Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: henrikfoto on May 12, 2013, 05:48:09 am
-
I would like to buy the Nikon D800e, but have a lot of Canon-lenses.
I am hoping for a Canon "D800".
Will it come soon, or is it time to sell and go to Nikon?
Henrik
-
"I hear your pain brother" I was ready for a 5DIII but went for the D800E due to it's better sensor. What to do about the lenses? For landscapes manual focus is fine so I invested in Leica R lenses modified them with Leitax Nikkor mounts. So now I can use them directly on my D800E or with an adapter on my 5DII. So I future proofed my lens investment, they can be used on a Nikon,Canon or Sony
Marc
-
Hi Marc!
Thank you for good advice.
Have you sold your Phase One gear and just use the Nikon?
Henrik
-
I doubt they are in any rush. Current models are still making them money and they have been selling more cameras than anyone else for 10years.
I would have thought the replacement of the less than stellar lenses in the line-up will be completed first, we have already seen the quality they are capable of with the new zooms and 17/24 tilt-shifts so they have the ability to produce lenses to match a high MPixel sensor.
-
Better to visit http://www.canonrumors.com than ask anywhere in these forums.
Short answer; not on the rumor horizon: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/05/no-7d-mark-ii-in-2013-cr2/
-
Hi Marc!
Thank you for good advice.
Have you sold your Phase One gear and just use the Nikon?
Henrik
Never! :)
The Nikon's per pixel IQ is higher than the IQ180's but he overall IQ of the IQ180 can't be beat. I enjoy shooting with a technical camera more than a dslr when I'm not in a hurry. Since it's a hobby for me I get more pleasure out of the IQ180/Cambo WRS/ Rodenstock HR's, I like vanilla, you like chocolate kind of thing where no one is right or wrong just personal preference. Marc
-
Canon's financial results were not fantastic in Q1 and DLR sales in units were down 15% (see charts below).
So they promised to strengthen product competitiveness to regain growth.
-
Thats interesting. Maybe They have lost some to Nikon..
Since you are Hasselbladfan, do you know how Hasselblad are doing?
-
Nope. They are a private Company since 2003, so the don't have to publish much investor's information. Just some basic info in Sweden, but that won't help us much.
The medium-format camera maker is now part of the Switzerland- and Germany-based private equity firm's Ventizz Capital Fund IV, the companies said today.
The firm will provide new capital for a growth strategy, Ventizz said. "We are proud to have such an iconic brand in our portfolio and are convinced that with solid financial support and a suitable growth strategy, Ventizz can further strengthen Hasselblad's position as the first-class producer of medium-format digital camera systems.
Since 2003, Hasselblad had been owned by Hong Kong-based Shriro Group, which still retains rights to distribute Hasselblad products in the Asia-Pacific region. Shriro Chief Executive Vasco Fung will serve another five-year term on Hasselblad's supervisory board.
Canon is a public Company, so you just have to go to their quarterly investor call to find info about sales / profit / strategy. :)
-
Canon Rumors is not exactly all-seeing and all-knowing. However, I don't see Canon releasing a new high-density FF sensor camera so soon after introducing the 5D3 and 1DX. I am hoping more for the high-density APS-C improved sensor 7D2 for better bird photography at higher ISOs. Currently I have a 60D, which has the same sensor as 7D but has really minimal AF options.
I decided to get a second Canon DSLR for FF especially low-light/ astro-landscape photography, and just bought the 6D body and a used Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. ;D I will be driving out to the country tonight to give my new camera and its trinity of WA lenses a test (the others are Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Samyang 14mm f/2.8).
-
Canon Rumors is not exactly all-seeing and all-knowing. However, I don't see Canon releasing a new high-density FF sensor camera so soon after introducing the 5D3 and 1DX. I am hoping more for the high-density APS-C improved sensor 7D2 for better bird photography at higher ISOs. Currently I have a 60D, which has the same sensor as 7D but has really minimal AF options.
I decided to get a second Canon DSLR for FF especially low-light/ astro-landscape photography, and just bought the 6D body and a used Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. ;D I will be driving out to the country tonight to give my new camera and its trinity of WA lenses a test (the others are Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Samyang 14mm f/2.8).
Actually, that's precisely why I see Canon releasing something like that sooner rather than later (i.e. early 2014, rather than 2015-2016).
After dominating the high-resolution and high-density fields for so long (with the 1Ds3/5D2 and the 7D respectively), Canon now has nothing competitive for photographers for whom resolution and/or pixel density are important. It'd be dumb to surrender such a long-held advantage without a fight.
-
Don't underestimate how much pressure bad (sales) results give in a Japanese environment.
If they don't fix it quickly, careers are going to be affected. :)
I see a 3D coming sooner than later.
-
A high pixel count full frame SLR from Canon is highly probable. I am more interested in how they are going to tackle it in terms of camera tier positioning. Will we see it first introduced as a 1 series camera? Most likely yes, since a "studio-landscape" 1 series camera is certainly missing. Or, will it be introduced first as a new 3D series prosumer camera? I think the latter is not likely, given that for all intents, the "digital EOS 3" is already here, it's called the 1DX.
If that is the case, then all the full frame shoes would be dropped: new pro 1 series with high pixel count - pro 1DX - prosumer 5D -entry level 6D.
-
A high pixel count full frame SLR from Canon is highly probable.
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try first to catch up from a DR standpoint?
Arguably, 2 stops more DR would deliver more value for more photographers than 40+ megapixels I would think.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
Don't underestimate the marketing impact of high megapixels in selling cameras. DRs are never advertised ! :)
-
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try first to catch up from a DR standpoint?
Arguably, 2 stops more DR would deliver more value for more photographers than 40+ megapixels I would think.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1
The reason I did not update to the 5D3 from my 5D2 was not resolution, but lack of improvement in this (for me) more important area.
And I know I am not alone with this opinion. I will wait for the next generation of Canon's FF bodys, not switching now because too much money invested in L-lenses. If their next body has the same problems with noise in shadows at low ISO, I will say goodbye Canon.
Ludwig
-
There is no doubt that DR is currently, for Canon, its elephant in the room.
I do own a 5D mark III, and it is a very fine camera in almost all respects.
Nonetheless improvements in DR are absolutely what I am hanging out for.
Sony's sensors, and possibly also the Sigma Foveon sensors are most definitely changing the playing field for Canon.
It will be interedting to see how they respond.
Tony Jay
-
Nonetheless with the new firmware Hack by Magic Lantern - making Raw video possible larger than HD - the 5dIII turns out to be one of the best video cameras around...
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/eu-west-1.vimeo.com/videos/164/380/164380502.mov?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJCX4YKY455TWB7MQ&Expires=1368532529&Signature=d4fZaKa1%2FTLU66%2FcB1jIDYCNpGY%3D
-
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try first to catch up from a DR standpoint?
Arguably, 2 stops more DR would deliver more value for more photographers than 40+ megapixels I would think.
Cheers,
Bernard
I don´t know, maybe it is just me, but I have never taken a shot that I then would go and say: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!". What I am saying is, for someone that grew up as a photographer with slide film, I find the current crop of Canon sensors more than enough for what I need (landscapes, seascapes, travel, people, nature macro). I sure can appreciate more DR, but I just wonder how many photographers really need it? BTW, I also don´t need or want more pixels, the ones on my 6D are plenty enough.
Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light. When I look at photos from photographers I admire, I see that they are not afraid of deep and moody shadows.
-
I don´t know, maybe it is just me, but I have never taken a shot that I then would go and say: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!".
Every time I take a shot with my D800e or D4 where the histogram hits both ends I say aloud: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!"
-
I don´t know, maybe it is just me, but I have never taken a shot that I then would go and say: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!". What I am saying is, for someone that grew up as a photographer with slide film, I find the current crop of Canon sensors more than enough for what I need (landscapes, seascapes, travel, people, nature macro). I sure can appreciate more DR, but I just wonder how many photographers really need it? BTW, I also don´t need or want more pixels, the ones on my 6D are plenty enough.
Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light. When I look at photos from photographers I admire, I see that they are not afraid of deep and moody shadows.
Here is were the D800's DR comes in to play: With previous Canons, shooting fashion/portraits under lights, I had to light for the raw file. I had to use lots of fill and at the same time really watch my highlights, scrimming and flagging until I ran out of C-Stands. At ISO 100, my lights were often too strong. It was a lot of grip work to get a file that looked too flat before post, like when teh client sees it pop up on a monitor. With the D800 (or MFDB) I can expose mor elike the final image, less scrimming and flagging, preserve the high lights and if needed bring up the shadows. I can also shoot under natural light without a shit ton of reflectors for fill and still recover an overcast sky. Its much more like shooting negative film.
-
I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.
-
OK, that was an obvious statement. It would be nice to have better DR for those situations where HDR may not be optimal (fast-moving subjects). But right now, I am going to enjoy what I have.
Actually, the real issue for me now is when do I get that landscape photography support vehicle (end of this year? next year? year after that, when the current LPSV hits age 20?)
-
I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.
Well, I don't work in a haphazard way after shooting large format exclusively for my commercial architectural photography and b&w work for 27 years, but I would love more dynamic range. AAMOF I would always opt for more information in the file to work with. It has nothing what so ever to do with a haphazard work method.
-
I'd like more DR too, mostly to get closer to what my eye sees. But then I'd also like to see better "DR" in printing too. Agree with all above, that when in studio or with lots of gear, the DR isn't as important, but still I'd like to have that option.
I'm not expecting Canon to win on DR though with their next cameras. Surely it will be more pixels and not more DR. Pixels is the easy thing for the marketers to count and advertise and compare.
-
Here is were the D800's DR comes in to play: With previous Canons, shooting fashion/portraits under lights, I had to light for the raw file. I had to use lots of fill and at the same time really watch my highlights, scrimming and flagging until I ran out of C-Stands. At ISO 100, my lights were often too strong. It was a lot of grip work to get a file that looked too flat before post, like when teh client sees it pop up on a monitor. With the D800 (or MFDB) I can expose mor elike the final image, less scrimming and flagging, preserve the high lights and if needed bring up the shadows. I can also shoot under natural light without a shit ton of reflectors for fill and still recover an overcast sky. Its much more like shooting negative film.
+1
I also find I get much better B+W conversions and more depth in dark hair...
-
+1
I also find I get much better B+W conversions and more depth in dark hair...
Really beautiful B&W.
-
I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.
I get what you are saying about the DR allowing for lazy production, but even without extended DR people don't use meters and adjust lights and f stops based on histograms, which is not crafting an image. I shot LOTS of E100G, color and B&W neg. on the RZ and 4x5/8x10 and I've always lit sets so that I wouldn't have to do much in post. You have to know your medium. I never liked chromes and only shot it for beauty work, due to client demands. What I never liked about digital is that it tends to look like E6, with similar limitations, at least in 35mm format. The DR on a camera like the D800 allows me to think in terms of teh tonal range of color neg, which is big advantage to me.
-
I don´t know, maybe it is just me, but I have never taken a shot that I then would go and say: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!". What I am saying is, for someone that grew up as a photographer with slide film, I find the current crop of Canon sensors more than enough for what I need (landscapes, seascapes, travel, people, nature macro). I sure can appreciate more DR, but I just wonder how many photographers really need it? BTW, I also don´t need or want more pixels, the ones on my 6D are plenty enough.
Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light. When I look at photos from photographers I admire, I see that they are not afraid of deep and moody shadows.
With the current Canon sensors, theres is a real problem of banding noise in shadows and midrange, even without lifting dark areas. The red channel is especially critical. I had numerous shots ruined by that. So it's not only for revealing detail in shadows, but also in pictures with dynamic range that should be handeld just fine by this sensors.
Ludwig
-
I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.
Surely I can't be the only one who used to shoot multiple exposures with film (617-format Velvia in my case), scan them and combine them in Photoshop...
-
With the current Canon sensors, theres is a real problem of banding noise in shadows and midrange, even without lifting dark areas. The red channel is especially critical. I had numerous shots ruined by that. So it's not only for revealing detail in shadows, but also in pictures with dynamic range that should be handeld just fine by this sensors.
Ludwig
That's because Canon's still relying on 12-year-old technology (especially with regards to off-chip A/D conversion), while everyone has moved on. It was revolutionary when it first came out, but is now truly dated.
The thing is, on comparing high-ISO performance, where the predominant source of noise is shot noise, rather than read or pattern noise as is the case at low ISOs, Canon actually has a small lead there. By extrapolation, this means that, were Canon to use column parallel A/D conversion like everyone else, the Canon sensors would actually have better DR than the Sony Exmor sensors!
-
Surely I can't be the only one who used to shoot multiple exposures with film (617-format Velvia in my case), scan them and combine them in Photoshop...
Well I never shot 617. But sometimes half sheet masked on the back of a 10x8 (4x10) which is a similar format.
As for multiple exposures, plenty of that but only using one sheet of film ;D
-
"I hear your pain brother" I was ready for a 5DIII but went for the D800E due to it's better sensor. What to do about the lenses? For landscapes manual focus is fine so I invested in Leica R lenses modified them with Leitax Nikkor mounts. So now I can use them directly on my D800E or with an adapter on my 5DII. So I future proofed my lens investment, they can be used on a Nikon,Canon or Sony
Marc
What about the ultra-wide or tilt-shift side of things?
-
I get what you are saying about the DR allowing for lazy production, but even without extended DR people don't use meters and adjust lights and f stops based on histograms, which is not crafting an image.
Sure it is, just different tools.
-
Every time I take a shot with my D800e or D4 where the histogram hits both ends I say aloud: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!"
I am with Petrus!
Tony Jay
-
Will it come soon, or is it time to sell and go to Nikon?
If you need more pixels now, buy the 800 now.
If Canon announced their big pixel camera tomorrow the chances are you wouldn't get your hands on one this side of Christmas.
It's certainly on it's way. There have been many rumours, both fanciful and credible that one is under development and various prototypes are being tested.
Nikon's very competitive pricing on the 800 has given Canon a nightmare decision where to price it and what model series to put it in.
-
If you need more pixels now, buy the 800 now.
If Canon announced their big pixel camera tomorrow the chances are you wouldn't get your hands on one this side of Christmas.
It's certainly on it's way. There have been many rumours, both fanciful and credible that one is under development and various prototypes are being tested.
Nikon's very competitive pricing on the 800 has given Canon a nightmare decision where to price it and what model series to put it in.
It seems that Canon is using a "mature" process tech for their APS-C and 24x36mm sensors, while their compact cameras get a more modern process tech. There may be many reasons for this, the higher sensel density of small sensor may mean that smaller process technology is needed, while the larger sensor may be more concerned with the probability of faults per sensor?
It seems natural that unless Canon executives feels really pressured, they will gradually phase in new process tech in APS-C sensors due to their (usually) denser sensels, and perhaps smaller sensors is lower risk/cost?
-h
-
I don't mind 40+ MP. The fils of the 5DMIII are big enough. I do A2+ prints, and I doubt it will ever be more. And I assume this goes for 99% of the users here. Even the Pro's. If they go bigger they use MF anyway. But I hate to fiddle around with Photoshop, to merge a couple of exposures and get the whole digital range right. Especially when it gets complicated (light leaves dark sky). As the 5DMIII has very bad noise when darks are pushed, there is no other way around it. I hear the D800 is much better there.
So I am fine with the print sizes, but I would love to have more DR.
-
Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light.
Well said Paul! Away with dishrag grey HDR landscapes, I say. :)
-
Well said Paul! Away with dishrag grey HDR landscapes, I say. :)
Shadows that are clipped into black are not an accurate representation of how grand landscapes appear to me in person.
Now, HDR/tonemapping may not be entirely accurate, either, but (well done) I think it is a more accurate method.
Now, "accurate compared to being there in person" might not be what all of us are striving for all of the time.
-h
-
"I hear your pain brother" I was ready for a 5DIII but went for the D800E due to it's better sensor. What to do about the lenses? For landscapes manual focus is fine so I invested in Leica R lenses modified them with Leitax Nikkor mounts. So now I can use them directly on my D800E or with an adapter on my 5DII. So I future proofed my lens investment, they can be used on a Nikon,Canon or Sony
Marc
What about the ultra-wide or tilt-shift side of things?
I pack my IQ180/Cambo WRS for the wide shots (tilt/swing on the lenses) and the D800E with Leicas for the longer shots. It all fits nicely in my backpack except the Leica 280 f4
Rodenstock 40,70 and 105mm, Leica 21-35, 28-90 and 80-200
Marc
-
I pack my IQ180/Cambo WRS for the wide shots (tilt/swing on the lenses) and the D800E with Leicas for the longer shots. It all fits nicely in my backpack except the Leica 280 f4
Rodenstock 40,70 and 105mm, Leica 21-35, 28-90 and 80-200
Marc
You have one problem: you are still left with the decision whether to drive to your location with your Ferrari or your Bentley...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Ludwig
-
You have one problem: you are still left with the decision whether to drive to your location with your Ferrari or your Bentley...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
We are talking about landscape photography here, so there is also the Lamborghini LM002.
-
Surely the Lamborghini will have trouble on those dirt roads.
-
Surely the Lamborghini will have trouble on those dirt roads.
I don't think so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_LM002
BTW Lamborghini started out as a tractor manufacturer. Its founder was legendarily insulted by Ferrari and that's why they now make high end motor cars.
-
I would like to buy the Nikon D800e, but have a lot of Canon-lenses.
I am hoping for a Canon "D800".
Will it come soon, or is it time to sell and go to Nikon?
Henrik
To get to the photo receptor (pixel) density of the D800 Canon will have to come up with a back illuminated CMOS chip design similar to what is used in the D800 (photo receptors on one side (the backside) and the supporting circuits and processors on the front side. My understanding is that Sony owns the patent for that CMOS design and either fabricates CMOS to Nikon's spec or licenses the the design to Nikon.
-
You have one problem: you are still left with the decision whether to drive to your location with your Ferrari or your Bentley...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Ludwig
Actually it's a 1995 Ford Explorer because it was either a new car or a great camera, so for me it's the great camera!
Cheers
Marc
-
To get to the photo receptor (pixel) density of the D800 Canon will have to come up with a back illuminated CMOS chip design similar to what is used in the D800 (photo receptors on one side (the backside) and the supporting circuits and processors on the front side. My understanding is that Sony owns the patent for that CMOS design and either fabricates CMOS to Nikon's spec or licenses the the design to Nikon.
Recent Nikon sensors have been manufactured by Toshiba it seems, yet they are delivering a similar level of DR. It could be that Nikon leveraged some Sony technology in their design and had them manufactured by Toshiba but it could also mean that the technology is not a Sony exclusive.
But the "problem" with Canon may be similar to what we had at Nikon 6-7 years ago, meaning an internal deadlock resulting from some key stakeholders just not being seriously interested in tackling an issue. It seems that until the D3 design started, some key Nikon folks were simply convinced that the D2x had good enough high ISO image quality and that it was not needed to go higher since film was anyway not as good already.
I hope I am wrong, but based on the external communication of Canon, I am not sure they are really aligned with the view that the 5DIII/1DX is very far behind in sensor technology compared to the D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To get to the photo receptor (pixel) density of the D800 Canon will have to come up with a back illuminated CMOS chip design similar to what is used in the D800 (photo receptors on one side (the backside) ... My understanding is that Sony owns the patent for that CMOS design ...
Wrong on both counts.
First, the improved DR and such of recent sensors used by Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Leica are due to using on-chip analog-to-digital conversion, in particular the "column-parallel" approach with ADCs at the bottom of each column of photosites. I have seen no indication that any of these sensors use back-illumination, which seems only to be used and useful with the far smaller photosites of sensors for phones and small compact cameras.
Second, neither the on-chip column parallel ADC nor back-ilumination are exclusive to Sony, even if Sony has patents on some approaches to each technology and puts our more press releases about them than other sensor makers. For example, Samsung, Panasonic, and CMOSIS is all makes sensors using column parallel ADC, and multiple companies use back illumination in some smaller sensors (though no sensor maker does so in any "SLR sized" sensors.)
In short: it is not that Sony is unique in having this new generation of sensor technology, but that Canon is (almost) unique in not yet using it.
P. S. comments from CMOSIS on its use of both these technologies:
http://www.cmosis.com/technology_main/technology
A Panasonic sensor with column-parallel ADC, the MN34070 (used in the GH2):
http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/en/support/catalogs/pdf/T12013CE.pdf
And one from Aptina, who Nikon has worked with for Nikon One system sensors: http://www.aptina.com/assets/downloadDocument.do?id=498
-
Hi,
I guess the 1995 Ford Explorer makes the job,probably as reliably as the Lambo.
Myself I drive a 2006 Toyota RAV 4...
Best regards
Erik
Actually it's a 1995 Ford Explorer because it was either a new car or a great camera, so for me it's the great camera!
Cheers
Marc
-
BJL, do you know if Fuji uses on-chip column parallel ADC ?
-
BJL, do you know if Fuji uses on-chip column parallel ADC ?
I don't know, and have seen no comment on any technical details except the unusual CFA.
I have seen speculation that Fujifilm is putting its custom CFA on a Sony sensor, which would make the answer "yes". Maybe we will get a clue from dynamic range and noise testing.