maximize their ROI. ...
You could be right that, as a "Sputnik moment", Canon could be forced to get the next sensor out more quickly, though my sense is that Canon needs a fundamental change, to on-chip ADC, and that is not a one-year crash project.
But it could also be that Canon is already working on some such next generation technology, and just did not quite have it ready when the time came for this round of product updates. It is very unusual for Canon to announce a new DSLR far in advance of availability as it did with the 1D X, which could be a hint that Canon knows it is scrambling to keep up with competing products and announcements right now.
Aside: as I mentioned in another thread, Panasonic is also using column-parallel ADC in the sensor for the GH2, and I have also seen numerous research papers on this, and have read that Samsung uses it in some video sensors at least. So it looks like an industry-wide trend, not a Sony/Nikon exclusive.
-
Without inside information all this is mostly speculation. However there are a number of general assumptions and observations one can make which seem reasonable to me.
(1) The major manufacturers, Canon, Nikon and Sony etc, probably have a fair idea of the type of product the competition is going to release next, unless secrecy is as tight as the weapons' developments of the US army, which I doubt.
(2) It seems reasonable to assume that Canon, with its own in-house sensor research facilities, will have various ongoing projects at different stages of development.
(3) They will have a road map of future releases and that road map will have a certain built-in flexibility, allowing for changes in priority according to changing market circumstances. For example, a 46mp sensor scheduled for release in 2 or 3 years time could be brought forward and released a year or two earlier, as a result of the great popularity of the D800.
(4) It would be naive to assume that Canon would have to start from scratch to develop a 46mp sensor. They've probably got currently a number of sensors with an even higher pixel count than 46mp, in various stages of development.
(5) Although the D800 has an impressively high pixel count which exceeds the pixel count of the 5D3 by a worthwhile margin of 60% or so, its high-ISO performance is no better than the 5D3, and if anything, slightly worse.
(6) For those who don't use a wide-format printer, 24" wide or wider, the 22mp of the 5D3 in conjunction with the 18mp of the 7D or 60D for long telephoto shots, is probably sufficient.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the 7D and the D800 in DX mode, both cameras using the same focal length of telephoto lens of equal quality. The increased pixel count of the 7D, at just 3mp, would be insignificant in itself, but perhaps not insignificant when combined with the slightly longer reach of the slightly smaller 7D sensor.
In other words, using a 400mm lens on both cameras, the comparison would be between a 15mp image with an effective 600mm lens as opposed to an 18mp image with an effective 640mm lens. After cropping the DX image to the same FoV as the 7D image, we end up comparing approximately a 13mp D800 image with an 18mp 7D image.
(7) The undoubted advantage of all the recent Nikon cameras is the very significant 2-full-stops increased DR at base ISO, compared with Canon. However, to get things in perspective, those extra 2 or 2.5 stops of DR are not necessarily the solution for all scenes with a high contrast. If you are trying to capture an outdoor scene through a window and also want to include the interior of the room, you'll probably need more than an extra 2 stops of DR. You'll need to either use flash or take multiple shots for merging to HDR, whichever camera you use.
Nevertheless, I'm certainly glad I don't have to agonise over issues of whether or not to change camera systems. My modest collection of both Canon and Nikon equipment bought during the past 15 years or so, probably amounts in total to no more than the cost of a new, medium-priced automobile, but without the ongoing expenses of maintenance, fuel and road registration etc.
-
Without inside information all this is mostly speculation. However there are a number of general assumptions and observations one can make which seem reasonable to me.
...
(4) It would be naive to assume that Canon would have to start from scratch to develop a 46mp sensor. They've probably got currently a number of sensors with an even higher pixel count than 46mp, in various stages of development.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the 7D and the D800 in DX mode, both cameras using the same focal length of telephoto lens of equal quality. The increased pixel count of the 7D, at just 3mp, would be insignificant in itself, but perhaps not insignificant when combined with the slightly longer reach of the slightly smaller 7D sensor.
In other words, using a 400mm lens on both cameras, ...
(7) The undoubted advantage of all the recent Nikon cameras is the very significant 2-full-stops increased DR at base ISO, compared with Canon. ...
Ray some good points there, but
(a) Though I am not ruling it out, I would not say that it is "probable" that Canon currently has a sensor of over 46MP under development. For one thing, Canon might simply have decided along the lines of your point (6), that there is not enough of a market for more than 22MP for it to be worth investing in that direction. Another distinct possibility is that substantial dynamic range disadvantage: Canon might have decided that it needs to overcome that before pushing resolution so far forward in 35mm format, to avoid facing some very unfavorable comparisons in DR and such against Nikon/Sony alternatives.
(b) comparing at exactly equal focal length and then somewhat claiming a "victory" of higher pixel count for the camera with fewer, smaller, and in most respects lower quality pixels (ignoring the possible per pixel advantage of the larger photosites of the D800) seems a bit like choosing the rules to influence the outcome. With the bulk and cost of these cameras plus 400mm lenses, it would be little extra burden to use a TC to increase resolution from the D800 if needed, so exact equality of focal length seems overly rigid.
I much prefer comparisons where a practically relevant performance goal or measure is set, and the users of different tools are alllowed to choose different paths to the goal according to the strengths and weaknesses of the particular tools. (You know, like allowing that different combinations of ISO speed and f-stop might be chosen with cameras in different formats, rather than comparing at equally ISO speed and so implicitly at equal f-stop.)
Finally, it always seems a little strange when people make hypothetical comparisons between an actual available, thoroughly reviewed product from one company against speculated possible future improvements of another company in its product offerings. At the very least, do you care to speculate on what Sony and Nikon might be working on, and have to offer at about the same time as these imagined new Canon sensors arrive? Since you now own and use a mix of Canon amd Nikon gear, surely you can speculate about what both have under development?
-
The 5DIII now does what you wanted from the II and ignored the fact the World is moving forward with others like Nikon and Sony.
Yes, the 5DIII is what the 5DII should have been but is 3 years too late and thus 3 years behind already.
I have little faith in Canon even seeing the 800 as a wakeup call, they looked to be obsessed with what other Canon depts plan for their products. The result is they tiptoe around the fringes of greatness.
I don't think the wakeup call will come until early next year when they get to look at the sales of the 5DIII vs D800 from market analysts.
I'd be curious to know how Canon functions internally - just how much competition or cooperation is there between business units to deliver higher sales?
I will wait and see what the "X" delivers before buying into the Nikon system, but honestly getting a 800 and a few lenses is not much more of an investment than the "X".
I'm curious about the X for another reasons: to see if the sensor technology in it is any different/better than the 5DIII. If it is, then maybe I will hang around Canon for a while longer but if not, then no. The rationale here is that if it is better then Canon have better technology available and have simply skimped on what they've put in the 5DIII (!$@#^%)
...
but perhaps some of it is the opposite: fearful thinking due to doubts about where Canon is going with respects to the needs of "high quality, low ISO" photography. To which I say: just be a bit more patient, and wait till about Photokina 2014.
And in 2+ years, what do you expect Nikon, Sony and others will be delivering?
The same as today or something new, more, better?
Now if this were Canon, sure, I can imagine something similar to what we have today being delivered, but it is not.
There are now rumors of a $1500, 24MP FF, Nikon D600 due out later this year and if the 36MP sensor in the D800 is anything to go by, the sensor in the D600 is going to be a real kicker.
The problem that I see is that after being asleep at the wheel, Nikon seems to have woken up and have set out with a solid direction and purpose. Canon seems to be sitting back under a tree smoking a pipe...
-
And in 2+ years, what do you expect Nikon, Sony and others will be delivering?
The same as today or something new, more, better?
Snap! See the end of my post just before yours. My thought is than in two or three years, all major players are likely to have improvements to show ... but as technology diminishes imperfections towards negligible levels (like dark noise down to one or two electrons) gains in practical terms become ever smaller, and the lagard has more room to improve, meaning that the gap will tend to shrink. In particular, crossing the bridge to on-sensor high speed parallel ADC might be a bigger step in low noise and high dynamic range than anything that follows, and Canon has that obvious jump to make yet, while Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and probably Olympus and Samsung are already there.
There are now rumors of a $1500, 24MP FF, Nikon D600 due out later this year ...
I do not put much weight on rumors, and especially this one: neither the massive price drop after about six years of price stasis in 35mm format nor the idea of a new Nikon/Sony sensor of lower resolution than the one just launched makes sense, except as a repitition of speculations that keep recurring and keep going unfullfilled.
In particular, at the risk of repeating myself:
- lower resolution in the same format does not significantly reduce the cost of making a sensor
- the D800 in particular shows that lower resolution does not significantly improve noise or dynamic range when compared fairly as with the DX0 "print comparison"
- the main real reason for a new sensor of lower resolution is higher frame rates, as in the D4 and 1D X.
So a new cheaper lower level camera of the same format but with a new lower resolution sensor seems very unlikely.
-
Another thing to consider is that the D800 was seemingly due out in June/July 2011.
From a sensor development standpoint at Sony/Nikon, this is a one year old technology and we can assume that R&D has been little impacted by the quake.
Canon may or may not be in a similar situation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray some good points there....
Well, thank you BJL ;D .
comparing at exactly equal focal length and then somewhat claiming a "victory" of higher pixel count for the camera with fewer, smaller, and in most respects lower quality pixels (ignoring the possible per pixel advantage of the larger photosites of the D800) seems a bit like choosing the rules to influence the outcome. With the bulk and cost of these cameras plus 400mm lenses, it would be little extra burden to use a TC to increase resolution from the D800 if needed, so exact equality of focal length seems overly rigid.
I wasn't claiming any victory. This is what I wrote: "It would be interesting to see a comparison between the 7D and the D800 in DX mode, both cameras using the same focal length of telephoto lens of equal quality."
I don't know what the outcome would be. I'm of the opinion that any increase in pixel count of less than 50%, is not worth getting too excited about. If one is comparing sensor performance, it's essential to have lenses of equal quality. If one is comparing lenses, it's essential to have sensors of equal quality and equal pixel count, at least if the methodology is similar to Photozone's.
Having determined, for example, that the D800 shot in DX mode is perhaps only very marginally less detailed than the 7D shot, using same focal length of lens of the same quality (whatever that focal length needs to be in order to achieve equal quality), one can then concentrate on the effects of differences in lens quality.
If one has a Canon 400mm that is actually sharper than the Nikon equivalent, then the matter is settled. The 7D with its effectively longer lens, actually greater pixel count, and actually better lens, should produce a noticeably better result, with or without teleconverter.
On the other hand, if one has, or is prepared to buy, a 400mm Nikkor lens which is undeniably sharper than the Canon equivalent (if there exists such a lens), then this factor alone would probably offset any minor pixel-count advantage of the 7D, so it becomes a non-issue.
For myself, I have no interest in buying a very expensive and very heavy 400mm F2.8 prime. It wouldn't suit my purposes. I limit myself to the Canon 100-400/F5.6 IS. At 400m it's marginally sharper at F8 than at F5.6. I would like an upgrade that is sharper at F5.6.
When I use this lens at 400mm and F8, I usually have to be at ISO 400 or higher to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed. At ISO 400 and above, the DR advantage of the D800 pixel is greatly reduced.
Finally, it always seems a little strange when people make hypothetical comparisons between an actual available, thoroughly reviewed product from one company against speculated possible future improvements of another company in its product offerings. At the very least, do you care to speculate on what Sony and Nikon might be working on, and have to offer at about the same time as these imagined new Canon sensors arrive? Since you now own and use a mix of Canon amd Nikon gear, surely you can speculate about what both have under development?
Canon has a tradition of a significant time-lag between matching the pixel density of its full-frame cameras with that of its earlier cropped-format cameras. For example, we had to wait for the 1Ds2 to get the pixel density of the much earlier 6mp D60 and 10D models. We also had to wait a few years to get the 1Ds3 and 5D2 with a similar pixel density to the 8mp 20D and 30D.
Nikon are obviously aware of this history of Canon development. With the D800, Nikon have simply shortened that time lag and, in a sense, stolen a march on Canon.
-
I wasn't claiming any victory.
True: you simply chose terms of comparison that favor the only advantage of the 7D (higher pixel density) and mentioned that advantage (by comparing the pixel counts of the crops) while not mentioning any of the advantages of the D800 sensor that are likely to be relevant to that comparison.
What really fascinates my though is how in all your many words about Nikon D800 vs Canon 5D3 or 7D is how little you have to say about the elephant in the room: the rather fundamental technological difference between their sensor technologies. The idea that Canon likely has other sensors under development does not address the question of why, four years after Sony and Nikon adopted the newer and overall clearly superior approach of doing ADC on the sensor in a highly parallel way, and some years after Panasonic started used that approach in the GH1 (almost certainly) and GH2 (definitely), Canon has just launched two new cameras at the top of its product line that still use an evolution of the older approach that it adopted about five years before Sony started into CMOS sensors. It is hard for me to see an explanation more likely than that Canon has a great accumulation of expertise in that "first generation" approach to CMOS sensors, and so there is more technological and financial inertia delaying its move, whereas Sony was forced to abandon its CCD technology at a time when it could "start from scratch" in its EXMOR development using a newer and better approach.
Maybe Sony was the frog dropped into boiling water that jumped out, while Canon is the frog still simmering as the water gradually gets too hot for comfort.
(As an aside, it is interesting to note that Panasonic alone has gone through all three generations of sensor technology over the last decade, from CCDs as in the original Canon 1D to "analog output active pixel CMOS" sensors as in most Micro Four Thirds sensors, to "on-chip parallel ADC CMOS" as in the GH1 and GH2. This might relate to the sheer size of the electronics operations of the companies involved: Panasonic > Sony > Canon > Nikon > Olympus.)
-
Snap! See the end of my post just before yours. My thought is than in two or three years, all major players are likely to have improvements to show ... but as technology diminishes imperfections towards negligible levels (like dark noise down to one or two electrons) gains in practical terms become ever smaller, and the lagard has more room to improve, meaning that the gap will tend to shrink. In particular, crossing the bridge to on-sensor high speed parallel ADC might be a bigger step in low noise and high dynamic range than anything that follows, and Canon has that obvious jump to make yet, while Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and probably Olympus and Samsung are already there.
I think that you're arguing that the law of diminishing returns will pop up its ugly head here somewhere, right?
And that once everyone is manufacturing sensors using a similar design, sensor output will be roughly the same, give or take a third of a stop?
I do not put much weight on rumors, and especially this one: neither the massive price drop after about six years of price stasis in 35mm format nor the idea of a new Nikon/Sony sensor of lower resolution than the one just launched makes sense, except as a repitition of speculations that keep recurring and keep going unfullfilled.
Sometimes I wonder if rumours are actually started by the companies in question as a way of manipulating consumer choice, whether they be defensive (a new camera from X will be announced in Y months so don't go away) or offensive (as the D600 rumour may be an attempt to put the purchasing of a full frame camera by others on hold until...)
In particular, at the risk of repeating myself:
- the D800 in particular shows that lower resolution does not significantly improve noise or dynamic range when compared fairly as with the DX0 "print comparison"
The problem is that sensor technology isn't static, so if they made the 12MP sensor in the D700 using the technology in the D800's sensor then maybe that would be even better again. Ultimately, we don't know and will probably never know.
I wonder if any of the websites that have done a lot of number crunching on sensor performance can deliver a set of numbers that would answer this question?
Some time ago DxO did something like this and their comment was that the sensor in the Canon S90 (or was it S95?) was better than the full-frame Nikon D3s (or was it D3x?) in terms of the performance it delivered relative to what it could collect in terms of signal. That kind of caught my eye. Then again with the G1X, Canon showed that they could deliver a really good sensor, but then you look at the 5D3 and wonder where the tech that has obviously been developed is going.
-
What really fascinates my though is how in all your many words about Nikon D800 vs Canon 5D3 or 7D is how little you have to say about the elephant in the room: the rather fundamental technological difference between their sensor technologies. The idea that Canon likely has other sensors under development does not address the question of why, four years after Sony and Nikon adopted the newer and overall clearly superior approach of doing ADC on the sensor in a highly parallel way, and some years after Panasonic started used that approach in the GH1 (almost certainly) and GH2 (definitely), Canon has just launched two new cameras at the top of its product line that still use an evolution of the older approach that it adopted about five years before Sony started into CMOS sensors. It is hard for me to see an explanation more likely than that Canon has a great accumulation of expertise in that "first generation" approach to CMOS sensors, and so there is more technological and financial inertia delaying its move, whereas Sony was forced to abandon its CCD technology at a time when it could "start from scratch" in its EXMOR development using a newer and better approach.
I would expect that Sony patented that design and implementation, so maybe the challenge for Canon is to develop and deliver something equivalent without infringing on Sony's IP. At least that's my lame attempt at an excuse for Canon.
-
I would expect that Sony patented that design and implementation, so maybe the challenge for Canon is to develop and deliver something equivalent without infringing on Sony's IP. At least that's my lame attempt at an excuse for Canon.
Hopefully, that means bypassing the parallel on-chip ADC stage and going straight for per-pixel ADCs. Now, that could really expand a sensor's capabilities and dynamic range, including such things as variable ISO on a pixel level.
-
Hopefully, that means bypassing the parallel on-chip ADC stage and going straight for per-pixel ADCs. Now, that could really expand a sensor's capabilities and dynamic range, including such things as variable ISO on a pixel level.
Variable ISO on a pixel level would be very interesting, however it would be a 25%(?) increase in file size to allow for RGGBI to be stored per pixel. But would that really work?
Does the noise introduced by amplifying the signal produce better quality data than not doing so?
-
@dreed,
Yes, my general point is diminshing returns, which in general means that as the gap between current technology and perfection gets smaller, the gap between competing technologies becomes ever less significant. Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer) wrote a nice piece about the ironical conflict between reducing imperfections in technology and connoisseurs putting increasing effort and emphasis onto to weighing the ever diminishing differences.
But to be far more explicit: I hope and expect that sensor technology is close to making read noise irrelevant, so that noise levels and dynamic range will be essentially all about photon shot noise, which means that they are all about how many photons are gathered per output pixel. And I say output pixel, becuase at that point, the signal and noise levels in a pixel do not depend on whether that pixel comes from one bigger photosite or by merging the signal from several smaller photosites that cover the same amount of sensor area and gathered in total the same number of photons.
My reference to the D800 is that it seems very close to that level. Moreso for the vast majority of photography in which nothing more than about ten stops below the brightest highlights is significant, because in those top ten stops or more, the dark noise of the D800 is overwhelmed by the unavoidable photon shot noise.
-
I would expect that Sony patented that design and implementation, so maybe the challenge for Canon is to develop and deliver something equivalent without infringing on Sony's IP. At least that's my lame attempt at an excuse for Canon.
I am sure that Sony has some patents and/or trade secrets on the implementation details, and for example was limited to 12-bit ADC in the A900 whereas the D800 has 14-bit so clearly work is needed beyond simply adopting the basic idea. So yes, Canon's task is not trivial. I am not sure though how "sitting by while your major competitor gets patents that box you out of using state of the art technology" is much of an excuse for Canon! I never heard this sort of excuse offered for Nikon and Sony staying with CCDs back when Canon had a clear advantage with its CMOS technology.
But as I pointed out, the core approach of on-sensor highly parallel ADC is in wide use, by almost every one of Canon's major competitors, and there is a lot of information about it in numerous published papers. In addition to Sony and Panasonic, Samsung has also been using column-parallel ADC in some sensors for even longer than Sony. In a sad irony, the oldest patent I have found on this was by Kodak!
-
Canon's biggest mistake is calling it a 5DMkIII. The 5DmkII was a POS camera, with a good sensor. This new machine is a really, really nice camera (better qua camera than the D800 in a bunch of ways) with a very, very good chip in it.
Why the hell saddle it with a name that admits only incremental improvement?? In fact, I think many Canon shooters will think the 5D3 is the cat's meow, and if you don't need monster prints, it's all the camera you'll ever need.
Worst camera naming ever.
Except maybe for "*ist" from Pentax.
But it's close.
So here's my short review: "the 5D3 is more and better camera than the name suggests. If you shoot Canon, buy one."
- N.
-
As I wrote, the 5D MKIII sensor would have been fine if it didn't have the D800 to contend with. But, this is a marketplace issue, not one related to the ability of the camera and sensor to produce great IQ, which the MKIII certainly can.
Michael, this honestly sounds a little bit disingenuous (or very diplomatic) coming from someone as knowledgeable as you are. Even cursory examination of the new sensor yields the conclusion that the improvements over the previous version are somewhere in the realm of the minimal, and definitely extremely underwhelming given the time it took to release the camera (or at the very least way below what could be expected in terms of progress). That the D800 came out essentially only makes these shortcomings painfully apparent. While the quasi-nonexistent evolution in resolution might, to a degree, be compensated by lens designs in some cases (specifically, the hallowed day the 24-70 II is finally released, and replaces the rattling, out of alignment engineering disaster that was v1's zoom column...), the rest of the design likely simply will not. Had the D800 not been released, my conjecture would be that logic would have called for a/b's against the mkii... And that the conclusion most testers would have reached would have been "whoopedee-doo, Canon solved some of the banding problem !". I, for one, would be curious to see a double-blind experiment in differentiating, say, the dpreview test shot between the two, taken from the raw files. I'm quasi certain that, assuming no boosting of the shadows is allowed, the results would come through inconclusive.
Now, this all could of course have been partially compensated by with major improvements to other areas in the camera. Which have, thankfully happened. The AF is (complexity put aside...) really good, the camera feels much more solid than the mkii, and is much more comfortable to use. Someone else said that the mkiii is what the mkii should have been, and i can't agree more. If there is something in it that could not have been released when the 7d was released, i'd be extremely curious to know what it is (oh, and before someone rips me a new one for insensitivity to environmental catastrophes : D800). It is, in my mind, and having shot about 10k frames through it by now, at best, 18 months too late and 30% overpriced - in other words, an epic failure, maybe unprecedented for the brand.
The article i'd be curious to see, from Luminous Landscape, or anyone else, isn't a review - a review of it, is, as you've clearly understood, a waste of time. It's an investigative one : how could this happen ?
-
I think that a 5D mkIII review and contrasting it with the D800 is well worth the effort. The 5D mkIII has lots of improvements over 5D mkII and in many ways a more general purpose camera than the D800.
What I would like to see in such a review is what Michael does best is to have both feet planted on the ground and tell his opinion about the two camera systems. Examples based on real photography and not just test shots (as we also see on the forums) where one of the cameras has an advantage over the other. This could be in dynamic range. When is the 5D mkIII really falling short and for resolution. How big would you need to print in order to see the difference and here a (double) blind test would certainly be more convincing than a trust me statement. The 5D mkIII has a different implementation of various things like AF, fps, live view so how does it fare against the main competitor in real photography. Wild life is an area where I see the 5D mkIII as a stronger camera than the D800 due to shooting speed.
That the D800 came around at 36MP should not really have been a big surprise since we already saw what such a sensor could bring from the D7000 sensor and other cameras using the same sensor. The next step up for Nikon (and Sony) for full frame would logically be a FF sensor based on the 24MP APS-C sensor giving a 54MP sensor.
What is more surprising is that Canon chose to stay at 22MP and not base a new FF sensor on the 18MP APS-C sensor which would give a 46MP sensor.
Thoughts about these choices and why they were made and where we are heading for the future (and as mentioned what is relevant for real photography of various types) might be more interesting than how much you can lift shadows from the D800 ;)
-
And that the conclusion most testers would have reached would have been "whoopedee-doo, Canon solved some of the banding problem !"
The operative word here is some as images that have been uploaded thus far reveal that the problem still exists in the 5DIII. You've got to wonder just what Canon have been doing...
-
I don't think it is fair to say that there is no improvements in the sensor of the 5D mkIII. DxO says the following on the pixel level.
The 5D mkIII is at the pixel level the best at ISO's at ISO 1600 and above. DR suffers at lower ISO's as we know. I have yet to see a good review with actual photographical examples of shadow lifting as you would do in real photographs where the 5D mkIII falls short. Of course they exist, but artificial lifting of shadows does not really prove that much IMHO. The reason I mention this is that even the Canon 1Ds mkIII does quite well even in high DR scenes using Lightroom 4 editing capabilities (I mean in real photos). I'm certainly in no way against more DR, but I'd like to have to brought into perspective of we do as photographers.
-
artificial lifting of shadows does not really prove that much IMHO.
By artificial lifting of shadows, you seem to be referring to what we used to do with low contrast printing and dodging and burning in order to print with scenes of high subject brightness range. Most photographs do not need it, but some do, and the dynamic range limitations of digital cameras have long been a sore point with some photographers, so I cannot agree that this is either "artificial" or irrelevant to assessment of DSLRs. Especially when looking at the new top of the line models from what has for some time been the leading brand.
-
DR is a REAL photographic requirement in some situations.
For example:
http://lightskyland.com/images/2402_1200.jpg
That image required a significant highlight recovery as well as pushing the shadows 3-4 stops.
-
I don't think it is fair to say that there is no improvements in the sensor of the 5D mkIII. DxO says the following on the pixel level.
True: a roughly 1-2dB improvement, and it looks slightly better in the fairer "print" normalised comparison: maybe 2dB. Not a lot of progress for 3 1/2 years, but about the same as from D3X to D800 in "print" normalisation, and I speculate that the progress is limited by the fact that the noise in these tests is dominated by photon shot noise, and so is close to the physical limits under the constraint of using a Bayer CFA with adequate color discrimination. (Only in far darker parts of the image does dark noise become relevant, or at very high ISO where the Canon sensors avoid their DR limitation). This is suggested by the fact that when you compare the 5D3 and D800 with "print" normalisation, the SNR 18% curves are almost identical. That amazing closeness over the whole ISO speed range from quite different sensor technologies makes me think that the cause is a common fundamental physical limit, i.e. photon shot noise, not noise generate in the cameras.
P. S. Given that extreme closeness, I am not sure where Ray gets his claim of better high ISO noise performance for the 5D3, let alone his apparent sentiment that this high ISO noise advantage plus 6fps vs 4fps was enough reason for Canon to choose a sensor design with substantially inferior resolution and dynamic range. Perhaps some comparison involving a choice of lenses that eliminates or reverses the pixel count advantage of the D800, making the DxO "screen" comparison more relevant.
-
Got it. :'(
Hi Yakim
I recently read through this review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm
It's not all roses but it seems overall for Ken it's the more practical camera, mainly due to the ''Canon 5D Mk 3 shooting mode dial: C1, C2 and C3''.
AF and WB are a couple of the many items he has issue with, so worth a good read to ensure all the issues will not affect your likely use...
;)
-
I think that a 5D mkIII review and contrasting it with the D800 is well worth the effort. The 5D mkIII has lots of improvements over 5D mkII and in many ways a more general purpose camera than the D800.
I wouldn't say that. They both seem pretty general-purpose to me.
The D800 has the advantage if you need to print large - you can print 27% larger on each dimension while maintaining the same resolution (upsampling is useful, but doesn't give you more actual detail). At 24" print width, you're getting 307ppi with the D800, vs 240ppi with the 5D3 - not all that noticeable. At 36" width, you're getting 205ppi vs 160ppi - starting to be noticeable. At 60" width, you're getting 123ppi vs 96ppi - this is very noticeable.
Both are good in different forms of challenging lighting. In extreme low-light situations, the 5D3 seems to have a slight edge at ISO 25600 and above; they are about equal at ISO 3200-12600 (I couldn't tell the difference on 16x24" prints) and the 5D3 is decidedly inferior below that (similar noise on the pixel level, but the D800 has 70% more pixels). So, if you're regularly shooting at greater than ISO 12800, the 5D3 might be better. But, really, if I were shooting at such high ISOs routinely, I'd be looking at the D4 or 1Dx, rather than either the 5D3 or D800. In situations of high dynamic range, there's no contest - the D800 is simply better.
That the D800 came around at 36MP should not really have been a big surprise since we already saw what such a sensor could bring from the D7000 sensor and other cameras using the same sensor. The next step up for Nikon (and Sony) for full frame would logically be a FF sensor based on the 24MP APS-C sensor giving a 54MP sensor.
To me, this is a huge milestone - 150ppi at 40x60" print size, or 300ppi at 20x30" print size. The issue, of course, is lenses can keep up in the corners (time for a 14-24 Mk II from Nikon, maybe, and definitely time for a 16-35 Mk III (or a 14-24 Mk I) from Canon). Canon's TS-E 17mm and 24mm are definitely up to the task; I wouldn't mind seeing a TS-E 14, though, for tnose situations where you want to capture all the width in a single frame, but need the tilt function for focal plane control (would be OK even if the shift were limited, as long as there is tilt). Nikon's PC-E lenses probably need a revamp - and, given that Nikon's latest camera is pushing the boundaries of medium format, and many medium-format photographers need their movements, there's every reason for Nikon to be heading in this direction (the recently-patented PC-E 17 may be indicative of this).
What is more surprising is that Canon chose to stay at 22MP and not base a new FF sensor on the 18MP APS-C sensor which would give a 46MP sensor.
Because it's sufficient for event and wedding photographers. But, with no high-resolution replacement for the 5D2 and 1Ds3, it's left studio and landscape photographers deeply disappointed. After all, many people bought into the 5D2, coming from MF film, when it came out for its high resolution - 21MP was huge in 2008, when the standard was 12MP - not for its other features. These same photographers are still shooting the same things - requiring high resolution and dynamic range, not so much high ISO or frame rate - but, for their purposes, the 2012 model is no better than the 2008 model.
Thoughts about these choices and why they were made and where we are heading for the future (and as mentioned what is relevant for real photography of various types) might be more interesting than how much you can lift shadows from the D800 ;)
For sure, but definitely not to downplay the DR advantage. The superior shadow detail is a huge deal. If you've ever taken a landscape with a recent MFDB (single frame, not multiple exposures), exposing for the highlights then recovering detail in the shadows, you know how detailed and noise-free the shadows are. You can do the same with the D800 and D7000. With the 5D2, all you get is mush and pattern noise. There are many situations in photography where you can't take multiple exposures (moving objects), can't use GNDs (uneven horizon) and can't use fill flash (distances too great) but need detail from shadows as well as highlights (usually involving backlit objects during the 'golden hours', or silhouetted against the sky).
Come to think of it, the D3x was announced on December 1, 2008, when the 5D2 had been available for barely a month, and still had the 'black dots' issue. If, instead of releasing a $8000 camera, Nikon had put the same sensor in the D700 and called it the D700x, the 5D2 would have been stillborn - many of those who moved from MF film to the 5D2 would have, instead, moved to the D700x. Similar price band, higher resolution, better DR, better AF, better weather-sealing. Slower frame rate, but no-one ever bought the 5D2 for action shooting anyway.
-
P. S. Given that extreme closeness, I am not sure where Ray gets his claim of better high ISO noise performance for the 5D3, let alone his apparent sentiment that this high ISO noise advantage plus 6fps vs 4fps was enough reason for Canon to choose a sensor design with substantially inferior resolution and dynamic range. Perhaps some comparison involving a choice of lenses that eliminates or reverses the pixel count advantage of the D800, making the DxO "screen" comparison more relevant.
Why so negative, BJL? Try to think positively. ;D
This is what I wrote regarding the 5D3's high ISO performance:
"Although the D800 has an impressively high pixel count which exceeds the pixel count of the 5D3 by a worthwhile margin of 60% or so, its high-ISO performance is no better than the 5D3, and if anything, slightly worse."
The expression, "if anything, slightly worse", means if one were to find a difference through extreme pixel-peeping, such difference would favour the 5D3, according to my interpretation of the DXO results.
Another trend in the pattern of Canon's release of new models, which I think is relevant here, is its history of always releasing its highest-resolving sensors first in its expensive, fully professional models, the 1Ds series.
This policy is presumably a business decision rather than a technological limitation. The original 12.7mp 5D followed the 16mp 1Ds2. The 21mp 5D2 followed the 21mp 1Ds3. If this trend were to continue, the 1Ds4 would be the next camera with an increased pixel-count, possibly followed by a 5D4 with the same or similar pixel-count.
Nikon have been very keen to break out of this pattern, to their advantage. It was a big surprise to everyone when Nikon introduced a more affordable D700 so soon after the release of its first full-frame DSLR, the D3. The D700 seems to have equal specs in most areas, yet was a lighter camera and much more affordable. The sort of camera that appeals to me.
With the release of the D800, Nikon have completely broken out of the mold and produced a 'prosumer' camera at a relatively affordable price, which exceeds in performance in certain significant areas, such as resolution, their fully professional models, such as the D3X.
It is in this sense they have stolen a march on Canon and changed the paradigm in the process. I can imagine that Canon has a 1Ds4 in the development pipeline, with maybe a 46mp sensor, perhaps scheduled for announcement at Photokina in September.
However, the Canon Board of Directors and the Marketing Department are probably now wondering how their 30mp, or 40mp or 46mp top-of-the-line model which they intended to price at $8,000, can compete with the Nikon 36mp prosumer model with its two option of D800 and D800E.
It would be interesting to eavesdrop on the board room discussions. ;D
-
Ray, you still leave me wondering why you have repeatedly raise this slight or non-existent advantage 5D3 as if it somehow balances the vastly greater IQ advantages of the D800.
As to Canon always releasing its highest resolution sensor in its top model, you seem to have missed the memo: times have changed, Canon has clearly described the 1DX as _the_ new high end model, as surely as the D4 is _the_ new high end Nikon model, both in the sense of professional build quality, price and so on. There are no new Canon 1Ds or Nikon D?X models coming: those big, square, heavy, bullet-proof, maximum resolution, lowish frame rate, medium format challenging $8000 models are gone, and the two new 35mm format models from each of Canon and Nikon are it for this year. And I am sure that a great many landscape, architectural and other high resolution seeking photographers are very happy for the saving in weight and money that they are getting from new breed, both the D800 and 5D3.
You can imagine all kinds of wonderful new sensors and models coming, but I prefer to deal with the available facts.
P. S. when it comes to thinking negatively, your persistent attention on small to non-existent disadvantages of the D800 is a fine example!
-
Ray, you still leave me wondering why you have repeatedly raise this slight or non-existent advantage 5D3 as if it somehow balances the vastly greater IQ advantages of the D800.
Crikey! I'll explain it further. The thrust of my point was that at high ISO the 5D3 is the equal of the D800. The reference to the 5D3 possibly having a slight edge, if one were to engage in pixel-peeping, was merely to reinforce the point that at high ISO the D800 really does have no advantage, in case anyone is doubtful. I can't be more explicit than that, surely.
The reference to the 7D was to make the point that the cropped-format of that camera, used in conjunction with the 5D3, would tend to cancel some of the benefits of the D800, specifically that the D800 in DX mode is close to being a D7000, useful to extend the reach of one's longest lens.
As to Canon always releasing its highest resolution sensor in its top model, you seem to have missed the memo: times have changed, Canon has clearly described the 1DX as _the_ new high end model, as surely as the D4 is _the_ new high end Nikon model, both in the sense of professional build quality, price and so on. There are no new Canon 1Ds or Nikon D?X models coming: those big, square, heavy, bullet-proof, maximum resolution, lowish frame rate, medium format challenging $8000 models are gone, and the two new 35mm format models from each of Canon and Nikon are it for this year. And I am sure that a great many landscape, architectural and other high resolution seeking photographers are very happy for the saving in weight and money that they are getting from new breed, both the D800 and 5D3.
You seem very confident about this, BJL. It seems clear to me that the 1Dx is a discontinuation of the 1D series, not a discontinuation the 1Ds (or full-frame) series. Whether it's called 1Ds or 1Dx is irrelevant. A name is a name.
The fact remains, the 1Dx is a full-frame camera with the sort of performance one expects from a 1D series camera, such as a very high frame rate. The price in Australia is around the $8,000 mark. The weight is a secret, so I think it would be reasonable to guess it's probably as heavy as the traditional 1Ds. Just why the weight of the 1Dx is not included on all references to its specifications, that I can find on the internet, is a mystery. People are apparently placing pre-orders for a camera without knowing its weight.
Until DXO tests the 1Dx, its sensor performance is speculation. There's no reason to suppose than Canon is not working on a lighter and more affordable 46mp 5D4, with a much slower frame rate than the 1Dx. Such a camera may have begun its development as a 1Ds4, but as I mentioned, if you read my post more carefully, the release of the D800, and no doubt the forewarning of the D800 that Canon would have been aware of, before its announcement to the public, would have caused a rethink about an expensive and high resolution 1Ds4.
Reading your arguments here, I'm reminded of a popular thread a few years ago on this forum in which I presented the argument that Nikon would eventually have to offer a full-frame format in order to compete with Canon. You insisted there was no evidence at all that Nikon was working on a full-frame model, and you appeared to firmly believe they would stick with the DX format.
P. S. when it comes to thinking negatively, your persistent attention on small to non-existent disadvantages of the D800 is a fine example!
That's a very strange comment considering I've already mentioned that I've placed an order for a D800E. I've also put down a deposit. I expect to receive the camera before the end of the month.
-
I wouldn't say that. They both seem pretty general-purpose to me.
The D800 has the advantage if you need to print large - you can print 27% larger on each dimension while maintaining the same resolution (upsampling is useful, but doesn't give you more actual detail). At 24" print width, you're getting 307ppi with the D800, vs 240ppi with the 5D3 - not all that noticeable. At 36" width, you're getting 205ppi vs 160ppi - starting to be noticeable. At 60" width, you're getting 123ppi vs 96ppi - this is very noticeable.
The 6fps on the 5D mkIII is a real difference from the 4fps on the D800. For action photography I would have no doubt which one to choose. So the camera that covers different disciplines I find the 5D mkIII a more general purpose camera than the D800. As far as I can tell the only two advantages the D800 hold is the larger DR at low ISO and the resolution advantage which more or less disappears at higher ISO.
Regarding resolution difference I would like to see a double blind test of prints made from both cameras with equal (good) technique and see when and if a difference can be validated in a scientific test. I even doubt there would be a very significant difference observed at least until you go to A0 print size and bigger. I'm sure a reviewer would see a difference before that, but he has the problem of knowing and therefore suffers from confirmation bias.
Both are good in different forms of challenging lighting. In extreme low-light situations, the 5D3 seems to have a slight edge at ISO 25600 and above; they are about equal at ISO 3200-12600 (I couldn't tell the difference on 16x24" prints) and the 5D3 is decidedly inferior below that (similar noise on the pixel level, but the D800 has 70% more pixels). So, if you're regularly shooting at greater than ISO 12800, the 5D3 might be better. But, really, if I were shooting at such high ISOs routinely, I'd be looking at the D4 or 1Dx, rather than either the 5D3 or D800. In situations of high dynamic range, there's no contest - the D800 is simply better.
To me, this is a huge milestone - 150ppi at 40x60" print size, or 300ppi at 20x30" print size. The issue, of course, is lenses can keep up in the corners (time for a 14-24 Mk II from Nikon, maybe, and definitely time for a 16-35 Mk III (or a 14-24 Mk I) from Canon). Canon's TS-E 17mm and 24mm are definitely up to the task; I wouldn't mind seeing a TS-E 14, though, for tnose situations where you want to capture all the width in a single frame, but need the tilt function for focal plane control (would be OK even if the shift were limited, as long as there is tilt). Nikon's PC-E lenses probably need a revamp - and, given that Nikon's latest camera is pushing the boundaries of medium format, and many medium-format photographers need their movements, there's every reason for Nikon to be heading in this direction (the recently-patented PC-E 17 may be indicative of this).
Nikon has the 14-24 lens, but on Canon there is the TS-E lenses 17mm and 24mm which have no Nikon equivalent. At 14mm there is the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 UMC which is as good as the Nikon 14-24 at 14mm. There is Zeiss lenses as well with a Canon mount, so I would say Canon is not left behind here and actually has an edge over Nikon. On the longer lenses Canon has the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II which is the best lens in this category ever made. That lens is very useful for landscape photography.
Because it's sufficient for event and wedding photographers. But, with no high-resolution replacement for the 5D2 and 1Ds3, it's left studio and landscape photographers deeply disappointed. After all, many people bought into the 5D2, coming from MF film, when it came out for its high resolution - 21MP was huge in 2008, when the standard was 12MP - not for its other features. These same photographers are still shooting the same things - requiring high resolution and dynamic range, not so much high ISO or frame rate - but, for their purposes, the 2012 model is no better than the 2008 model.
For sure, but definitely not to downplay the DR advantage. The superior shadow detail is a huge deal. If you've ever taken a landscape with a recent MFDB (single frame, not multiple exposures), exposing for the highlights then recovering detail in the shadows, you know how detailed and noise-free the shadows are. You can do the same with the D800 and D7000. With the 5D2, all you get is mush and pattern noise. There are many situations in photography where you can't take multiple exposures (moving objects), can't use GNDs (uneven horizon) and can't use fill flash (distances too great) but need detail from shadows as well as highlights (usually involving backlit objects during the 'golden hours', or silhouetted against the sky).
I shoot a lot of landscapes using a Canon 1Ds mkIII and yes, I would not downplay the resolution and DR advantage of the D800, but in my opinion there is quite some misinformation around as if shadows can't be lifted at all on a Canon sensor. That is clearly not true. I do that all the time. Extreme lifting of shadows like more than 3 stops does not work well and then exposure blending comes in which is pretty easy to do using Lightroom and Photoshop Pro and bracketing is needed anyway these days as you can't see the true clipping of the sensor and what Lightroom 4 can recover without loss by the new algorithms (I mean on the camera LCD you can't see this). You can see examples of this here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41483832 and you can see the originals here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41484204 and this is really an extreme example where exposure blending could result in a slightly better shadows rendering. But don't forget that we are looking at this in 100% view and in a normal print the noise would not even be seen.
Come to think of it, the D3x was announced on December 1, 2008, when the 5D2 had been available for barely a month, and still had the 'black dots' issue. If, instead of releasing a $8000 camera, Nikon had put the same sensor in the D700 and called it the D700x, the 5D2 would have been stillborn - many of those who moved from MF film to the 5D2 would have, instead, moved to the D700x. Similar price band, higher resolution, better DR, better AF, better weather-sealing. Slower frame rate, but no-one ever bought the 5D2 for action shooting anyway.
In my opinion it was Nikon who had a camera that was stillborn, namely the D3X which was the last of it's kind and the 5D mkII was the camera that ended the high priced, high resolution models. This we have seen now with the 1DX ending the two camera 1D and 1Ds series. The D800 is not getting a higher prices Nikon sibling in the $8000 range and on the Canon side the 1Ds mkIII was the last of it's kind. I'm sure Canon will release a high resolution body later on. Surely many Nikon shooters using the D700 did not switch to the 5D mkII for landscape since they were confident that Nikon would launch a higher rez model at some point. This was true although it took longer than expected and probably because of the catastrophis in Japan and later in Thailand.
Please don't get me wrong, I think the D800 and D800E are great new cameras, but it does not mean that the competition is not there at all.
And yes, I have seen files from MF cameras and they can provide higher resolution, but the DR is a bit over rated from what I have seen, but I don't own one so bare with me :)
-
The 6fps on the 5D mkIII is a real difference from the 4fps on the D800. For action photography I would have no doubt which one to choose. So the camera that covers different disciplines I find the 5D mkIII a more general purpose camera than the D800. As far as I can tell the only two advantages the D800 hold is the larger DR at low ISO and the resolution advantage which more or less disappears at higher ISO.
I'd consider fast-FPS action shooting to be a pretty narrow field - you're either into it or you're not. If action photography is your thing, you'd probably choose the 1Dx or D4, or even an older 1D4 or D3s, over either of these cameras. If action photography isn't your thing, then 4fps is more than fast enough anyway. After all, it's still faster than the 5D2...
Regarding resolution difference I would like to see a double blind test of prints made from both cameras with equal (good) technique and see when and if a difference can be validated in a scientific test. I even doubt there would be a very significant difference observed at least until you go to A0 print size and bigger. I'm sure a reviewer would see a difference before that, but he has the problem of knowing and therefore suffers from confirmation bias.
The difference in linear resolution is similar to the difference between the D700 and 5D2. One doesn't have to print too large to see the difference between these two - you can easily tell the difference at a 16x24" print size. Given that 22MP equates to around 30% greater linear resolution as compared to 12MP, you would expect to see a definite difference at 24x36" print size.
Nikon has the 14-24 lens, but on Canon there is the TS-E lenses 17mm and 24mm which have no Nikon equivalent. At 14mm there is the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 UMC which is as good as the Nikon 14-24 at 14mm. There is Zeiss lenses as well with a Canon mount, so I would say Canon is not left behind here and actually has an edge over Nikon. On the longer lenses Canon has the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II which is the best lens in this category ever made. That lens is very useful for landscape photography.
I wouldn't disagree on that. But Canon doesn't have a high-resolution full-frame camera to take advantage of all that...
I shoot a lot of landscapes using a Canon 1Ds mkIII and yes, I would not downplay the resolution and DR advantage of the D800, but in my opinion there is quite some misinformation around as if shadows can't be lifted at all on a Canon sensor. That is clearly not true. I do that all the time. Extreme lifting of shadows like more than 3 stops does not work well and then exposure blending comes in which is pretty easy to do using Lightroom and Photoshop Pro and bracketing is needed anyway these days as you can't see the true clipping of the sensor and what Lightroom 4 can recover without loss by the new algorithms (I mean on the camera LCD you can't see this). You can see examples of this here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41483832 and you can see the originals here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41484204 and this is really an extreme example where exposure blending could result in a slightly better shadows rendering. But don't forget that we are looking at this in 100% view and in a normal print the noise would not even be seen.
I'd be very hesitant to lift even two stops on a 5D2. But, then again, I make very large prints, so require fairly tight tolerances in image quality.
In my opinion it was Nikon who had a camera that was stillborn, namely the D3X which was the last of it's kind and the 5D mkII was the camera that ended the high priced, high resolution models. This we have seen now with the 1DX ending the two camera 1D and 1Ds series. The D800 is not getting a higher prices Nikon sibling in the $8000 range and on the Canon side the 1Ds mkIII was the last of it's kind. I'm sure Canon will release a high resolution body later on. Surely many Nikon shooters using the D700 did not switch to the 5D mkII for landscape since they were confident that Nikon would launch a higher rez model at some point. This was true although it took longer than expected and probably because of the catastrophis in Japan and later in Thailand.
Exactly - the D3x failed because of the 5D2's existence. The 5D2 made a high-resolution (for its time) sensor available for around $3-4k, although without the AF and other features of the 1Ds series. It was certainly no EOS-3 in digital form. The D800 completes that transition of high-resolution bodies to the $3-4k price point, by including a good autofocus system. But the delay in bringing out a high-resolution, low-cost body has cost Nikon dearly - when the 20MP threshold was crossed, a lot of photographers were comfortable moving from MF colour film to full-frame digital, since similar image quality was now possible. Since Canon had the product, and Nikon did not, many of those moved to Canon.
Now, let's imagine that, less than a month after the 5D2 hit the shelves, Nikon had announced not the $8000 D3x, but the $3500 D700x, with the same sensor as the D3x, but in the body of the D700. Then, on the one hand, you'd have the 21MP 5D2, with poor weather sealing and poor autofocus, shooting at 3.9fps. On the other hand, for a similar price, you'd have the 24MP D700x, with weather sealing and AF equal to the D3, great dynamic range, shooting at around 1.5fps. Guess which one would have sold like hotcakes, while the other sat on the shelves? The fps difference is moot - after all, no-one bought either the 5D2 or the D3x to shoot action. The 5D2's AF couldn't keep up, while the D3x's frame rate couldn't keep up.
By releasing the 24MP Exmor-type sensor in a D3-style body, rather than in a D700-style body for half the price, Nikon made a huge strategic error, essentially handing Canon the high-resolution studio and landscape crowd (the D3x isn't good for much else, so it can hardly be said that they weren't chasing that crowd) and ensuring the 5D2 would dominate for a number of years, despite its numerous shortcomings.
-
You seem very confident about this, BJL. It seems clear to me that the 1Dx is a discontinuation of the 1D series, not a discontinuation the 1Ds (or full-frame) series. Whether it's called 1Ds or 1Dx is irrelevant. A name is a name.
There's no reason to suppose than Canon is not working on a lighter and more affordable 46mp 5D4, with a much slower frame rate than the 1Dx.
You insisted there was no evidence at all that Nikon was working on a full-frame model, and you appeared to firmly believe they would stick with the DX format.
Ray,
As to whether the 1DX is the only top model in the Canon line, I prefer to go by what Canon has said rather guessing based on the name! I suggest you reread what Canon has said. But it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative prediction like this, in the face of generic, irrefutable but utterly unpersuasive double-negative arguments of the form "there is no reason why Canon is not working on ..." I have stated evidemce from Canon's own statements and the history of its product release cycle for my prediction; beyond that, the only way to prove a negative prediction is to wait.
By the way, as to Nikon and "FF", if you check, my skeptical comments were based on refuting recurring specific rumors that such a camera was about to come, and I was right every time: those rumors were (rather clearly) false and wishful thinking. When the real rumors of the D1X came, backed by sources like Thom Hogan, I dropped my skepticism.
By the way, if you want to argue ad hominiem about a single wrong prediction in the past, that is easy to do, is it not? Us long-time LL discussants have all made mistakes in numerous discussions over the years. For example you rather persistently predicted that the size advantage of smaller formats, in particular 4/3" vs larger formats, through the telephoto/macro reach advantage, would go away, because pixel sizes would equalize between the various DSLR formats, so that using the same focal length in a larger format and cropping would be a match. Back in the early days, 4/3” was at 5MP while APS-C was at 6MP (or 8MP in one Canon model) and 35mm format was at 14MP from Kodak, 11MP from Canon. Today, 4/3" offers 16MP, APS-C systems offer from 18 to 24 MP depending on brand, and in 35mm, Nikon offers up to 36MP, Canon offers up to 22MP. The ratios of pixel counts have roughly held steady (as I instead predicted), except that Canon's 35mm format offerings have had less resolution growth than the rest, and overall the pixel count increase has been slower in 35mm format than in the smaller formats. This is due I think to the law of diminishing returns when pixelx counts get so high: more than about 20MP is a rather specialized need, even forprofessional photography. So I am not holding my breath for a 35mm format DSLR with the 64MP sensor needed to match 4/3” for resolution with a crop using the same telephoto or macro focal length. Even the APC-C sensors of 30MP from Sony or 25MP from Canon as needed for equal pixel size are not in sight.
-
@shadowblade and @hans,
It seems that me might all three agree that the 5D2 severely undermined the market for the D3X, and I would go further: the 5D2 was disruptive, in moving the maximum resolution and image quality of a 35mm format system to a far lower price level, severely undermining the market for the entire category of cameras like the D3X and 1Ds series, which for a substantially higher price, add only "around the edges", not to the core of image quality. And it seems that both Nikon and Canon have responded to this by upgrading those far more afforable product lines with just the most important things like top of the line AF and VF, to produce the 5D3 and D800 as their new generation of highest resolution models, and ending the $7000-8000 1Ds and D?X product lines.
I see this as a positive trend, in greatly lowered price of access to the best image quality that 35mm format can deliver and eliminating any "hobbling" of those models with inferior AF or such. However, I am sure some people will interpret it as a negative prediction, and as always, the only way to resolve negative predictions is to wait. Photokina 2012 should be long enough to wait in order to have an almost certain picture of the complete new generation of 35mm format cameras from Canon and Nikon.
-
I don't think that I need a Canon 5D MarkIII review from Michael. I have mine, and it's awesome compared to the 5D Mark II.
The focusing system and FPS improvements are radically better. The image quality is better and I really love experimenting with high ISOs that used to be worthless on my 5D Mark II and previous Canon bodies.
It so good that I'm selling my Canon 1Ds Mark III with less than 10,000 actuations on it. Anyone interested in making me an offer for it?
Cheers.
Bud James
-
If you want to see a good comparison between the 5D3 and D800, just watch The Camerastore's excellent video's here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTo7UxbJX8&list=UUqpOf_Nl5F4tjwlxOVS6h8A&index=3&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9EeDCaVFM&feature=relmfu
These show how the cameras differ for real photographers.
- N.
btw: the suggestion that the D3x was stillborn struck me as curious. Nikon sold boatloads of them at $8K a pop! That price includes about $4K of cream for corporate, and they milked that bitch for like four years. "You want Nikon FF, you pay." Pure. Genius. The mediocrity of the 5DII as a camera, and Canon's normalt-to-wide lenses, along with the size of their pro install-base, is what let Nikon get away with this. The D800 is a recognition that that gig is up.
-
Ray,
As to whether the 1DX is the only top model in the Canon line, I prefer to go by what Canon has said rather guessing based on the name!
BJL,
I was addressing your comment that "those big, square, heavy, bullet-proof, maximum resolution, lowish frame rate, medium format challenging $8000 models are gone".
It seems clear that only the 'maximum resolution' aspect is gone from those heavy and expensive cameras, for the time being at least.
The current top-of-the-line Nikon D3X and D4, Canon 1Ds3 and 1DX are all heavy and expensive cameras, irrespective of their pixel-count. The street price in Australia ranges from around $7,500-$8,000, and they all weigh around 1.3Kg or greater, including the new 1DX.
There would appear to be a paradigm shift led by Nikon, in the sense that the highest resolving cameras from both companies are now in the more affordable prosumer category. Whilst Canon's highest resolving camera is only 1mp higher than the 1Ds3 and of no significance resolution-wise, it is perhaps symbolic and a portent of things to come.
I suggest you reread what Canon has said. But it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative prediction like this, in the face of generic, irrefutable but utterly unpersuasive double-negative arguments of the form "there is no reason why Canon is not working on ..." I have stated evidemce from Canon's own statements and the history of its product release cycle for my prediction; beyond that, the only way to prove a negative prediction is to wait.
Of course it's impossible to absolutely prove a negative prediction. I thought the discussion is about what is likely, what is reasonable, and what is sensible. I doubt that Canon will allow Nikon to completely dominate the full-frame prosumer market for DSLRs.
For example you rather persistently predicted that the size advantage of smaller formats, in particular 4/3" vs larger formats, through the telephoto/macro reach advantage, would go away, because pixel sizes would equalize between the various DSLR formats, so that using the same focal length in a larger format and cropping would be a match.
Nope! My predictions tend to be positive. Any persistent claims I've made regarding the future of the 4/3 formats have been along the lines that the smaller format can never compete with the larger formats in terms of ultimate image quality, all else being approximately equal or equivalent.
I've always recognised the weight and bulk advantage of the smaller formats and in particular the high quality of many of the Zuiko lenses. Each of us has to make compromises regarding price, weight, performance flexibility, and ultimate image quality, and such compromises will be different according to different purposes.
For the past few years years I've frequently walked around carrying two cameras when I'm out shooting, such as the Canon 5D with Sigma 15-30 plus the Canon 20D with 24-105/F4, or the D700 with 14-24/2.8 plus the Canon 50D with 17-55/2.8 or more recently the D7000 with 24-120/F4 in place of the 50D.
However, I appreciate that the combined weight of two DSLRs and two lenses around one's neck and shoulders would be too much for some folks. That 14-24/2.8 is a heavy lens. One advantage of the D800E for me is a weight reduction of around 800gms. I'll carry just the one camera with two lenses, the disadvantage being I could miss a good shot whilst changing lenses.
-
BJL,
I was addressing your comment that "those big, square, heavy, bullet-proof, maximum resolution, lowish frame rate, medium format challenging $8000 models are gone".
It seems clear that only the 'maximum resolution' aspect is gone from those heavy and expensive cameras, for the time being at least.
Exactly! That is all I was saying: these big rugged "square" bodies are now back to what they were in the film era: all-round professional tools for sports, action, photojournalist and such, but not for the very high resolution "medium format replacement" sector where the extra burden of cost and weight does not deliver sufficient benefit.
Let me make another wild prediction: the next top of the line "square" Canon model will be in spirit a "1D X Mk II" with the 5760 x 3840 resolution of the 5D3, for its perfect match to decimation/downsampling to 1920x1080 HD video output for journalists and such. Or maybe just a little more like 6144x4096, if the wider aspect ratio 2K video format, 2048 pixels wide, become commercially important. (That 2K fits better with the currently dominant digital cinema projectors.)
Canon might well have made a sound business decision that this roughly 22MP, "video friendly" pixel count is a sweet spot of resolution for its high end gear, and one that could still make sense even if it can substantially reduce its noise floor and so increase the dynamic range in its next generation of sensors.
-
Exactly - the D3x failed because of the 5D2's existence.
By releasing the 24MP Exmor-type sensor in a D3-style body, rather than in a D700-style body for half the price, Nikon made a huge strategic error, essentially handing Canon the high-resolution studio and landscape crowd (the D3x isn't good for much else, so it can hardly be said that they weren't chasing that crowd) and ensuring the 5D2 would dominate for a number of years, despite its numerous shortcomings.
It seems clear that Nikon should have released a D700x, but I disagree about the D3x being a failure.
It did sell well for many years, was a much superior camera compared to its main competitor, the 1Ds3, and simply redefined our expectations in terms of DR. While expensive it was competing performancewise with MF backs costing twice as much.
Besides, it served a purpose in clarifying to the market that Nikon is aiming, successfully, at delivering the highest level of performance in DSLRs. Want a good deal? Buy Canon or Sony. Want the best? Get a Nikon. Things get of course interesting when the D800 is both the highest performing camera and the better deal. :-)
In terms of system, the 17mm T/S, a very niche product, is probably the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do. For the rest we are talking about tiny differences with one brand topping the other in one direction or opposite. Nikon is rumored to release a 17mm T/S soon following the publication of a patent. Considering the overall domination they have in wide angle technology, there is no reason to think it will not be best in class.
Cheers ,
Bernard
-
was a much superior camera compared to its main competitor, the 1Ds3
UTTER BS.
-
UTTER BS.
Why do you say so?
The D800 and D3x have roughly the same performance sensorwise at lower ISO and the D800 is said to be significantly superior to the successor of the 1D3s. The D3x was simply at least one generation ahead of its time.
On other metrics, we can mention AF (the Rob Galbraith saga), auto ISO, weather proofness (the Patagonia trip),...
Does it mean that the 1Ds3 is not an excellent camera? Not at all obviously.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I went to the PPA show last year in Sydney. Lots of A2 size prints from both Canon and Nikon photographers. The quality was excellent and I don't think that anyone would have walked away from the show thinking they were looking at anything but professional quality images from both camps.
What I think of is a worry for Nikon and Canon is that there is no buzz for either the D4 or 1D X. Maybe the market has matured enough that it is the same as for computers, what we have is good enough.
Cheers,
-
I am sure the Canon is a good camera; It is an improved version of the 5MK II in line of its name.
But the vision of Canon remains unclear. To me it seems their focus is at 4K video more than on static Images.
With the D800 Nikon shows more progression and vision. There is so much improvement even over their former flagship the D3x.
Their problem is that only a few Nikon Lenses deliver 36MP
So now we have Nikon with the best DSLR body and lenses for 24MP and on the other side Leica With 18 MP bodies and 50+ ( who knows?) lenses.
best 50mm Nikon lens €350 vs best Leica 50mm lens 7000€
In that respect Canon is more balanced.
-
FWIW, it is widely believed that the 5D2 also killed a large portion of the market that was interested in the 1Ds3.
The 5D2 was a very disruptive product. You've got it (and the 7D) being used in TV shows and movies. From "House" to "The Avengers". As a camera, pro's were using it for considered work as well as amateurs that saved their pennies. IMHO, the 5D3 is attempting to bank on the success of the 5D2 and not much more as if you're not already sold on Canon, why would you pickup the 5D3 now and not the D800?
-
I went to the PPA show last year in Sydney. Lots of A2 size prints from both Canon and Nikon photographers. The quality was excellent and I don't think that anyone would have walked away from the show thinking they were looking at anything but professional quality images from both camps.
What I think of is a worry for Nikon and Canon is that there is no buzz for either the D4 or 1D X. Maybe the market has matured enough that it is the same as for computers, what we have is good enough.
Cheers,
A2 isn't very large - you'll mostly see the differences at 20x30" and larger, and more so on glossy/metallic surfaces.
Regarding the D4 and the 1Dx, I think this is mainly because their only advantage over the 5D3 and D800 is relevant only for one kind of photographer - those shooting high-speed action who absolutely require the 11/12/14fps frame rates. In other words, mainly sports photographers - the pixel density just isn't there to make the bodies particularly attractive for wildlife photography. We haven't seen what their ISO performance is like yet - if they have a significant edge over the D800 (after scaling to equal resolution) they may also have an audience in those shooting in extreme low light (starlit/moonlit landscapes without trails or with moving elements, e.g. waves, or concert/stage photography). For all other photographers, the smaller bodies have the advantage of less weight, greater resolution, less cost and, in the case of the D800, more dynamic range. If you don't need the high frame rate, why would you spend twice as much for a body with lower image quality, then shoot it at 1 frame every 2 seconds because that's all you need anyway?
After all, the D800 is essentially a 1Ds3 updated for 2012.
-
Regarding the D4 and the 1Dx, I think this is mainly because their only advantage over the 5D3 and D800 is relevant only for one kind of photographer - those shooting high-speed action who absolutely require the 11/12/14fps frame rates. In other words, mainly sports photographers - the pixel density just isn't there to make the bodies particularly attractive for wildlife photography.
I'm curious as to whether they'll be a hit with runway model photographers, unless that also qualifies as "sports photography."
-
the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do
no real substance in that statement. i covert the nikon 45 tilt/shift as the canon is very average but the 24 and 90mm t-se's that i use the most i wouldn't swap for nikons inferior offerings, there are other areas like the long zooms where nikon falls short compared to canon, i would like nikons wide zoom too but that's not enough to make we swap.
-
It seems clear that Nikon should have released a D700x, but I disagree about the D3x being a failure.
It did sell well for many years, was a much superior camera compared to its main competitor, the 1Ds3, and simply redefined our expectations in terms of DR. While expensive it was competing performancewise with MF backs costing twice as much.
How do you know that it sold well? I never saw statistics by camera manufacturer and model of their cameras, but maybe I missed something. When you say it's much superior than the 1Ds mkIII it's really only DR that is better. Since I have a 1Ds mkIII I looked at comparative D3X RAW files from e.g. Imaging Resource. And quite frankly I didn't see much difference in IQ worth speaking of. Certainly not anything of a magnitude one would switch systems for. When you say teh D3X competed against MF backs costing twice as much, which would you compare to? I think the most relevant comparison would be against the Pentax 645D and IQ wise I don't see the D3X in the same league. And the price for the body was about the same.
It's interesting to note that I have not seen any reviews of the 5D mkII when it came out that predicted the success it has had! The 1Ds mkIII from what I sense has sold well too, but the success was the 5D mkII which was better in a few areas compared to the 1Ds mkIII but in most areas a lesser camera. Live view for landscape photographers and architecture was a very strong point of the 5D mkII with nothing else on the market comparable at the time.
In terms of system, the 17mm T/S, a very niche product, is probably the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do. For the rest we are talking about tiny differences with one brand topping the other in one direction or opposite. Nikon is rumored to release a 17mm T/S soon following the publication of a patent. Considering the overall domination they have in wide angle technology, there is no reason to think it will not be best in class.
It's not only the TS-E 17mm but also the 24mm that Nikon does not have a competitor to. Also the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS has no Nikon equivalent. But notice that Canon has upgraded a huge part of the lens base in the recent couple of years. They have got also extremely expensive, but the new lenses are really state of the art in the format. All the long lenses and TC's have been updated. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the best f/2.8 in class and I would be surprised of the new 24-70 f/2.8L II would be similarly good. I think it is fair to say that Canon has the lead here.
So I don't think it is so obvious which system is the best at the moment. Clearly the D800 and D800E is attractive from the pure resolution and DR point of and nothing else. In fact there are several shortcomings compared to the 5D mkIII like memory settings (C1, C2 C3 on the Canon) and live view imprementation. AF might be the same quality. The speed in continuous shooting is clearly better on the Canon.
I know this might sound as coming from a fan boy ;) but really I like to have things put in perspective and I find many post about the D800 to be a bit over the top quite frankly.
-
How do you know that it sold well? I never saw statistics by camera manufacturer and model of their cameras, but maybe I missed something. When you say it's much superior than the 1Ds mkIII it's really only DR that is better. Since I have a 1Ds mkIII I looked at comparative D3X RAW files from e.g. Imaging Resource. And quite frankly I didn't see much difference in IQ worth speaking of. Certainly not anything of a magnitude one would switch systems for.
Not all information is publicly available.
As far as the gap goes, DR is the key thing.
It's interesting to note that I have not seen any reviews of the 5D mkII when it came out that predicted the success it has had! The 1Ds mkIII from what I sense has sold well too, but the success was the 5D mkII which was better in a few areas compared to the 1Ds mkIII but in most areas a lesser camera. Live view for landscape photographers and architecture was a very strong point of the 5D mkII with nothing else on the market comparable at the time.
It was pretty obvious that 22mp at 3000 US$ would be a major hit, wasn't it?
It-s not only the TS-E 17mm but also the 24mm that Nikon does not have a competitor to. Also the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS has no Nikon equivalent. But notice that Canon has upgraded a huge part of the lens base in the recent couple of years. They have got also extremely expensive, but the new lenses are really state of the art in the format. All the long lenses and TC's have been updated. I think it is fair to say that Canon has the lead here.
The 24mm PCE is an excellent lens optically. The Nikkor 70-300 f3.5-5.6 is very close to the Canon between 70 and 200 mm.
The canon equivalents are probably superior, but the margin in absolute terms is very small relative to real world usage.
So I don't think it is so obvious which system is the best at the moment. Clearly the D800 and D800E is attractive from the pure resolution and DR point of and nothing else. In fact there are several shortcomings compared to the 5D mkIII like memory settings (C1, C2 C3 on the Canon) and live view imprementation. AF might be the same quality. The speed in continous shooting is clearly better on the Canon.
I understand the feeling. :-) On my side I am tired about the negative comments about the D800 live view. I have found it far from perfect, but still more than good enough for all the applications I have thrown at it, including some low light landscape.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
but the margin in absolute terms is very small relative to real world usage.
you could apply that sensibility to every camera fanboy statement ::)
i prefer 'is my client happy, is my equipment choice having an impact on achieving good results , will that investment make me more money'
-
Not all information is publicly available.
So you have that kind of information?
As far as the gap goes, DR is the key thing.
Correct, but the DxO figures didn't tranlate in that much difference in the RAW files I looked at. And I did push shadows!
It was pretty obvious that 22mp at 3000 US$ would be a major hit, wasn't it?
My point was that reviewers didn't predict that and especially the success around video. So what do reviews predict now that we can expect to agree on in three years from now? Let's check back at that time and see how it went....
The 24mm PCE is an excellent lens optically. The Nikkor 70-300 f3.5-5.6 is very close to the Canon between 70 and 200 mm.
The canon equivalents are probably superior, but the margin in absolute terms is very small relative to real world usage.
The 24mm PCE cannot be switched in orientation for tilt like the Canon can. You need a screw driver to do it just like the old Canon TS-E 24mm. This is a major draw back and besides that the Nikkor is not the same optical quality as the Canon 24mm TS-E. I think a better comparison for the Nikkon 70-300 might be the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. Do you mean the Nikkor f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED AF-S VR lens? But you can't be serious to compare this lens to the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. Look at reviews and see how soft the Nikkor is a full aperture opening compared to the Canon besides it is one stop less in the long end (just like the Canon 70-300). Is real world usage f/8 in you view?
-
you could apply that sensibility to every camera fanboy statement ::)
i prefer 'is my client happy, is my equipment choice having an impact on achieving good results , will that investment make me more money'
That is exactly what I mean.
I can sell a larger print for a higher amount and resolution helps here, it reduces the need to stitch and therefore saves me time,... I can save some images shot in tough contrast situation because of additional DR, some of these images will sell some day.
The difference of resolution between the Nikkor 24mm PCE and the Canon equivalent is irrelevant from that standpoint.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On my side I am tired about the negative comments about the D800 live view. I have found it far from perfect, but still more than good enough for all the applications I have thrown at it, including some low light landscape.
Right and on my side I'm getting tired about all the posts about DR where in fact I have shot landscape intensely for quite some time and now over 4 years with the 1Ds mkIII. And it has not been a problem to handle large DR scenes and in fact most scenes can be done from one RAW file. Live view also works well despite the resolution of the LCD and it allows DOF preview also which does become a little difficult in very low light.
There is no doubt that if you seriously underexpose a picture on the 1Ds mkIII and the D3X, the D3X will look better when adjusted. But for an optimally exposed capture on both cameras the difference is only important in a very small amount of situations where exposure blending would be better on both cameras anyway.
-
So you have that kind of information?
Do I need to be more clear?
Correct, but the DxO figures didn't tranlate in that much difference in the RAW files I looked at. And I did push shadows!
Well, I did see the value again and again. other shooters like Lloyd chambers did also.
My point was that reviewers didn't predict that and especially the success around video. So what do reviews predict now that we can expect to agree on in three years from now? Let's check back at that time and see how it went....
True, we will see in 3 years.
The 24mm PCE cannot be switched in orientation for tilt like the Canon can. You need a screw driver to do it just like the old Canon TS-E 24mm. This is a major draw back and besides that the Nikkor is not the same optical quality as the Canon 24mm TS-E.
Agreed on the mechanical limitation, but I have never found this to be really impacting in my usage of the 24mm PCE. I would prefer to be able to freely change the axis, but I can live without it.
Optically, the Canon is a bit better but the gap is small, the 24 PCE is a pretty recent lens also.
I think a better comparison for the Nikkon 70-300 might be the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. Do you mean the Nikkor f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED AF-S VR lens? But you can't be serious to compare this lens to the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. Look at reviews and see how soft the Nikkor is a full aperture opening compared to the Canon besides it is one stop less in the long end (just like the Canon 70-300). Is real world usage f/8 in you view?
Yes, I use a 70-200 f2.8 when I want to shoot wide open. I have had excellent results with the 70-300 f3.5-5.6 at f8+ and for me that is the whole point of these light lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do I need to be more clear?
no. it's very apparent. ::)
-
Do I need to be more clear?
In fact yes. You mention what irritates you and it irritates me that people use information in an argument that they can't reveal as it is classified ;) In my book this is a non argument.
Well, I did see the value again and again. other shooters like Lloyd chambers did also.
Well yes, and I have subscribed to his reviews but his style annoyed me so much that I stopped. I saw his examples and it was not even clear if the exposure were optimal. I'm sorry that I can't double check his exact works now since I don't have the subscription any longer. And will not renew it. If my experience as a serious landscape shooter dosn't count then fine, but in my experience his review was not a fair statement. Now with Lightroom 4 the situation is changed again quite a bit.
Agreed on the mechanical limitation, but I have never found this to be really impacting in my usage of the 24mm PCE. I would prefer to be able to freely change the axis, but I can live without it.
Really? You can't switch between landscape and portrait orientation and do the tilt. So don't you use tilt on your PC-E 24?
Yes, I use a 70-200 f2.8 when I want to shoot wide open. I have had excellent results with the 70-300 f3.5-5.6 at f8+ and for me that is the whole point of these light lenses.
So if you only use the 70-300 at f/8 it is better than fully open, but the Canon is sharp at f/4. It's your usage and that'd fine, but to compare lenses only at f/8 is certainly not fair to expensive lenses where you often pay for them being sharp even fully open. One of the things where the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is major improvement over the previous version (among other things). It is as sharp at f/2.8 as stopped down. At 200mm f/2.8 it is dead sharp and a thing I value when shooting shallow DOF scenes. This is e.g. flower shots and sports shooting.
Btw. I took a look at your Flickr pictures and some of them are nice :) However I did not see a lot of pictures where you would challenge DR. In fact I saw almost none that couldn't have been taken with a 1Ds mkIII from my experience (with optimal exposure, of course).
-
...
My point was that reviewers didn't predict that and especially the success around video. So what do reviews predict now that we can expect to agree on in three years from now? Let's check back at that time and see how it went....
...
Since when do reviewers ever make predictions about unit sales of a camera?
But I think the fact that the 5D2 would be so popular became evident where 6 months after it was released it was still flying off the shelves of stores. So if we were to check back around March 2013, we should have a better idea about whether the 5D3 is/was a hit or not.
-
Since when do reviewers ever make predictions about unit sales of a camera?
I didn't mean unit sales in that way, but more which cameras are predicted to be a success (and of course sales wise) and game changers.
Over the last 6 years or so I have seen 3 cameras that have been game changers. The original Canon 5D, Nikon D3 and 5D mkII. Maybe D800 will be a game changer, we will see, but the 5D mkIII might also be such a camera.
It was not the D3X, which did not even have video. It was basically a D3 with a good higher resolution sensor (and better DR). Canon had killed this category by the 5D mkII a few months before the D3X was launched.
-
Really? You can't switch between landscape and portrait orientation and do the tilt. So don't you use tilt on your PC-E 24?
I do indeed not use tilt and shift on the same axis. I find the usage of shift rare for landscape, already throught this way when I was shooting 4x5 in a scanning workflow.
On the other hand having the ability to tilt on one axis and shift lateraly on the other axis to flat stitch can sometimes be useful.
Btw. I took a look at your Flickr pictures and some of them are nice :) However I did not see a lot of pictures where you would challenge DR. In fact I saw almost none that couldn't have been taken with a 1Ds mkIII from my experience (with optimal exposure, of course).
These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7058/7146642185_b065e36f60_o.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7093/6892855382_2a7dbc7c3c_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How do you know that it [the Nikon D3X] sold well? I never saw statistics by camera manufacturer and model of their cameras, ...
Hans,
Since Bernard was simply disagreeing with shadowblade's claim that the D3X was a failure, a better question is how do you know that it was a failure? Surely your declared lack of publically available sales statistics makes the claim of "failure" as indefensible as the claim of "not a failure".
That said, it does seem very likely that the arrival of the 5D3 lead to the end of further development of subsequent models of $6000+ DSLR except for rugged professional high frame rate sports/PJ models, but the D3X seems to have done OK as a glorious "Wagnerian" last of its breed. One hint of its not being such a failure is the way that its retail price did not decline nearly as much as that of the 1Ds did in the face of the 5D3. Cannibalism is more common than jumping ship to a diferent lens systems, I suppose.
-
These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting image of the tree, Bernard.
I find rainforest scenes are typical of the high-contrast situations that benefit from the high DR capabilities of the latest Nikon DSLRs. I've got many examples taken with my Canon cameras of interesting, moss-covered roots of trees in the shade, that are unacceptably noisy as a result of my attempting to simultaneously capture the blue sky and clouds. In such situations one has to either completely blow out the sky, take multiple shots for merging to HDR, or use a Nikon, if the shade is not too dark.
-
These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:
And like wise from a single exposure using the 1Ds mkIII:
(http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/143302469/original.jpg)
-
And like wise from a single exposure using the 1Ds mkIII:
(image snipped)
An experienced landscape photographer will know that a an image taken in the middle of the day is almost certainly going to have a lot more DR to handle than one taken with the sun bisected by a (hazy) horizon.
Sometimes you can use every bit of dynamic range your sensor gives you:
(http://lightskyland.com/images/2402_1200.jpg)
-
And like wise from a single exposure using the 1Ds mkIII:
(http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/143302469/original.jpg)
Nice image but this is a fairly easy case... Heck, even my Kodak SLRn had no problem handling such scenes just before the sun went down.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice image but this is a fairly easy case... Heck, even my Kodak SLRn had no problem handling such scenes just before the sun went down.
Judge from the RAW file with no adjustments:
(http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/143303760/original.jpg)
-
An experienced landscape photographer will know that a an image taken in the middle of the day is almost certainly going to have a lot more DR to handle than one taken with the sun bisected by a (hazy) horizon.
Sometimes you can use every bit of dynamic range your sensor gives you:
Certainly DR can be larger than the one I showed, but don't underestimate the DR you need to not blow out the clouds in this picture. Also morning pictures at sunrise can need a lot of DR. I normally don't shoot in the middle of the day as I almost always don't find the light interesting for landscape shooting. And in fact for these pictures is not problem to exposure blend multiple exposures anyway. It's not something I would have sleepless nights over ;)
-
Judge from the RAW file with no adjustments:
Converted raw files have a curve applied to them by the raw converter.
This curves takes into account the characteristics of the sensor.
So we have here a strange circular logic where limited DR results in a default dark renditio of a gentle scene, requiring shadow lifting and giving the illusion of good DR... :-)
Jokes aside, I have done hundreds of similar scenes and those never worried me in terms of DR.
Ok, anyway, what matters is that you like the camera, you don't need to worry about what I think of it. Best of luck.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I do indeed not use tilt and shift on the same axis. I find the usage of shift rare for landscape, already throught this way when I was shooting 4x5 in a scanning workflow.
On the other hand having the ability to tilt on one axis and shift lateraly on the other axis to flat stitch can sometimes be useful.
These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:
Comparing the lens program from Canon and Nikon as was done to some degree during this discussion, there is one lens in the Nikon lens program that does not have an exact equivalent and that is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 lens. In the Canon program there are more lenses like the TS-E 17 and 24mm, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, 70-200 f/4L IS.
-
Comparing the lens program from Canon and Nikon as was done to some degree during this discussion, there is one lens in the Nikon lens program that does not have an exact equivalent and that is the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 lens. In the Canon program there are more lenses like the TS-E 17 and 24mm, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, 70-200 f/4L IS.
OK, glad you picked the brand that suits your needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice image but this is a fairly easy case... Heck, even my Kodak SLRn had no problem handling such scenes just before the sun went down.
I checked in Lightroom and the foreground had been lifted by 3 stops.
-
I didn't mean unit sales in that way, but more which cameras are predicted to be a success (and of course sales wise) and game changers.
Over the last 6 years or so I have seen 3 cameras that have been game changers. The original Canon 5D, Nikon D3 and 5D mkII. Maybe D800 will be a game changer, we will see, but the 5D mkIII might also be such a camera.
In which way was the D3 a game changer? That Nikon decided to enter the full frame market?
I think that you need to include one of the EVIL cameras, such as the NEX-7, in the above list.
-
Converted raw files have a curve applied to them by the raw converter.
This curves takes into account the characteristics of the sensor.
Yes, of course, and do you think it would look different from a D3X in default settings with the same exposure? No!
So we have here a strange circular logic where limited DR results in a default dark renditio of a gentle scene, requiring shadow lifting and giving the illusion of good DR... :-)
Jokes aside, I have done hundreds of similar scenes and those never worried me in terms of DR.
I'm not sure what the joke is? In fact the version I showed is one stop overexposed and only because of Lightroom 4 it could be recovered. One stop lover the small clouds were not overexposed which meant that the foreground would have to be lifted not 3 stops but 4 stops. In the exposure one stop higher that I showed first, these clouds could not be recovered in LR3 or LR4 PV2010 no matter how low the exposure slider was taken and recovery up! Canon DPP also could not recover this. LR4 could. So this just to show that it may be difficult to judge the DR needed from the final image :)
The default looks like this instead:
(http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/143315476/original.jpg)
The edit of this one looks like this
(http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/143315516/original.jpg)
-
Yes, of course, and do you think it would look different from a D3X in default settings with the same exposure? No!
Yes, I do.
I'm not sure what the joke is? In fact the version I showed is one stop overexposed and only because of Lightroom 4 it could be recovered. One stop lover the small clouds were not overexposed which meant that the foreground would have to be lifted not 3 stops but 4 stops. In the exposure one stop higher that I showed first, these clouds could not be recovered in LR3 or LR4 PV2010 no matter how low the exposure slider was taken and recovery up! Canon DPP also could not recover this. LR4 could. So this just to show that it may be difficult to judge the DR needed from the final image :)
Good point, there was no joke in fact.
I am sure LR4 2012 engine helps with these images.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I do.
That's not what I have seen from D3X under equal exposure situations. What would be different?
-
That's not what I have seen from D3X under equal exposure situations. What would be different?
The curve is different.
Anyway, let's stop here. You are obviously happy about the 1Ds3 and I don't quite understand why you care about my appreciation of the D3x/D800's DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It seems clear that Nikon should have released a D700x, but I disagree about the D3x being a failure.
It did sell well for many years, was a much superior camera compared to its main competitor, the 1Ds3, and simply redefined our expectations in terms of DR. While expensive it was competing performancewise with MF backs costing twice as much.
Besides, it served a purpose in clarifying to the market that Nikon is aiming, successfully, at delivering the highest level of performance in DSLRs. Want a good deal? Buy Canon or Sony. Want the best? Get a Nikon. Things get of course interesting when the D800 is both the highest performing camera and the better deal. :-)
In terms of system, the 17mm T/S, a very niche product, is probably the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do. For the rest we are talking about tiny differences with one brand topping the other in one direction or opposite. Nikon is rumored to release a 17mm T/S soon following the publication of a patent. Considering the overall domination they have in wide angle technology, there is no reason to think it will not be best in class.
Cheers ,
Bernard
Hilarious... yet more erroneous snipping at Canon.
Overall domination in wide angle technology?
Who are you kidding?
The Canon 17mm F4L TSE, 24mm TSE, 24mm F1.4L MKII are three of the sharpest tools in the 35mm wide angle shed. All three outperform their Nikon equivalents (where Nikon even has an equivalent).
The continual opportunistic snipes at Canon in your posts that are factually inaccurate and full of derogatory innuendo and sarcasm (I've called you up on them a few times) are growing seriously tiresome. Quoting Lloyd to back your snipes does nothing to add credibility. Lloyd has long been biased toward Nikon as anyone who reads his site can clearly surmise for themselves. I can point you to many other reviewers online who sway the other way - but so what, it proves nothing. Its the image you make that counts and not the tool in your hand.
If you just went on your way raving about the D800/D3x no one would mind - its the low ball snipes that are unnecessary and drag you down. You don't have to try and drag down another manufacturer to inflate your brand choice. Its poor form and does you a disservice.
-
Hilarious... yet more erroneous snipping at Canon.
Not at all, I am just describing the strategy of Nikon who is positioning themselves in the higher end segment. The D800/D4 should be plenty evidence of this.
If you just went on your way raving about the D800/D3x no one would mind - its the low ball snipes that are unnecessary and drag you down. You don't have to try and drag down another manufacturer to inflate your brand choice. Its poor form and does you a disservice.
I know you will not believe me, but I don't care about brands. I would be using a Canon camera if it were a superior tool for my applications. I did own several Canon camera in the past and have no particular issues with them.
I am sorry you perceive a comparison between the D3x and the 1ds3 as an attack on your brand of choice, but I am merely stating facts backed up by many other photographers. You seem to have a problem with the statement that the D3x is superior, but all facts point to this clear evidence. This is not about talking the 1ds3 down, it is about praising the D3x.
Just out of curiosity, do you also react negatively if someone claims that the 5DIII is superior to the 1ds3 or is that an acceptable statement to you?
I'll just react to one of your questions about the wide angle part. Talk to anyone with a bit of historical knowledge of the Canon vs Nikon strenghts, and you will get 99% of answers telling you that Nikon designs wides better and Canon teles better. That's what I mean by overall dominance. I have never written nor implied that Canon was unable to design/produce brilliant wide angle lenses. Typically the newer design is the better one except in some challenging domains like ultra wide zooms where Canon has been unable/unwilling to react to the 14-24 f2.8 for a few years.
I have clearly acknowledged the superiority of the Canon 24 mm T/S. I disagree about the 24mm f1.4 since the Nikon is factually superior (and yes, I own this lens). Regarding the 17mm T/S, there is clearly only one game in town today. If you need this super niche lens, then get a Canon body. This being said, when Nikon releases their own version, do you really believe that they would go through the trouble of designing a 17mm T/S lens and not manage to top their one and single only competitor? That is only common sense considering they proven track record in terms of wide angle design.
By the way, I had never taken the time to check out your portfolio, but you have some nice images there, congratulations. Besides, you are for sure very well traveled. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not at all, I am just describing the strategy of Nikon who is positioning themselves in the higher end segment. The D800/D4 should be plenty evidence of this.
C'mon you have to be kidding. Firstly the 1DX is positioned above the D4 (both in terms of price, pixels and quality) and the D800 is nothing more than Nikons answer to the 5D MK2 with more pixels. Its a prosumer camera at best. Nikon took a great (brilliant) sensor and slammed it in a horrible body IMO. The body is flimsy and an abomination in terms of ergonomics compared to a D4 so please don't try and sell me that its posited in the higher end segment. A D4X would be the case - a D800 isn't. (FYI - I have had and been using a D800E for the last week. I won't be keeping it as I personally can't live with the ergonomics, lack of real weather sealing etc. It just doesn't suit my needs and work. Although I do like the files it produces.)
I admire Nikon greatly for one-upping Canon's 5D MK2; which clearly dominated the market in terms of sheer volume of sales. Nikon needed to respond with something to compete and they very clearly have. Canon went the dot release for the MK3 and made a lot of people very happy and a lot more unhappy because there was no significant increase in resolution. They were different approaches. The net result is that Nikon will capture a large portion of Canons potential customers with the D800 and that is excellent work by them.
You seem to have a problem with the statement that the D3x is superior, but all facts point to this clear evidence. This is not about talking the 1ds3 down, it is about praising the D3x.
Yes I do - because its complete and utter BS. I have done my own extensive testing of the D3X (and I've owned a 1DS MK3 since release). There is no appreciable difference between hthe files in prints up to and including 40 x 60. Both are properly weather sealed and both are full Pro bodies - End of Story.
I disagree about the 24mm f1.4 since the Nikon is factually superior (and yes, I own this lens).
You misquote me. I was reffering to the MKII which is superior to the Nikon.
If you need this super niche lens,
There is nothing 'super niche' about a 17mm lens that provides you with movements. Its a wonderful tool for landscape and architectural. Neither are super niche.
Do you really believe that they would go through the trouble of designing a 17mm T/S lens and not manage to top their one and single only competitor?
To quote you - Perhaps Nikon is unable/unwilling to react.
Thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to review my portfolio and I have no desire to continue a debate on the merits of C v. N since its quite clear we agree to disagree on fundamentals.
-
OK, good luck with that.
As long as we are happy about the gear we use relative to our photographic needs, little else really matters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This discussion is getting a little heated. It's probably safer to derogate a photographer's wife or his religion than it is to criticize his camera of choice. :)
-
This discussion is getting a little heated. It's probably safer to derogate a photographer's wife or his religion than it is to criticize his camera of choice. :)
We just need to sit back a re-read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance! ;)
That contains all the answers to the right questions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We just need to sit back a re-read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance! ;)
That contains all the answers to the right questions.
Cheers,
Bernard
We agree after all. ;D
-
This discussion is getting a little heated. It's probably safer to derogate a photographer's wife or his religion than it is to criticize his camera of choice. :)
For me no. I'm quite agnostic to brands, but not to misinformation and wrong information as I see it. A little heated discussion is better than silence :)
-
For me no. I'm quite agnostic to brands, but not to misinformation and wrong information as I see it. A little heated discussion is better than silence :)
dear Hans and Bernard,
thank you for the beautiful YES-NO conversation.
Lets now talk about Windows vs Apple :)
-
dear Hans and Bernard,
thank you for the beautiful YES-NO conversation.
Lets now talk about Windows vs Apple :)
Haha, when I wrote the thing about being agnostic to brands I was just about to put into a parenthesis (except maybe Apple) :)
Btw. I hope you didn't my part as binary, since I actually came with evidence supporting my statements....
-
We have Michael's "review" of the 5d3 and as an owner of a 5D3 (and the 1Ds3 and 1D4) I would say he is correct. My experience with the 5D3 body has been positive. It is not much better for the kinds of landscape work I do than the 1Ds3. Event photography has the 1Ds3 in the camera bag as a backup. Here the 5D3 is far superior. The number of shots from my 5D3 that are sharp are greater than the 1D4 ever delivered in low light, low contrast event work. The 5D3 is even pretty good in fast sports action (racing motorcycles) where my percentage of in focus shots is greater than with the 1D4. The new HDR function is nice but it writes a final JPEG file rather than a RAW file. I get better results taking the RAW files and using PS.
What troubles me about the 5D3, and the as-of-yet unreleased 1D X, comes from a Canon rep commenting on the lack of USB-3. The claim was made that world-wide USB-3 use and computers that had these ports were far to low to justify adding it. Most photographers I know immediately started using USB-3 for vastly increased file handling speeds. It is the wrong measure to say that the installed consumer base for a product should be the basis for decisions for your top of the line products. The question they should address is how they can make their professional photographers more productive.
Stu
-
no real substance in that statement. i covert the nikon 45 tilt/shift as the canon is very average but the 24 and 90mm t-se's that i use the most i wouldn't swap for nikons inferior offerings, there are other areas like the long zooms where nikon falls short compared to canon, i would like nikons wide zoom too but that's not enough to make we swap.
Tim Parkin found in his testing that the 24nikon PCE was better than the new 24mmTS from Canon... but maybe a bad copy...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60589.0
"... I was mightily impressed with the Nikon D3X and the Nikon 24 tilt shift was substantially better than the Canon 24 TSEmk2 tilt shift that we had (which tallies with the copy I used to own but a colleague seems to have a sharp copy which I look forward to testing)..."
I have not found other face to face testing of these type of lenses
-
What troubles me about the 5D3, and the as-of-yet unreleased 1D X, comes from a Canon rep commenting on the lack of USB-3. The claim was made that world-wide USB-3 use and computers that had these ports were far to low to justify adding it. Most photographers I know immediately started using USB-3 for vastly increased file handling speeds. It is the wrong measure to say that the installed consumer base for a product should be the basis for decisions for your top of the line products. The question they should address is how they can make their professional photographers more productive.
Maybe the cameras themselves are not fast enough for USB 3.0 to be of benefit?
-
dear Hans and Bernard,
thank you for the beautiful YES-NO conversation.
Yes!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tim Parkin found in his testing that the 24nikon PCE was better than the new 24mmTS from Canon... but maybe a bad copy...
Oh superb bravery! You are not afraid of being called a Canon basher? :)
Even I didn't dare to question the superiority of its holliness 24mm TS the second.
But the real question is "did he try violently dunking both lenses in a lake filled with boiling acid?".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
the Nikon appears very good in the center if not superior to the canon, however if you take a non emotional fanboy look at the interactive lens tests on the-digital-picture.com at f5.6 shifted 12mm and 11mm the differences are obvious.
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens/Crop3/2009-06-29_13-20-57.jpg)
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-24mm-f-3.5D-ED-PC-E-Lens/Crop3/2010-02-26_09-56-46.jpg)
-
Maybe the cameras themselves are not fast enough for USB 3.0 to be of benefit?
The USB-2 / USB-3 is just a port with an associated driver. The USB-3 chip is just a plug in on the board. It is able to read and send files faster. If you have ever waited on your computer loading a file from a shoot using USB-2 you will know the lack of speed with USB-2. Canon is giving their latest and greatest (5D3 & 1D X) old technology. Even Intel is burning USB-3 on motherboards now. Anyone with a Nikon 800/800E that has used their USB-3 in a studio environment writing files to a computer that would like to comment on write speeds?
Again, I must agree with Michael's assessment. The 5D3 is just a refresh with an ability to finally focus and not much more (the HDR function is fun). I no longer have to slap on my 24-70/2.8 when the light gets low since the 5D3 now nails focus in low light with the 24-105/4, an attribute that I greatly appreciate. For a Canon owner with a pile of L lenses (all of my lenses are awesome) it is better than the older models and, for me, worth the upgrade.
Stu
-
the Nikon appears very good in the center if not superior to the canon, however if you take a non emotional fanboy look at the interactive lens tests on the-digital-picture.com at f5.6 shifted 12mm and 11mm the differences are obvious.
So it would seem that blunt statments about one lens being superior accross the board aren't that meaningful? ;)
I don't use the 24 T/S that much, but for landscape work, 95+% of the time I tilt less than 2 degrees and don't shift. Do these tests provide visibility about the relative performance in the case of moderate tilts?
My guess is that both lenses will end up being hard to distinguish in such applications based on the results above.
The Canon is obviously superior when large shift are needed, so it looks like it was optimized for architects.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i rarely tilt, if i do it's only by 1-2° max. i do often shift left/right for a widescreen FoV with a corresponding shift of the camera in the opposite direction if there is anything in the foreground. i see a fall of in quality towards the extreme edges of this expanded frame but it's acceptable and not that noticeable in print or on screen. i can't see the shifted corners of the nikon being acceptable (to me), no amount of fall-off sharpening is going to pull the detail in from what i can see in the bottom image.
Do these tests provide visibility about the relative performance in the case of moderate tilts?
no obviously not as they are not tilted, you could suppose the nikon is a stellar performer in this respect or you could do your own tests and come to the same conclusion.
-
i rarely tilt, if i do it's only by 1-2° max. i do often shift left/right for a widescreen FoV with a corresponding shift of the camera in the opposite direction if there is anything in the foreground. i see a fall of in quality towards the extreme edges of this expanded frame but it's acceptable and not that noticeable in print or on screen. i can't see the shifted corners of the nikon being acceptable (to me), no amount of fall-off sharpening is going to pull the detail in from what i can see in the bottom image.
Yep, you cannot really shift the Nikon more than 8mm. That's the key area where the Canon is clearly ahead.
no obviously not as they are not tilted, you could suppose the nikon is a stellar performer in this respect or you could do your own tests and come to the same conclusion.
I was wondering whether they had another set of data with the lenses tilted, but it seems it is not the case.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
so it looks like it was optimized for architects.
very apt, i know of an architect who is now a 'photographer' the equipment is cheap and easy to master it's just the photographers eye that appears to have little value ::)
-
So it would seem that blunt statments about one lens being superior accross the board aren't that meaningful
Same applies to cameras.
-
Same applies to cameras.
I couldn't have put it better.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The USB-2 / USB-3 is just a port with an associated driver. The USB-3 chip is just a plug in on the board. It is able to read and send files faster. If you have ever waited on your computer loading a file from a shoot using USB-2 you will know the lack of speed with USB-2. Canon is giving their latest and greatest (5D3 & 1D X) old technology. Even Intel is burning USB-3 on motherboards now. Anyone with a Nikon 800/800E that has used their USB-3 in a studio environment writing files to a computer that would like to comment on write speeds?
Again, I must agree with Michael's assessment. The 5D3 is just a refresh with an ability to finally focus and not much more (the HDR function is fun). I no longer have to slap on my 24-70/2.8 when the light gets low since the 5D3 now nails focus in low light with the 24-105/4, an attribute that I greatly appreciate. For a Canon owner with a pile of L lenses (all of my lenses are awesome) it is better than the older models and, for me, worth the upgrade.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that Canon is under-delivering in terms of the Camera, I'm not sure that this applies to USB 3.0.
USB 2.0 should deliver about 1.5 fps when shooting raw and if you're in a studio and shooting jpeg, you'll easily get 6fps.
I suspect that the decision to go USB 2.0/3.0 was made a long time ago, before USB 3.0 was available. I suspect that it was a calculated decision.
I also disagree with the 1DX being "old technology". In terms of interfaces, the 1DX brings with it a gigabit networking interface whereas the D4 only has 100Mbps. That plus the 1DX has a CPU dedicated to autofocus. I think judgement on the 1DX is best reserved until after it is available.
-
Whilst I agree with the sentiment that Canon is under-delivering in terms of the Camera, I'm not sure that this applies to USB 3.0.
USB 2.0 should deliver about 1.5 fps when shooting raw and if you're in a studio and shooting jpeg, you'll easily get 6fps.
I suspect that the decision to go USB 2.0/3.0 was made a long time ago, before USB 3.0 was available. I suspect that it was a calculated decision.
I also disagree with the 1DX being "old technology". In terms of interfaces, the 1DX brings with it a gigabit networking interface whereas the D4 only has 100Mbps. That plus the 1DX has a CPU dedicated to autofocus. I think judgement on the 1DX is best reserved until after it is available.
I shoot RAW, in and out of the studio. My 1D4 and my 5D3 give underwhelming performance for writing files via USB-2. I "suspect" we will never know the reason for the choice of USB-2 over USB-3. All I know is that Nikon offers it. USB-3 is a technology that was available over a year before the announcement of the 1D X back in November. It is a reliable method of delivering increased productivity. Gigabit networking requires packet switching and data verification. By the time you calculate this in Gigabit pass-through will be about the same as USB-3 which just dumps the file. However, USB-3 is much easier to set up and control, especially in a busy studio environment, than Gigabit networking is.
Please note that I did not condemn the 1D X as "old technology". I referred only to restricting it to USB-2. The 1D X may well appeal to sports shooters but event shooters will probably avoid it and stay with the 5D3. It is a lot of money for a camera that has been positioned by the manufacturer as a unification of the 1Ds3 and 1D4 that comes with less resolution than the 1Ds3. We will find out shortly what the files from the 1D X are like. That will be a major purchasing factor rather than USB-2 or 3.
-
In which way was the D3 a game changer? That Nikon decided to enter the full frame market?
I think that you need to include one of the EVIL cameras, such as the NEX-7, in the above list.
Hi I am a Canon user but not any brands' fanboy. The D3 is a game changer because it gave Canon a push in all sort of ways. Its superb high ISO performance and its price as a FF high speed pro body.
-
C'mon you have to be kidding. Firstly the 1DX is positioned above the D4 (both in terms of price, pixels and quality) and the D800 is nothing more than Nikons answer to the 5D MK2 with more pixels. Its a prosumer camera at best. Nikon took a great (brilliant) sensor and slammed it in a horrible body IMO. The body is flimsy and an abomination in terms of ergonomics compared to a D4 so please don't try and sell me that its posited in the higher end segment. A D4X would be the case - a D800 isn't. (FYI - I have had and been using a D800E for the last week. I won't be keeping it as I personally can't live with the ergonomics, lack of real weather sealing etc. It just doesn't suit my needs and work. Although I do like the files it produces.)
I admire Nikon greatly for one-upping Canon's 5D MK2; which clearly dominated the market in terms of sheer volume of sales. Nikon needed to respond with something to compete and they very clearly have. Canon went the dot release for the MK3 and made a lot of people very happy and a lot more unhappy because there was no significant increase in resolution. They were different approaches. The net result is that Nikon will capture a large portion of Canons potential customers with the D800 and that is excellent work by them.
Yes I do - because its complete and utter BS. I have done my own extensive testing of the D3X (and I've owned a 1DS MK3 since release). There is no appreciable difference between hthe files in prints up to and including 40 x 60. Both are properly weather sealed and both are full Pro bodies - End of Story.
You misquote me. I was reffering to the MKII which is superior to the Nikon.
There is nothing 'super niche' about a 17mm lens that provides you with movements. Its a wonderful tool for landscape and architectural. Neither are super niche.
To quote you - Perhaps Nikon is unable/unwilling to react.
Thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to review my portfolio and I have no desire to continue a debate on the merits of C v. N since its quite clear we agree to disagree on fundamentals.
Hi Josh. great reply. I am also a 1Ds Mark III user and now I have the 5D Mark III. somehow I think the 5D Mark III is not answering to landscape and architecture shooters and hopefully Canon is working on something which will go head to head with D800E. :)
-
Hi Josh. great reply. I am also a 1Ds Mark III user and now I have the 5D Mark III. somehow I think the 5D Mark III is not answering to landscape and architecture shooters and hopefully Canon is working on something which will go head to head with D800E. :)
I agree. My experience with the 5D3 after shooting the 1Ds3 extensively for years is that the 5D3 is a better camera for general purpose photography with better color & files that seems to me to be easier to work with in LR. High ISO is pretty good as well up to 6400. Speed is good enough for high school sports. Beyond that the 1D X will clearly excel. I've used the 5D3 for landscape work with great results, certainly as good as I ever got with the 1Ds3. The 5D3 probably, as Michael noted, cannot be touted as a game changer but the overall improvements are more than incremental. I would hesitate to say that it will lose sales to the D800/E since it will satisfy so many photographer's quite varied needs.
I hope for a larger resolution, pro body camera to actually replace the 1Ds3. It seems to me that the pro Canon division is spread pretty thin with the upcoming 1D C. Others have speculated that there might be a late 4th quarter camera that might be a leading edge, pro body 1Ds3 "replacement". I would pick one up if that was produced.
Stu
-
Great collective logic...
(1Ds3 = D3x) < 5DIII < D800E = D3x. :)
Assuming that owners of a given brand are honnest about the successive generatios of cameras, we can assume that the 2 statments are pretty accurate:
1Ds3 < 5DIII
D800E = D3x
What does that tell us about the relationship btwn 1Ds3 and D3x?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
somehow I think the 5D Mark III is not answering to landscape and architecture shooters
Precisely - I said something along the same lines right at the start of the thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=66497.msg525071#msg525071
Oh - and as an aside, I'm really sick of this recent "all that matters is low ISO DR, without which any sensor is 'mediocre'" nonsense. Has everyone suddenly become a "difficult light" landscape shooter?
As a camera, the D800 leaves me absolutely clay cold - it's an utterly predictable and uninspired evolution of what's gone before - whereas the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been actually interested in enough to want one.
My standards and expectations are as high in the genres I shoot as anyone else's in their genre of choice, and the D800 is a very poor second place to the 5D Mk III in the great scheme of things for me.
-
When it comes to the DR/shadow recovery "Holy Grail"...
I can do this quite easily with my crappy Canon 7D:
(http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg)
to
(http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg)
And
(http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg)
(Deliberately underexplosed by three stops)
to
(http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/2195_recovery.jpg)
(Recovered to four stops from the original).
It's not as miraculously hard as some people make it out to be, even with these heinously underperforming Canon sensors...
And yes, they look fine viewed big/would look fine printed (not that I would), too, and they've been resized by the forum software here too.
-
As a camera, the D800 leaves me absolutely clay cold - it's an utterly predictable and uninspired evolution of what's gone before - whereas the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been actually interested in enough to want one.
My standards and expectations are as high in the genres I shoot as anyone else's in their genre of choice, and the D800 is a very poor second place to the 5D Mk III in the great scheme of things for me.
I fully understand that the D800 has one major drawback for Canon shooters, it doesn't get along well with the excellent Canon lenses. It would also be foolish to try to convince anyone to switch brands at this point in time.
This being said, and out of curiosity, what are the elements that get you excited about the 5D3 and bored about the D800?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great collective logic...
(1Ds3 = D3x) < 5DIII < D800E = D3x. :)
Assuming that owners of a given brand are honnest about the successive generatios of cameras, we can assume that the 2 statments are pretty accurate:
1Ds3 < 5DIII
D800E = D3x
What does that tell us about the relationship btwn 1Ds3 and D3x?
If D800E = D3X and D3X = 1Ds mkIII then D800 = 1Ds mkIII.
-
D800 = 1Ds mkIII.
Is that your assessment?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is that your assessment?
Cheers,
Bernard
D3X = D800E is that you assessment?
-
D3X = D800E is that you assessment?
Yes, in terms of usable DR it is.
As always, I find a perfect match between my experience shooting various subjects and the DxO Mark results.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, in terms of usable DR it is.
As always, I find a perfect match between my experience shooting various subjects and the DxO Mark results.
Was your transitive logic mentioned earlier only related to DR? I didn't see that qualification.
-
Was your transitive logic mentioned earlier only related to DR? I didn't see that qualification.
My point was the apparent lack of logic, as you understood.
It was not meant to be only about DR, but we need to keep things simple and can't spend too much time on this, right?
One thing is clear, I was looking at landscape as the target application.
Let's start by agreeing about DR, then we can expand the debate to other topics? It is always better to agree on something reasonable first. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I fully understand that the D800 has one major drawback for Canon shooters, it doesn't get along well with the excellent Canon lenses.
Indeed. The ability to use my Canon lenses was the biggest selling point that the 5D3 had for me. Based on what I've read and seen I would certainly advise the D800 to anyone who didn't already own some lenses.
-
As a camera, the D800 leaves me absolutely clay cold - it's an utterly predictable and uninspired evolution of what's gone before - whereas the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been actually interested in enough to want one.
My standards and expectations are as high in the genres I shoot as anyone else's in their genre of choice, and the D800 is a very poor second place to the 5D Mk III in the great scheme of things for me.
As a Canon shooter interested in both but who hasn't actually used either camera I'm curious--is this based on specifications and research or hands-on experience? Sorry if this has already been answered but I've read so much about these cameras recently it's hard to keep straight who said what.
-
"What does that tell us about the relationship btwn 1Ds3 and D3x?"
Bernard, I respect your opinions which I consider grounded in fact but I fear this statement was issued in haste. I don't think there would be much difference when you print with exhaustive effort from files from either camera. It is, after all, more important to me to describe the geometry of our factories, buildings that rise from stone or cement blocks, houses compressed within the hard flanks of sorrow and hope, the calm of a summer sunset, our nostalgia for propeller airplanes and steam locomotives, ships with hawsers loosened sailing into darkness lit lit like cities on holidays...what is immortal to photography. All of our cameras will do.
Stu
-
Got it. :'(
Another review, assume you have seen but just in case you have not:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/5D-MkIII/first-impressions-review/
;)
-
"What does that tell us about the relationship btwn 1Ds3 and D3x?"
Bernard, I respect your opinions which I consider grounded in fact but I fear this statement was issued in haste. I don't think there would be much difference when you print with exhaustive effort from files from either camera. It is, after all, more important to me to describe the geometry of our factories, buildings that rise from stone or cement blocks, houses compressed within the hard flanks of sorrow and hope, the calm of a summer sunset, our nostalgia for propeller airplanes and steam locomotives, ships with hawsers loosened sailing into darkness lit lit like cities on holidays...what is immortal to photography. All of our cameras will do.
Stu
The 1Ds3 is an excellent camera that has been enabling talented photographers to achieve their vision. We all agree with this, we all agree it is themmost important aspect.
Now, is it relevant or meaningful to discuss camera performance? As far as I am concerned, this topic ranks very low in my list of points of interest.
But if we do spend a few minutes discussing this, in the obvious context described above, I'd rather do it with facts, coherence and logic being part of one's discussion toolkit. That's the engineer speaking here more than the photographer. When you do this, you reach the conclusion writen above.
Having worked for many years with the excellent, but technically inferioir SLRn/D2x, I totally understand the position some of you are in. The D2x was far behind the 1Ds/1DsII in terms of high ISOs and a bit behind at low ISO, but still allowed me to achieve most of the results I was trying to achieve at lower ISOs. I took part back then to some heated discussions with some Canon shooters who were unable to understand the difference btwn good enough and better.
I could feel a huge disconnect btwn my positive experience as a phoographer using the D2x vs the doomsday discussions about how far behind it was lagging. If you bother checking DxOmark data, you will see that the gap Between the 1Ds2 and D2x is in fact smaller than the gap btwn the D3x and the 1Ds3. The D800 takes this a bit further, but the breakhrough in terms of image quality was clearly the D3x.
So again, I have been there, I am not questioning the abilities of the 1Ds3 as an excellent phtographic tool. I am only focusing a tiny amount of time on the technical aspects of these cameras and proposing that we accept to acknowledge these facts.
Agreeing with the excellence if the D800 senor but disagreeing that the D3x was already similarly ahead 3 years ago is simply not coherent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...
Oh - and as an aside, I'm really sick of this recent "all that matters is low ISO DR, without which any sensor is 'mediocre'" nonsense. Has everyone suddenly become a "difficult light" landscape shooter?
...
That argument has a ring to it like the various high ISO arguments in the past. However please note that this is a website dedicated to landscape photography and that some of the best photography does come with difficult light so if there was to be a locus of discussion about the need for low ISO DR then this website would be it.
What is of more concern to myself is that Nikon (Sony) have managed to evolve the sensor in a way that has delivered a very noticeable and appreciable performance improvement whereas Canon has not. The sensor in the 5D3 is a little bit better than that in the 5D2 but still suffers from problems that have plagued 5D2 shooters - namely banding and noise.
-
That argument has a ring to it like the various high ISO arguments in the past. However please note that this is a website dedicated to landscape photography and that some of the best photography does come with difficult light so if there was to be a locus of discussion about the need for low ISO DR then this website would be it.
What is of more concern to myself is that Nikon (Sony) have managed to evolve the sensor in a way that has delivered a very noticeable and appreciable performance improvement whereas Canon has not. The sensor in the 5D3 is a little bit better than that in the 5D2 but still suffers from problems that have plagued 5D2 shooters - namely banding and noise.
Have you seen the noise and banding on the 5D mkII yourself? As you probably know I have the 1Ds mkIII and have now been shooting landscapes and many other things with this camera for over 4 years. My judgement of the IQ that comes out of this camera is that if you underexpose (for whatever reason) the IQ will suffer. I never had banding but noise certainly comes up lifting exposure several stops. I also got some RAW files from friends who shoot 5D mkII because of all the banding talk I was curious to see how bad this was and I couldn't get banding on any of these RAW files!! Yes, I have seen examples on forums, but when I got RAW files from them, they always had turned color noise reduction down to zero (from the default in Lightroom or ACR) and pushed exposure by 4 stops or more. And yes, I could in some cases see banding although it was never as bad when I developed the RAW files in Lightroom. I always use the default color noise reduction in Lightroom and never saw any reduction in details doing so.
So what does this mean? Is there banding or not on the 5D mkII sensor? I would say that in the real pictures I saw from the camera I couldn't see any issue with even extreme shadow lifting. Does it have it's limits just like the 1Ds mkIII? For sure. As an example when you in landscape shots have the sun in the picture and you need to preserve the highlights in clouds directly lit by the sun you need to either do exposure blending or pick a RAW file that is exposed for the highlights without clipping (or light clipping that LR4 can recover). This means a severely underexposed landscape where you may need to lift shadows/midtones by many stops. In that case there will be some situations where the RAW file from the Canon will not be good enough and the file from the D3X or D800 may be good enough.
So how important is this? As a serious landscape shooter I have had such situations and I always bracket with at least 5 pictures with typically 1 stop between them. This allows me to pick the optimal RAW file if this will work in one shot. If not then I can exposure blend as I will always take these shots on a tripod. So for landscape photographers I will argue that having a larger DR than the Canon sensors can give you is a nice to have but far from a requirement for serious landscape photography. I have not had the chance to test either the D3X or the D800 at this point and compared such situations to judge for myself how important I would rate this.
In the last 3 years since the D3X came with a better sensor especially with DR at low ISO, the software we have to handle large DR scenes have been really improved. There are now a number of applications for HDR exposure blending. Photomatix have added exposure blending to their HDR/tone mapping which gives further options for those who do not like the older tone mapping look. Also Photoshop have 32bit HDR files and as of Lightroom 4 RC2 these files are now supported in Lightroom. In addition Lightroom 4 and ACR 7 added features to do proper shadow lifting (also in the brush and grad filters) where fill light was never really very good. Does this mean that the Exmor sensor is kind of redundant for a Canon shooter? It really depends on what you shoot and how often you get into the border area where the Exmor sensor can salvage your shot where the Canon could not. It's hard for me to judge where exactly that would be. For my own landscape photography I have really not seen the sensor in the 1Ds mkIII as a real limitation. But would certainly welcome any improvements as always and at the moment there is no doubt that in terms of DR and shadow noise at low ISO the Canon sensors are trailing the Sony Exmor sensors. What I'm missing in all these discussions are real examples of where the difference that matters is. In principle as I do landscape photography as a business I could buy whatever equipment I want. I did look at the D3X when it came out and have reviewed all available comparable RAW files from Imaging Resource and Dpreview and I could see a little better shadow noise performance at extreme shadow lifting. The overall IQ was very similar so changing brands from the 1Ds mkIII to a D3X made very little sense. I did also look at the Pentax 645D and found that the pixel level quality was very similar to the 1Ds mkIII which would allow me to print bigger (I tried one on one of my workshops). I never print bigger than my Epson 3880 can print so this made little sense also and the 1Ds mkIII is a much better general purpose camera than the Pentax, so why add the Pentax? If I made very big prints I might have done it, but then the doubling in resolution is on the edge of what would make sense (and really make a difference). I think you would need 4x the pixels to really make a difference. I have no doubt that the 3x increase in pixels for the D700/D3 shooters to the D800 will really be seen in large prints. I have had many Nikon shooters on my workshops using D700 and D3 and none of them have mentioned that they were missing pixels! I even suggested to one of them to get a D3X and he was quite lukewarm to this camera (even having a large format HP printer), but he has now bought the D800E.
-
The 1Ds3 is an excellent camera that has been enabling talented photographers to achieve their vision. We all agree with this, we all agree it is themmost important aspect.
Now, is it relevant or meaningful to discuss camera performance? As far as I am concerned, this topic ranks very low in my list of points of interest.
But if we do spend a few minutes discussing this, in the obvious context described above, I'd rather do it with facts, coherence and logic being part of one's discussion toolkit. That's the engineer speaking here more than the photographer. When you do this, you reach the conclusion writen above.
Having worked for many years with the excellent, but technically inferioir SLRn/D2x, I totally understand the position some of you are in. The D2x was far behind the 1Ds/1DsII in terms of high ISOs and a bit behind at low ISO, but still allowed me to achieve most of the results I was trying to achieve at lower ISOs. I took part back then to some heated discussions with some Canon shooters who were unable to understand the difference btwn good enough and better.
I could feel a huge disconnect btwn my positive experience as a phoographer using the D2x vs the doomsday discussions about how far behind it was lagging. If you bother checking DxOmark data, you will see that the gap Between the 1Ds2 and D2x is in fact smaller than the gap btwn the D3x and the 1Ds3. The D800 takes this a bit further, but the breakhrough in terms of image quality was clearly the D3x.
So again, I have been there, I am not questioning the abilities of the 1Ds3 as an excellent phtographic tool. I am only focusing a tiny amount of time on the technical aspects of these cameras and proposing that we accept to acknowledge these facts.
Agreeing with the excellence if the D800 senor but disagreeing that the D3x was already similarly ahead 3 years ago is simply not coherent.
Well, now you are not talking like an engineer :) Your comparison of the D2X to the 1Ds mkII was not only to a sensor with a marginally larger resolution but also from a crop camera to a full frame sensor. But maybe you argued that the sensor area didn't matter at the time? When comparing 1Ds mkIII with the D3X we are comparing two full frame cameras with almost identical resolution but wiht the low ISO DR advantage to the D3X. See my other post on this.
-
"As a camera, the D800 leaves me absolutely clay cold"
that's how it should be with all photographic equipment, that is unless you are a measurebator or your ego is boosted by affirmation of your vanity purchases by your peer group via electronic media .
images should stir the soul and imagination not cameras.
::)
-
Well, now you are not talking like an engineer :) Your comparison of the D2X to the 1Ds mkII was not only to a sensor with a marginally larger resolution but also from a crop camera to a full frame sensor. But maybe you argued that the sensor area didn't matter at the time? When comparing 1Ds mkIII with the D3X we are comparing two full frame cameras with almost identical resolution but wiht the low ISO DR advantage to the D3X. See my other post on this.
True, the 1DsII had also higher resolution.
As far as sensor area goes, I still think the smallest sensor offering the resolution/DR needed for a given application is the best one for landscape since the system relying on it will provide more DoF everything else being equal.
You can of course by-pass this basic situation with DoF stacking or T/S lenses in some cases.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as sensor area goes, I still think the smallest sensor offering the resolution/DR needed for a given application is the best one for landscape since the system relying on it will provide more DoF everything else being equal.
Hi Bernard,
But everything else is not equal. The reason that the physically smaller sensor array provides more DOF, is because of the shorter focal length used, not due to the size of the sensor array. Given the smaller magnification factor of the projected image, it indeed helps to have a denser sampling of that projected image, i.e. a smaller sensel pitch, and/or a lot of pixels which reduces the required output magnification.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bernard,
But everything else is not equal. The reason that the physically smaller sensor array provides more DOF, is because of the shorter focal length used, not due to the size of the sensor array. Given the smaller magnification factor of the projected image, it indeed helps to have a denser sampling of that projected image, i.e. a smaller sensel pitch, and/or a lot of pixels which reduces the required output magnification.
I meant at equal framing, which does indeed imply a shorter focal lenght.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have you seen the noise and banding on the 5D mkII yourself?
Yes, I have.
Yes, I have seen examples on forums, but when I got RAW files from them, they always had turned color noise reduction down to zero (from the default in Lightroom or ACR) and pushed exposure by 4 stops or more. And yes, I could in some cases see banding although it was never as bad when I developed the RAW files in Lightroom.
You don't need to push the exposure by 4 stops to see it. I'll see if I can create or have a sample image that I can send to you to demonstrate. ... sometime later ... in the images that quickly come to the fore, I've had to apply an exposure increment of +3 in LR. In actual fact, I'd consider them to be underexposed. But I'm sure I've seen this problem without having to do that.
So how important is this? As a serious landscape shooter I have had such situations and I always bracket with at least 5 pictures with typically 1 stop between them. This allows me to pick the optimal RAW file if this will work in one shot. If not then I can exposure blend as I will always take these shots on a tripod.
Where possible, I use a similar technique.
So for landscape photographers I will argue that having a larger DR than the Canon sensors can give you is a nice to have but far from a requirement for serious landscape photography. I have not had the chance to test either the D3X or the D800 at this point and compared such situations to judge for myself how important I would rate this.
Whilst I don't disagree with that, what I find to be almost offensive on Canon's part is to dish up almost exactly the same sensor 3 years later as if they didn't consider it needed any improvement. If the D800 didn't exist, or performed largely the same as the D700, then I'd be less upset with what Canon is offering and I think this is likely to resonate with many others out there.
-
You don't need to push the exposure by 4 stops to see it. I'll see if I can create or have a sample image that I can send to you to demonstrate. ... sometime later ... in the images that quickly come to the fore, I've had to apply an exposure increment of +3 in LR. In actual fact, I'd consider them to be underexposed. But I'm sure I've seen this problem without having to do that.
In theory there shouldn't be a difference pushing an underexposed picture by 4 stops or part of a picture optimally exposed by 4 stops. You are welcome to send me a couple of RAW files to analyze :)
Where possible, I use a similar technique.
When I said always I meant in such situations and not always for any landscape shots.
Whilst I don't disagree with that, what I find to be almost offensive on Canon's part is to dish up almost exactly the same sensor 3 years later as if they didn't consider it needed any improvement. If the D800 didn't exist, or performed largely the same as the D700, then I'd be less upset with what Canon is offering and I think this is likely to resonate with many others out there.
That's not entirely correct. The improvements are 1/3 to 0.5 stop improvement in SNR from ISO 100 and up and especially improved for high ISO's and the same for DR. I have attached the DxO graphs.
Could Canon have improved also low ISO performance vastly at the same time? I don't (of course) know what's behind their decisions and this was not one of them. Had that been the case it would have been a killer camera for general purpose photography. It seems to me that Canon have listened to the major complaints about the mkII and solved almost all the issues. The banding is not one I have seen as a serious issue, but also I didn't have a 5D mkII. Maybe there are very good reasons that they didn't take this step this time despite all the shadow lifting threads on various forums. It's funny that I don't remember any of these until the D7000 came around. I don't remember the D3X causing such threads.
-
True, the 1DsII had also higher resolution.
The 1Ds mkII vastly batter in SNR and DR compared to D2Xs. See attached DxO graphs on a pixel level. The 1Ds mkII is quite good even compared to the D3X on a pixel for SNR. For DR it looses.
As far as sensor area goes, I still think the smallest sensor offering the resolution/DR needed for a given application is the best one for landscape since the system relying on it will provide more DoF everything else being equal.
You can of course by-pass this basic situation with DoF stacking or T/S lenses in some cases.
So you are missing the old D2X? :) Seriously I prefer the larger sensors giving more resolution and better MTF. DOF can be an issue. DOF stacking is not without it's problems. T/S lenses are fine too.
-
The 1Ds mkII vastly batter in SNR and DR compared to D2Xs. See attached DxO graphs on a pixel level. The 1Ds mkII is quite good even compared to the D3X on a pixel for SNR. For DR it looses.
Yes, this is exactly my point.
It is vastly better, yet I managed to get very good results with the D2x.
But the truth is that I was selecting my work based on the limitations of the camera I was using back then.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't remember the D3X causing such threads.
Possibly because of:
1. The price gap that caused many top reviewers not to pay too much attention,
2. A widespread feeling that the 5DII had the right form factor for a landscape camera compared to the 1ds3/D3x monsters,
3. The fact that DxOMark had a lot less credibility back then,
...
The lower price of the D800 caused many more people to get interested and get in touch with the camera following the widespread success of the D7000's sensor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As a camera, the D800 leaves me absolutely clay cold - it's an utterly predictable and uninspired evolution of what's gone before - whereas the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been actually interested in enough to want one.
My standards and expectations are as high in the genres I shoot as anyone else's in their genre of choice, and the D800 is a very poor second place to the 5D Mk III in the great scheme of things for me.
I don't get it. You've used a D800 and you don't like it? What is the "great scheme" of things you refer to?
-
Could Canon have improved also low ISO performance vastly at the same time? I don't (of course) know what's behind their decisions and this was not one of them. Had that been the case it would have been a killer camera for general purpose photography. It seems to me that Canon have listened to the major complaints about the mkII and solved almost all the issues. The banding is not one I have seen as a serious issue, but also I didn't have a 5D mkII.
Personally, I'm curious as to what the sensor in the 1DX will deliver. Will it be the same as the 5DIII or different? And if it is different, just how different? Otherwise, I agree - Canon have listened to people and addressed the primary complaints of the 5D2 - focus and body - and the D800/E has caught them flat footed, like the 5D2 did with Nikon and the D700.
Maybe there are very good reasons that they didn't take this step this time despite all the shadow lifting threads on various forums. It's funny that I don't remember any of these until the D7000 came around. I don't remember the D3X causing such threads.
I've seen threads mentioning the banding problem in various places, but by and large photographers have just worked in a way that it wasn't a problem after they became aware of it.
-
Personally, I'm curious as to what the sensor in the 1DX will deliver. Will it be the same as the 5DIII or different? And if it is different, just how different? Otherwise, I agree - Canon have listened to people and addressed the primary complaints of the 5D2 - focus and body - and the D800/E has caught them flat footed, like the 5D2 did with Nikon and the D700.
But as mentioned the sensor was significantly improved for 5D mkIII, just not much for low ISO. I see this surprise that Canon should have gotten by the arrival of the D800 and I don't believe this for one second. I think the engineers and designers in Canon were very well aware of what Nikon was doing and vice verca. I think what Canon did here was a conscious decision weighing the pros and cons and what they gathered from their market research and also whatever engineering and manufacturing constraints they might have.
I've seen threads mentioning the banding problem in various places, but by and large photographers have just worked in a way that it wasn't a problem after they became aware of it.
Well, certainly you could provoke banding and lots of noise, but my point is that they were made for the sake of it and not because it really mattered for real photography. There is a limit for any sensor and you need to have methods for dealing with that. The importance of these limits depend on what you photograph, your style and the requirements you (or clients) put on the final work.
-
Sounds plausible Canon did know about the D800. What is interesting is that both camera makers changed radically the direction, I'd say the 5D3 is the successor to the D700 and the D800 is the successor to the 5D2.
Speaking for myself, it was rather easy to make a switch from the 5d2:
1) if I was missing an action camera I hadn't bought the 5D2 in the first place
2) having had a 5D2 there was not much justifying the new higher price tag for the 5D3 in comparison to the competition
3) no matter the sensor improvements in the 5D3, apart from very high ISO the D800 sensor is better in every respect, in fact I'd like to have even more DR
4) For my use the only lens I miss was the 85mm 1.2 II L, but the 70-200L 2.8 IS was the first generation etc.
No doubt, Canon is doing fine with the 5D3, it is a good solid workhorse. However, I fully understand it has caught less attention with its rather iterated improvements.
But as mentioned the sensor was significantly improved for 5D mkIII, just not much for low ISO. I see this surprise that Canon should have gotten by the arrival of the D800 and I don't believe this for one second. I think the engineers and designers in Canon were very well aware of what Nikon was doing and vice verca. I think what Canon did here was a conscious decision weighing the pros and cons and what they gathered from their market research and also whatever engineering and manufacturing constraints they might have.
-
I see this surprise that Canon should have gotten by the arrival of the D800 and I don't believe this for one second.
Agreed: the Sony-Nikon advantage in measured dynamic range at a given pixel size with their 14-bit column-parallel on-sensor ADC was known since the D3X was released and confirmed by the per pixel performance of the D7000 (*) . So there is no way that Canon was greatly surprised by the D800's capabilities.
I think what Canon did here was a conscious decision weighing the pros and cons and what they gathered from their market research and also whatever engineering and manufacturing constraints they might have.
Of course: with engineering constraints and such included, anything else would be gross incompetence. What you seem to be dancing around is the engineering constraint that Canon cannot get as much dynamic range (real dynamic range, at base ISO speed) from its sensors with its older off-sensor ADC approach as Sony and Nikon can with the newer 14-bit on-sensor ADC approach, now spreading through the industry. This disparity means for one thing that if Canon had used its current sensor technology in a sensor of about 36MP or more in 35mm format (pixels about 7D sized or a bit bigger), its performace at low to moderate ISO speeds would have shown a distinct disadvantage compared to what Canon could easily predict was coming from Nikon and Sony. So Canon had good reasons to avoid that unfavorable comparison, and instead to design its new sensors to make the most of Canon's strengths, like low light, high shutter speed, high frame rate, fast auto-focus photography, and DSLR video.
So what you phrase as a "choice" seems to be very much constrained by a current tecnnological disadvantage in some aspects of sensor performance.
(*) The clear and substantial measured difference in dynamic range cannot be refuted by just showing examples of fairly good dynamic range in Canon sensors, without direct comparisons to the D3X or D800 performance on the same or closely comparable scenes.
-
So there is no way that Canon was greatly surprised by the D800's capabilities.Of course: with engineering constraints and such included, anything else would be gross incompetence. What you seem to be dancing around is the engineering constraint that Canon cannot get as much dynamic range (real dynamic range, at base ISO speed) from its sensors with its older off-sensor ADC approach as Sony and Nikon can with the newer 14-bit on-sensor ADC approach, now spreading through the industry. This disparity means for one thing that if Canon had used its current sensor technology in a sensor of about 36MP or more in 35mm format (pixels about 7D sized or a bit bigger), its performace at low to moderate ISO speeds would have shown a distinct disadvantage compared to what Canon could easily predict was coming from Nikon and Sony. So Canon had good reasons to avoid that unfavorable comparison, and instead to design its new sensors to make the most of Canon's strengths, like low light, high shutter speed, high frame rate, fast auto-focus photography, and DSLR video.
So what you phrase as a "choice" seems to be very much constrained by a current tecnnological disadvantage in some aspects of sensor performance.
Assuming Canon could not build a sensor (in time with resources available) with similar or better DR at low ISO this seems correct from a technical standpoint. The other explanation is that Canon determined that the 22MP with the characteristics of the 5D mkIII was the product they wanted to build. They put in a sensor that was improved as mentioned, except for low ISO DR. Could they have built a 22MP sensor with these characteristics and also with the higher DR? Or did Canon not think this was important? Was it a product management or an engineering or cost decision? I think we have no clue. I can easily imagine the engineers saying they could build it all, but that product managers would not risk having so many new areas in a single camera. The other explanation would be that Canon has a new sensor technology under development that will significantly raise the bar and be better than the Exmor sensors, but that they could not make this ready for the 5D mkIII (or 1DX). If this is the case then why make a "me too" sensor? Again speculations. In time we will all be very wise :)
(*) The clear and substantial measured difference in dynamic range cannot be refuted by just showing examples of fairly good dynamic range in Canon sensors, without direct comparisons to the D3X or D800 performance on the same or closely comparable scenes.
Basically I agree. For the individual photographer the value of an Exmor sensor over a Canon sensor would be possible to determine by having both cameras and try them out in the variety of photographic situations this photographer will be using such cameras. It's not something that can be determined by seeing examples or looking at DxO data graphs. But what a photographer can say is to what degree a given camera system limits him/her. Does another camera system remove such limitations? Only way to know this, is to try, if found important enough. I will have a number of participants on my workshops later this year with D800(E)'s so I have a chance to make comparisons in situations that matter to the photography (and style) I'm doing.
-
The other explanation would be that Canon has a new sensor technology under development that will significantly raise the bar and be better than the Exmor sensors, but that they could not make this ready for the 5D mkIII (or 1DX).
That is the only suggestion that makes sense to me, other than Canon simply being a bit behind the bigger sensor producers that it is competing with (Sony, Panasonic and Samsung Electronics all being bigger than Canon), because performance like EXMOR's significantly increased DR and frame rates (as Seen in some Sony SLT cameras) while having little or no down-side is hard to dismiss as an option that Canon could have chosen to offer this year but did not.
I am interested for example in an experimental approach that does ADC at each photosite, and can eliminate highlight headroom limits entirely, by signalling the time at which a highlight photosite becomes full. So it would be exciting if Canon makes something like that work well.
-
There are many different kinds of professional and non-professional as there are many different cameras. I would be surprise if either Canon or Nikon or Sony has no clue of what their competitors are doing. Japan is a very different country, the manufacturer's mindset is that it is beneficial to trade some developing direction to the competitors in exchange of theirs, so they don't get total surprise.
Darwinism is a result of Western industrialization, not from East. East has always pursuit the harmony of Nature and Man, therefore we cannot apply the western competition mindset to totally apply to Japan - that is in their root more Chinese than China after culture revolution.
I think the still camera development to canon 5DII is almost reached to a point that all the fundamental requirements have been met, left only minor improvements to be made. This is not to say there is no sense of making 5D4, or D900, they will come out with better technology but not necessarily for the art of photography, just as phone does.
Certainly this is not to say camera like D800/E offers nothing, they do - to a few people. But common medias as we see them today, do not make room for too much megapixels presently, at least 90-95 percent of them. And this is not to say I don't love megapixels, I do, that is why I have the original Contax N Digital, Nikon D1, P25, then 1D/1DsIII to present day IQ180, D800 and D5III, and I would not mind taking any of them to do most of my job - except only very few ones I would really consider to use any specific tool.
Canon has parted its development with an additional Canon C has clearly indicated what Canon think about their business. The money in still photography is as much as it, D800 is a statement camera but many be not making the most of money, or in a long run, keep a company alive. When Apple was a computer company they may not think in 2012 their old-core business accounts less than 30% of their turn-over, and it does not make Apple a worse company. Both Canon and Sony put huge resource to make themselves fused with still and motion may pave the way for their next 2 decades, everyone else, may be in question.
While arguably the iPhone 4S may be the most popular/bestr camera, no one really writes review for it specifically also says how much we misconnnect to the real world. The best camera is the camera on hand.
Pingang
Shanghai
-
I have had Canon SLR’s since the early seventies and I followed this and similar discussions with some interest. I do think Canon has a few problems, and competition from Nikon is just one of them. I expect that in the next few years, Canon’s marketshare will erode considerably. Here are some reasons.
A Sony CEO has recently has declared they will invest heavily in the still camera market. And unlike Nikon, Sony has the size and muscle to match Canon’s R&D capacity.
While Sony repeatedly had to report massive financial losses and will certainly have a sense of urgency, Canon makes good profits and seems to rest on their laurels.
The SLR market has recently been entered by copycat par excellence, Samsung. Who may be quite busy right now, merrily reverse-engineering the D800 sensor. Do they matter? Yes, just ask Sony’s TV division, or Apple.
From what I read on these forums, I understand that Sony’s sensortech differs considerably from Canon’s. They will certainly have protected it with various patents. Now given their attitude in other fields, this may mean little to Samsung; but it may very well bear significance for Canon.
Canon have just renewed their prosumer and pro FF SLR products and since people who buy this stuff don’t like fast depreciation of their investment, we might not see new Canon pro(sumer) fulframe SLR’s for several years.
There is a pattern emerging in Canon prosumer pricing. New products get a hefty price tag, e.g. the EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 L IS telezoom. Revamped pro(sumer) designs get a massive price hike, e.g. the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS MkII, EF 24-70 mm f/2.8 L MkII and the 5D MkIII. If only because of the present economic climate, Canon prosumer gear is increasingly being positioned out of reach of a considerable segment of their traditional market. And since Canon is no Apple, this means they will sell less units in the prosumer market. Which will give some competitor a chance to fill the gap and expand its clientbase.
There is little creative innovation coming from Canon, or Nikon for that matter. They have no answer to the NEX-7, smart niche products like the Fuji X-Pro1 or the various MFT incarnations from Panasonic and others. Let alone that they push forward in developing mirrorless designs themselves. And the gap is getting ever bigger. Pick up one of these small, elegant solutions and your Canon prosumer rig will feel like heavy, outdated tech of yesteryear. Now that EVF’s are maturing, larger sensors are appearing in mirrorless camera’s and more comprehensive lens systems are being developed for these systems, traditional, bulky SLR’s will loose appeal for ever more consumers.
So let me exaggerate all this into a dark picture for Canon in the market for quality consumer camera’s. They may be on a track to share the fate of Nokia and RIM, who when having considerable marketshare, consolidated and didn’t innovate. Today they are considered doomed, spiralling down into ... well, irrelevance.
I hope the Photokina proves me wrong.
-
Now both reviews are avaiable on Dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
Same gold award and overall rating. What the D800 gains in IQ it looses on other fronts. So if the task the Canon team had was to compensate for the lower sensor technology they have at the moment, they did a great job. For some photographers the D800 higher RAW quality will count and for others other aspects are more important.
-
Now both reviews are avaiable on Dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
Same gold award and overall rating. What the D800 gains in IQ it looses on other fronts. So if the task the Canon team had was to compensate for the lower sensor technology they have at the moment, they did a great job. For some photographers the D800 higher RAW quality will count and for others other aspects are more important.
No doubt that the 5DIII is an excellent camera.
I have just read the conclusion that listed the following points as being superior to the D800: 2 more fps, a few more settings and a wider ISO range (you've got to admire the choice of words). Do they mention something else in the body of the review?
It seems that the touchingly perfect draw they have come up with had more than a few people on their forums impressed by the diplomatic skills of Amazon.com! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For many (most?) styles of shooting where the 135 format is used the D800 sensor advantage is void. Having to mess around with 36 megapixels (why no mRAW/sRAW?!) is not exactly everyone's dream, and DR is more than adequate on the 5Dmk3 for most uses. In this MF-heavy landscape photography forum we just love megapixels and base ISO DR, but in forums with more 135 all-around shooters people aren't that thrilled. One can see though that fanboyism has lead Nikon users to suddenly become megapixel lovers and Canon users think that 22 is just right ;-).
Anyway, I think the majority of users look at other factors, such as speed, AF and high ISO performance. To me and I think many others it is not unimportant how the camera feels in the hand too. I don't exactly love the semi-cheap feel of my 5Dmk2 body and have heard that the 5Dmk3 is a step up, maybe even better feel than the D800 which I've heard is a bit consumer-like in body design.
If one wants a low cost alternative to MF the 5Dmk3 is not it, but if you don't carry around a tripod the 5Dmk3 may serve your shooting style really well.
-
No doubt that the 5DIII is an excellent camera.
I have just read the conclusion that listed the following points as being superior to the D800: 2 more fps, a few more settings and a wider ISO range (you've got to admire the choice of words). Do they mention something else in the body of the review?
It's the first time I have seen it, they also now do shadow lifting :) But read the entire review and see what you think.
It seems that the touchingly perfect draw they have come up with had more than a few people on their forums impressed by the diplomatic skills of Amazon.com! :)
Yes, I have seen people think that Amazon imposes conclusions on Dpreview! I think this would be very unprofessional and short sighted to do that and why? This makes no sense.
The conclusion on Dpreview actually fits quite precisely with what I gathered from reading about the two cameras, seeing DxO measurements and seeing RAW files. If I had tested the two cameras myself it could have been different. I will have a chance to review both cameras later in the year as some of my friends will have both and on workshops too.
I may buy a 5D mkIII so that I can retire the 1Ds mkIII more to be like a sibling or backup to it on shoots. The 5D mkIII would be great on my Canon 500mm f/4L IS which I enjoy to use from time to time in addition to my landscape work. I will also try out MF more seriously.
Like this http://500px.com/photo/4440353 :)
-
Yes, I have seen people think that Amazon imposes conclusions on Dpreview! I think this would be very unprofessional and short sighted to do that and why? This makes no sense.
Euh... let me think of just one obvious business reason...
You have one camera at 3,000 US$ with high demand and zero stock...
You have another camera at 3,500 US$ with lower demand and some stock...
Which camera would you want your customers to buy? ;D
Besides, you have many other possible reasons, including the desire to remain "credible" for the users of both brands,...
I may buy a 5D mkIII so that I can retire the 1Ds mkIII more to be like a sibling or backup to it on shoots. The 5D mkIII would be great on my Canon 500mm f/4L IS which I enjoy to use from time to time in addition to my landscape work. I will also try out MF more seriously.
Good for you and nice image! You may want to read this before investing in MF unless you are ready to buy one of the 80MP offerings:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67333.0
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Euh... let me think of just one obvious business reason...
You have one camera at 3,000 US$ with high demand and zero stock...
You have another camera at 3,500 US$ with lower demand and some stock...
Which camera would you want your customers to buy? ;D
Besides, you have many other possible reasons, including the desire to remain "credible" for the users of both brands,...
If such were done it would be known and credibility would be reduced to zero. Screwing the customer is never a good strategy, even though in the short term sometimes it pays off.
Good for you and nice image! You may want to read this before investing in MF unless you are ready to buy one of the 80MP offerings:
Don't worry, I don't go into anything without doing my homework ;)
-
If such were done it would be known and credibility would be reduced to zero. Screwing the customer is never a good strategy, even though in the short term sometimes it pays off.
Why? Canon users like yourself like the conclusion and will happily proceed buying an excellent camera and never know the D800 would have been even better.
How would people "know"?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
if the task the Canon team had was to compensate for the lower sensor technology they have at the moment, they did a great job.
I don't believe for a second that this is a motivation for Canon.
I suspect that Canon has simply decided (and they'd be right) that for the vast majority of its potential customer base, the 5D Mk III's sensor is absolutely fine (and if, say, you're a low light shooter - better than fine); and that the tiny niche requirement for "amazing" low ISO DR is something that Canon currently has no overt interest in putting effort into catering for, given the probable low return on its investment.
-
In the long run it is a problem for Canon if the talk in the photo community goes like "Nikon has the better sensors, and Canon lags behind". Even if it does not really matter much for the vast majority of users, beginning photographers may chose Nikon as their brand to invest in because of this reason.
I think that selling all you Canon gear and go buy Nikon D800 is not so common scenario, it is probably more common than someone chooses an entry-level Nikon DSLR instead of a Canon because of the general impression that Nikon is the brand with the best image quality. And once you are in a brand it is a high threshold to change.
So yes, I think it indeed can be a good return of investment to get high points at DxOMark, even if it provides little value for practical use.
-
Why? Canon users like yourself like the conclusion and will happily proceed buying an excellent camera and never know the D800 would have been even better.
How would people "know"?
You are putting words into my mouth ;) I didn't say I liked the conclusion, but said that the conclusion pretty much agreed with my own assessment so far and I also said that if I reviewed the two cameras side by side for my own photography the conclusion might be different. And for many the D800 may not be better actually the contrary, but for some and especially for those who need the low ISO DR capability of the camera beyond what Canon already provides , the D800 would be a better camera and given that lenses were not against such a conclusion in the actual case.
On the second question, the answer is simple. If the screwing is serious enough it will get out. There is always somebody who don't like such and will tell it to the outside world one way or the other. But there are many conspiracy believers and they will always be with us. Some conspiracies are worse than others, but the in this case there really is no reason to believe Amazon would have to do anything. I'm fully confident that the reviews were discussed inside of Dpreview and it was the consensus between the reviewers that made it into the published review. There is no track record as far as I can see to favor one camera or brand over the other although I have seen many posts say so. You don't become the worlds largest review site without a good level of quality and consistency.
-
But there are many conspiracy believers and they will always be with us. Some conspiracies are worse than others, but the in this case there really is no reason to believe Amazon would have to do anything.
I just gave you a very plausible one. You do agree that they would benefit directly from having more photographers select the 5DIII now instead of waiting month to buy a D800, right? This is an obvious business fact. More money faster.
There are investment avenues that are much more profitable than DPreview as a direct revenue stream, so the only logical conclusion is that Amazon invested in DPreview because they saw some value in indirect revenue streams. This is no conspiracy theory, this is business ABC.
The only thing that is unsure is whether they connected the dots on purpose or not. But the result of their 5DIII mark is clearly going to be more revenue for Amazon.
We know that many physical stores do tend to push to their customers the products maximizing their revenue within certain constraints starting with customer satisfaction (and we know 5DIII users will be satisfied because it is a good camera). I don't see any reason why Amazon would not be seeking to do the same thing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The SLR market has recently been entered by copycat par excellence, Samsung. Who may be quite busy right now, merrily reverse-engineering the D800 sensor. Do they matter? Yes, just ask Sony’s TV division, or Apple.
From what I read on these forums, I understand that Sony’s sensortech differs considerably from Canon’s. They will certainly have protected it with various patents.
The core difference in sensor technology is that the Sony EXMOR CMOS sensors use column-parallel analog to digital conversion. That core strategy is not at all exclusive to Sony and was not invented by Sony: the earliest patents I have seen are from Stanford University and Kodak in the late 1900’s. In particular, Samsung was the first company to commercially deploy column-parallel ADC, in a video camera sensor, and a lot of the recent research papers on that technology have Korean authors, which is a hint! (Most of the rest have Japanese authors.) Panasonic also uses column-parallel ADC in the sensor of the GH2, which it is now offering for sale.
EDIT:
Details on that Panasonic sensor at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=66881.0
and
http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/en/catalog/cat/pdf/T12013CE.pdf
END EDIT
On the other hand, Sony seems to have the best implemention of the column-parallel ADC idea so far, or at least the Samsung senors in its NX cameras seem behind Sony's in performance and Panasonic uses 12-bit ADC whereas Sony/Nikon sensors now offer 14-bit. So there is probably a lot more to making a "state of the art" sensor than just the basic idea of column-parallel ADC ... But Canon is not even doing that.
-
I just gave you a very plausible one. You do agree that they would benefit directly from having more photographers select the 5DIII now instead of waiting month to buy a D800, right? This is an obvious business fact. More money faster.
There are investment avenues that are much more profitable than DPreview as a direct revenue stream, so the only logical conclusion is that Amazon invested in DPreview because they saw some value in indirect revenue streams. This is no conspiracy theory, this is business ABC.
The only thing that is unsure is whether they connected the dots on purpose or not. But the result of their 5DIII mark is clearly going to be more revenue for Amazon.
We know that many physical stores do tend to push to their customers the products maximizing their revenue within certain constraints starting with customer satisfaction (and we know 5DIII users will be satisfied because it is a good camera). I don't see any reason why Amazon would not be seeking to do the same thing.
No you didn't give me a very plausible one. Deliberately scewing reviews is plain silly and makes no business sense. And there is no evidence or even indication they did so in the given review or other reviews on Dpreview. If you think this is not correct find me some examples and why you think the conclusions were not the opinions and results from the reviewers.
This has nothing to do with marketing and pushing the channels for high(er) margin products. Every sales person learns that.
-
No you didn't give me a very plausible one. Deliberately scewing reviews is plain silly and makes no business sense. And there is no evidence or even indication they did so in the given review or other reviews on Dpreview. If you think this is not correct find me some examples and why you think the conclusions were not the opinions and results from the reviewers.
This has nothing to do with marketing and pushing the channels for high(er) margin products. Every sales person learns that.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. Who said "screwing reviews"?
Besides, you are not answering any of the statements made in the quote. This therefore stops to be a conversation. ;)
My final question will be, does it make sense to rate identically 2 cameras when one is superior in most aspects of image quality (raw, jpg, video at all but super high ISOs) without having any significant drawback besides 2 fps less? The answer should be pretty obvious. Again, no impact for me, just common sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... if the task the Canon team had was to compensate for the lower sensor technology they have at the moment, they did a great job.
That is about the most balanced assessment I have seen in this bun fight!
I am actually changing my mind, and now think that there would be a place for a new 24MP 36x24mm sensor using the latest refinement of Sony/Nikon technology, if just for the sake of offering higher frame rates while still having as much resolution as most photographers need (even most professional photographers, according to LKaven) and solidly beating all competition in handling scenes of high subject brightness range. (The DPReview reviews do seem to support the claim of greater dynamic range, which interests some of us far more than extreme pixel counts.)
P.S. that 24MP, or 6000x4000 would also be a perfect match for producing 2K video by using pixel addition ( no decimation), basically using one 3x3 block from the sensor to produce each full color video pixel. If aliasing could be adequately controlled.
-
Now you are putting words in my mouth. Who said "screwing reviews"?
Besides, you are not answering any of the statements made in the quote. This therefore stops to be a conversation. ;)
My final question will be, does it make sense to rate identically 2 cameras when one is superior in most aspects of image quality without having any significant drawback besides 2 fps less? The answer should be pretty obvious. Again, no impact for me, just common sense.
I didn't say screwing reviews, I said scewing (maybe the spelling is incorrect). What I intended to say is that I don't see any deliberate bending of facts to support a biased conclusion.
I did answer your questions and if you stop the conversation, fine with me since I find your reasons for a conspiracy rather naive.
Your common sense is not shared by all and not with the reviewers and many others. If you want to continue the conspiracy theory you need more (=real) meat on the bones ;)
-
As it currently stands, Canon has (in the world of 135):
1. not the highest MP camera
2. not the highest DR camera
3. not the best high ISO camera (for the time being I'd not count on a camera with an unknown release date, there has been no evidence either for speculation, particularily high ISO raw-s)
Canon is supposed to have soon:
1. the fastest performing camera (12fps, AF)
2. the best high ISO camera ?
What seems to be interesting is that the 1Dx is, mostly being a sports camera, also the new 1Ds.
The 5D2 successor, supposedly a good candidate for a high MP camera, was not that either.
Is anyone seriously thinking Canon thinks they need no high MP camera with its IQ characteristics? There is generally no need for such a camera? There is nothing missing in the Canon lineup?
This disparity means for one thing that if Canon had used its current sensor technology in a sensor of about 36MP or more in 35mm format (pixels about 7D sized or a bit bigger), its performace at low to moderate ISO speeds would have shown a distinct disadvantage compared to what Canon could easily predict was coming from Nikon and Sony.
-
I didn't say screwing reviews, I said scewing (maybe the spelling is incorrect). What I intended to say is that I don't see any deliberate bending of facts to support a biased conclusion.
Just to set things straight, I have never written that DPreview had bended the facts, only that their conclusion doesn't seem to be deriving logically from them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just to set things straight, I have never written that DPreview had bended the facts, only that their conclusion doesn't seem to be deriving logically from them.
The reference to Amazon owning Dpreview gave a pretty good indication that you felt that Dpreview had made a cooked up conclusion to support the sales on Amazon. You even said it was very plausible that the conclusion on the 5D mkIII review was cooked. What else was that supposed to mean?
Have you read the review? If yes, what is it that doesn't fall logically into the conclusion?
-
The reference to Amazon owning Dpreview gave a pretty good indication that you felt that Dpreview had made a cooked up conclusion to support the sales on Amazon. You even said it was very plausible that the conclusion on the 5D mkIII review was cooked. What else was that supposed to mean?
Have you read the review? If yes, what is it that doesn't fall logically into the conclusion?
What I wrote can be re-read, feel free to over-simplify as much as you like, those are your statements.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What I wrote can be re-read, feel free to over-simplify as much as you like, those are your statements.
I don't think I'm over simplifiying the simple fact that you indicated that the ownership of Dpreview by Amazon made their reviews very likely cooked to meet the sales requirements of Amazon. Isn't that what you basically wrote? If not please tell what you meant to say, as I may have completely misunderstood your point about Amazon.
Euh... let me think of just one obvious business reason...
You have one camera at 3,000 US$ with high demand and zero stock...
You have another camera at 3,500 US$ with lower demand and some stock...
Which camera would you want your customers to buy? Grin
Besides, you have many other possible reasons, including the desire to remain "credible" for the users of both brands,...
-
I didn't say screwing reviews, I said scewing (maybe the spelling is incorrect)...
Ah, so close (yet so far away :))! Just one letter: skewing.
-
Ah, so close (yet so far away :))! Just one letter: skewing.
Thanks, the slip of a keyboard ;)
-
Both the E800E and 5D Mark III are out of stock in Hong Kong.
-
And coincidentally the 5D3 matched the same 82 percent rating. How convenient. Sorry, I don't buy it. It even looks childish. If 100% true to the results, well, bad luck for DPR.
Bernard speculations are just that but his original argument makes a lot of sense. I do too think that somehow Amazon had something to do with the result. Maybe this even happened without knowing it. Maybe somebody is just trying to keep a job or trying to please the boss, don't know.
Eduardo
Have you read the review? If yes, what is it that doesn't fall logically into the conclusion?
-
And coincidentally the 5D3 matched the same 82 percent rating. How convenient. Sorry, I don't buy it. It even looks childish. If 100% true to the results, well, bad luck for DPR.
Bernard speculations are just that but his original argument makes a lot of sense. I do too think that somehow Amazon had something to do with the result. Maybe this even happened without knowing it. Maybe somebody is just trying to keep a job or trying to please the boss, don't know.
Rather than rant about the overall rating which is a number made up from the individual scores by some formula (like the DxOMARK also is), you should really take a look at the details of the review. It is pretty silly to believe that buyers of cameras in this price range are bought by people who don't even evaluate the details and how many would buy such a camera without a history of cameras before and lens systems? The first time buyers in this class are not that many I think. I believe most of the sales will be from people who already own a Canon camera with lenses that happen to have a Canon lens mount. A (much) smaller amount will come from people switching systems.
If you can buy into the logic above, then do you really think a rating on Dpreview slightly higher or lower (compared to the D800) would make a difference in the sales? The chance that somebody switches system rather than upgrading I would believe is in the 1-5% band and could go both ways. Just from my own connections very few have switched systems over the years as soon as they had bought into a system. I have seen a few switching to Canon from Nikon and back again. I don't remember any who have switched from Canon to Nikon and only one who switched from Canon to Sony. That is out of many hundreds of photographers. I have seen a number of who have switched to either Canon or Nikon from other systems.
If we didn't have the constraints of proprietary lens mounts, I think the situation would be much different. When you buy into a camera system you buy into a photographic ecosystem which makes it much harder to switch. It's of a similar reason why Apple have such strong business about iPhones and iPads. Switching is not that easy.
So even if you and Bernard were right about the reasons for cooking the ratings, it you think about it, it would make very little sense compared to the harm if such methods were leaked to the photographic community. These speculations and rumors are not new (a couple years ago some Canon users felt that Dpreview favored Nikon over Canon), but never has there been any facts to support that.
Again, of you agree that most buyers already are in the Canon system from lower end cameras, then wouldn't it make a lot more sense to look at the ratings of lesser cameras in reviews?
-
Sorry Hans, I have seen whole press photo agencies switching to Nikon when the original D3 came out. And I'm talking about major European agencies. The provide the photographers with the complete gear and as they cover everything, sports as well, we are talking about getting rid of tons of gear up to 600mm lenses. And buying new stuff.
-
Sorry Hans, I have seen whole press photo agencies switching to Nikon when the original D3 came out. And I'm talking about major European agencies. The provide the photographers with the complete gear and as they cover everything, sports as well, we are talking about getting rid of tons of gear up to 600mm lenses. And buying new stuff.
Yes, Nikon regained some of the lost ground with the D3 which was good for competition. My reasoning above was not really meant to relate to the professional agencies and such. I don't think they really buy because of the reviews, they buy for different reasons like support, price, quality of gear and probably to some degree what their photographers like.
-
Yes, Nikon regained some of the lost ground with the D3 which was good for competition. My reasoning above was not really meant to relate to the professional agencies and such. I don't think they really buy because of the reviews, they buy for different reasons like support, price, quality of gear and probably to some degree what their photographers like.
Yes, I don't think so many people will switch to Nikon, but the one close friend I have shooting the 5DII till now for jewelry and landscape has just purchased a D800 + 85mm f1.8 instead of the 5DIII/5DX he was planning to buy. He seems to like the image quality and AF, he is less of a fan of D800 live view.
He will keep his Canon body and lenses and use the Nikon when he needs more resolution.
Many Canon photographers already use Nikon lenses like the 14-24 f2.8 using adapters, this makes the addition of a D800 to their arsenal even less painful.
It seems our friend Josh was considering going this route before he discovered that the D800's ergonomics were not to his liking.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
they buy for different reasons like support, price, quality of gear and probably to some degree what their photographers like.
Actually they give a s..t about what their photographers like. But they buy, if the gear gives them a competitive edge and the D3 High ISO performance did.
Price is no point, if you buy in these quantities.
-
It seems our friend Josh was considering going this route before he discovered that the D800's ergonomics were not to his liking.
Correct - apart from the fact I was not interested in Nikons 14-24mm - I was planning to use a few Zeiss Primes. BTW: It was not just the ergonomics that I found unpalatable on the D800E.
-
Correct - apart from the fact I was not interested in Nikons 14-24mm - I was planning to use a few Zeiss Primes. BTW: It was not just the ergonomics that I found unpalatable on the D800E.
By the way, did you correct your statement about the lack of weather sealing of the D800 memory card door? That was frankly a bit misleading.
It can be seen by looking at the camera and also here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/images/weathersealing.jpg
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard I frankly don't care what the marketing BS says: the reality is I have direct experience with a good friend who has already seen the memory slot fill with water. Yes he dunked it, but only momentarily. In point of fact the camera battery compartment also filled with water! And the camera is DEAD. So, no. I do not consider the camera 'sealed' and especially not compared to a 1Ds mk3 or D3/4.
As I have already posted (and I'm getting tired of repeating myself) I had a d800e for a week and have serious doubts about its sealing after using it. Heck just look at the flash and tear joystick! Weather sealed? Laughable!
There is no way I would trust a d800/e in the sort of environments I work in.
Suggest you get over it and move on since I trust direct experience and evidence over spurious marketing and no amount of fluff will convince me otherwise.
If you don't believe me then email me and I will share with you my own raw file comparisons of the d800e vs the 1dsmk3 since I used my own house as the test and you can check out the exif for yourself.
I've already said the d800e sensor is amazing - and it is. It's just the body that's an abortion.
Btw sorry for typos I'm at the APPA judging and on my iphone
-
Bernard I frankly don't care what the marketing BS says: the reality is I have direct experience with a good friend who has already seen the memory slot fill with water. Yes he dunked it, but only momentarily. In point of fact the camera battery compartment also filled with water! And the camera is DEAD. So, no. I do not consider the camera 'sealed' and especially not compared to a 1Ds mk3 or D3/4.
As I have already posted (and I'm getting tired of repeating myself) I had a d800e for a week and have serious doubts about its sealing after using it. Heck just look at the flash and tear joystick! Weather sealed? Laughable!
Weather sealed (ability to resists normal exposure to rain) and water proof (ability to withstand immersion) are 2 different things, correct?
A camera that is water proof is of course weather sealed, but you cannot say that a camera that is not water proof is therefore not weather sealed, correct?
-> It must be my Cartesian education, but I don't understand why you keep quoting an issue resulting from lack of water proofness as a proof of lack of weather sealing .
I understand you generic concern trusting important work to a new platform, but I would say that overall Nikon has an excellent track record in terms of delivering on their promises on the water sealing front. On the 4 points you quoted:
- it seems we now agree that the memory card has weather sealing on it (that is important because at least you won't lose the images you already took),
- you have to look real well to see it, but the battery door has a seal on it also, the whole area at the edge of the battery door is a seal,
- the joystick is sealed as well, you can also see this on the image provided,
- the flash is not and might die but there is no reason to think it would affect the functioning of the rest of the camera because it is mechanically isolated from it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As I said. Too bad for DPR that the count came to be the same 82% of the D800. I agree with you. Switching systems is so inconvenient that is out of the question for most pros. Which coincidentally is my case. On amazon ownership of DPR, tweaking a bit the results to coincide with the D800 is not that crazy to think. No cameras in recent history have generated such fanboyism and such passionate comparisons. Let's remember that conservatism is common denominator for all corporate America. Some DPR members have jokingly suggested that the Canon FF forum should be called: 1D, 5D and D800! Lol!!!
Eduardo
Rather than rant about the overall rating which is a number made up from the individual scores by some formula (like the DxOMARK also is), you should really take a look at the details of the review. It is pretty silly to believe that buyers of cameras in this price range are bought by people who don't even evaluate the details and how many would buy such a camera without a history of cameras before and lens systems? The first time buyers in this class are not that many I think. I believe most of the sales will be from people who already own a Canon camera with lenses that happen to have a Canon lens mount. A (much) smaller amount will come from people switching systems.
If you can buy into the logic above, then do you really think a rating on Dpreview slightly higher or lower (compared to the D800) would make a difference in the sales? The chance that somebody switches system rather than upgrading I would believe is in the 1-5% band and could go both ways. Just from my own connections very few have switched systems over the years as soon as they had bought into a system. I have seen a few switching to Canon from Nikon and back again. I don't remember any who have switched from Canon to Nikon and only one who switched from Canon to Sony. That is out of many hundreds of photographers. I have seen a number of who have switched to either Canon or Nikon from other systems.
If we didn't have the constraints of proprietary lens mounts, I think the situation would be much different. When you buy into a camera system you buy into a photographic ecosystem which makes it much harder to switch. It's of a similar reason why Apple have such strong business about iPhones and iPads. Switching is not that easy.
So even if you and Bernard were right about the reasons for cooking the ratings, it you think about it, it would make very little sense compared to the harm if such methods were leaked to the photographic community. These speculations and rumors are not new (a couple years ago some Canon users felt that Dpreview favored Nikon over Canon), but never has there been any facts to support that.
Again, of you agree that most buyers already are in the Canon system from lower end cameras, then wouldn't it make a lot more sense to look at the ratings of lesser cameras in reviews?
-
do people really care about arbitrary ratings on an amateur website?
actually the 500 comments suggest there are obviously a few sociopaths that do
-
As I said. Too bad for DPR that the count came to be the same 82% of the D800. I agree with you. Switching systems is so inconvenient that is out of the question for most pros. Which coincidentally is my case. On amazon ownership of DPR, tweaking a bit the results to coincide with the D800 is not that crazy to think. No cameras in recent history have generated such fanboyism and such passionate comparisons. Let's remember that conservatism is common denominator for all corporate America. Some DPR members have jokingly suggested that the Canon FF forum should be called: 1D, 5D and D800! Lol!!!
Believing that because the rating came to the same number it must be because Amazon owns Dpreview, what else could the reason be ;) If you believe it then fine, I call it confirmation bias.
-
do people really care about arbitrary ratings on an amateur website?
actually the 500 comments suggest there are obviously a few sociopaths that do
Do you think maybe you're exaggerating just a wee bit? Getting a little heated while defending the honour of your equipment is hardly a sign of sociopathy. (At least I think it isn't - I'm not a psychologist.)
On the other hand, this thread has already consumed far too much time and effort. Maybe it's time for everyone to go out and take some pictures with their cameras instead of defending their reputations?
-
i'm exaggerating more than "a wee bit".
i have no internet persona or reputation to defend and i'll not be going out to take pictures thanks.
(I will be going out to pick up a new camera body though.)
-
Since the time these two cameras were announced, I've occasionally visited the relevant Canon and Nikon sections of the dpreview forum, in search of possible links to reliable information on the performance of the cameras.
I've often been amazed at the extent of the self-flagellation on the Canon 5D section of the forum, and the general sense of anguish, disappointment and sense of betrayal expressed in many posts by loyal Canon users who appear to really want to switch brands but know that it doesn't make economic sense because of their heavy investment in Canon lenses.
When this sort of thing happens, some people go into a state of denial. They will search for any image that puts the 5D2 into a better light, compared with the D800, such as a 5D2 in-camera jpeg which has had more or better NR applied and therefore appears less noisy than a D800 in-camera jpeg with less NR applied.
Their frustration has been very apparent, so I'm not at all surprised that the dpreview camera review team, perhaps in discussion with Amazon, would try to find a way of easing the pain of some of their forum members, by awarding both cameras equal overall scores.
Loyalty to brands can have a very strong psychological basis.
-
Since the time these two cameras were announced, I've occasionally visited the relevant Canon and Nikon sections of the dpreview forum, in search of possible links to reliable information on the performance of the cameras.
I've often been amazed at the extent of the self-flagellation on the Canon 5D section of the forum, and the general sense of anguish, disappointment and sense of betrayal expressed in many posts by loyal Canon users who appear to really want to switch brands but know that it doesn't make economic sense because of their heavy investment in Canon lenses.
When this sort of thing happens, some people go into a state of denial. They will search for any image that puts the 5D2 into a better light, compared with the D800, such as a 5D2 in-camera jpeg which has had more or better NR applied and therefore appears less noisy than a D800 in-camera jpeg with less NR applied.
Their frustration has been very apparent, so I'm not at all surprised that the dpreview camera review team, perhaps in discussion with Amazon, would try to find a way of easing the pain of some of their forum members, by awarding both cameras equal overall scores.
Loyalty to brands can have a very strong psychological basis.
The kind of posts about DR on dpreview has been going on since the D7000 came out, so this is not new at all. Some posters including myself have tried to put some sense to the many totally exaggerated examples shown. This is not denial, but rather putting it into photographic perspective. I think most Canon users are well aware of the difference in DR and certainly would have liked to see this improved in the 5D mkIII. The art of shadowpulling really came to fame after the D7000 came out (and the other APS-C cameras with the Exmor sensor). There was really no posts about the D3X that I recall. But if you notice it is a few posters (trolls) that create most of the noise on dpreview. In fact Dpreview management have posted on the 5D/1D/1Ds forum and ask posters to stop the 5D vs D800 threads. But they still continue.
This is really out of proportions. For most photographers the extra DR at low ISO has little to no impact on their work. Experienced photographers know how to deal with DR and the D800 only extends the limit of where you need such techniques. It does not eliminated them.
No matter how much you speculate about reasons why Amazon could have imposed this is still speculations and no proof at all. This is pure speculation and does not make any sense to me. And it doesn't get true just because several think it could be. But that's what conspiracy theories thrive on.
-
The kind of posts about DR on dpreview has been going on since the D7000 came out, so this is not new at all. Some posters including myself have tried to put some sense to the many totally exaggerated examples shown. This is not denial, but rather putting it into photographic perspective. I think most Canon users are well aware of the difference in DR and certainly would have liked to see this improved in the 5D mkIII. The art of shadowpulling really came to fame after the D7000 came out (and the other APS-C cameras with the Exmor sensor). There was really no posts about the D3X that I recall. But if you notice it is a few posters (trolls) that create most of the noise on dpreview. In fact Dpreview management have posted on the 5D/1D/1Ds forum and ask posters to stop the 5D vs D800 threads. But they still continue.
This is really out of proportions. For most photographers the extra DR at low ISO has little to no impact on their work. Experienced photographers know how to deal with DR and the D800 only extends the limit of where you need such techniques. It does not eliminated them.
No matter how much you speculate about reasons why Amazon could have imposed this is still speculations and no proof at all. This is pure speculation and does not make any sense to me. And it doesn't get true just because several think it could be. But that's what conspiracy theories thrive on.
As I recall, Hans, there were three main issues on the dpreview Canon 5D forum which together seemed to cause great outrage. They are (1) The significantly greater pixel count of the D800. (2) The significantly greater DR of the D800, and (3) a lower price to boot.
Just one of those factors could have been accepted, but all 3 in one hit was too outrageous for some.
In fact Dpreview management have posted on the 5D/1D/1Ds forum and ask posters to stop the 5D vs D800 threads. But they still continue.
Which is why I don't think one needs to be engaged in conspiracy theories to suggest that dpreview have deliberately skewed the weighting of their review of the 5D3 in order to reduce the heated rivalry between the two cameras on their forum. It's really just common sense. ;D
-
Which is why I don't think one needs to be engaged in conspiracy theories to suggest that dpreview have deliberately skewed the weighting of their review of the 5D3 in order to reduce the heated rivalry between the two cameras on their forum. It's really just common sense. ;D
Ray, really?, you can't be serious ;) But it's one of the more entertaining theories I have heard :)
-
Asking posters to stop threads? Deliberately trying to reduce rivalry? Why would they do that!? Isn't it every forum owner's wet dream? With D800, DPReview forum posts are once again reaching 150 posts limit... before that, the most interesting discussions barely reached the snore-inducing 48-50 posts.
-
I just saw the DPR rating has been discussed in such depth here and felt a bit puzzled since AFAIK these unified ratings have a tradition on DPR - the most popular previous case was the Nikon D3s vs. Canon 1DIV. Apart from the reasons already discussed (actual similarity in performance, commercial interests and appeasement to fans) i would propose a somewhat philosophical explanation: It makes sense for a review site to make the products look similar in performance, this increases demand for reviews in general.
Of course you could also argue if the review cannot make a distinction why should i bother reading it if i need to decide which product to buy.
Or - to paraphrase a famous saying: You can have our reviews with any rating you want, as long as it is the same for all brands.
-
Hans, believing there was no "conspiracy" between DPR and its owner Amazon is also speculative or at best, just a thought, an idea, a belief, as you don't have the facts either. Most likely there are more people that never thought about any conspiracy that those that did, but that doesn't make it a truth either.
Cheers
Eduardo
No matter how much you speculate about reasons why Amazon could have imposed this is still speculations and no proof at all. This is pure speculation and does not make any sense to me. And it doesn't get true just because several think it could be. But that's what conspiracy theories thrive on.
-
DPreview Gold Awards DSLR
2012
Canon EOS 5D Mark III 82%
Nikon D800 82%
Olympus OM-D E-M5 80%
2011
Pentax K5 85%
2010
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV 89%
Nikon D3S 89%
Cameras get worse every year ! ;)
-
They state clearly that the rating is only valuable to "compare" cameras in a given class. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Asking posters to stop threads? Deliberately trying to reduce rivalry? Why would they do that!? Isn't it every forum owner's wet dream? With D800, DPReview forum posts are once again reaching 150 posts limit... before that, the most interesting discussions barely reached the snore-inducing 48-50 posts.
Good point! But you should have seen the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was awful to behold. ;)
-
So I have read alot of the comments essentially it comes down to what you shoot landscape go get your nikon 800, action get your canon 5d mk111. the 5d Mk 111 a ff 7d it is a much better camera then a 7d I have owned both. First full frame canon I want two of. They really are cameras for different pruposes so get over it. There is no right answer for everyone. What you shoot determines what you buy. David