Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: pedro39photo on September 06, 2014, 07:12:52 am
-
I never look to deep in tech details for any camera or models, as a photographer i just like to see the cameras as my working tools, they don´t make me a better photographer, but somethings they help to produce a better final product or a easy way to produced it.
For the last 8 years my 35mm working horses are Canon gear, and they still amaze me with the quality of her products and the CPS support. ( the plastics , rubbers and the materials that receive the more professional wear over the time are for are the best in the photo industry, the rubbers on my 24-70 and 70-200 with more than 500.000 clicks are like new !!! that still amaze me !)
But, the sensors...in the film days we can chose the gear brand and the velvia, the provia etc...now we still have a great 1Ds mark I or II series old bodys but outdated because of the sensors...or maybe not... :)
I pass the early D800-E madness resolution, DMF wars etc, but in the last weeks, 2 or 3 pics i saw in the net from the d810 made me to start look a little deep about ther sensor technology, as a professional the bodys and lens are important but the file its a great part of the equation !
And after some reviews, deep tech details, and starting to play with some Nef files from sony 36mp exmor sensor i was in a little shock to not see earlier the big jump in sensor technology that this was, an old tabu that i have was drop dead !!! more MP its bad in small sensors !!
Of course a great sensor its not everything, and not a excuse to make any brand better than other but sometimes feels great to see some " game changers" in the industry and technology.
The 5D mark II was game changer in the video industry and 24Mp sensor, a and i think the sony exmor its a game changer in the sensor technology that proof that there is no tabus for what technology can achieve.
Its as been a great 2 decades to be a photographer and see such transforming in this tool and visual art !!!
I love to see some opinions about the future that this exmor or future canon sensors can bring to another brands, or next cmos DMF with 100mp.
Here are some tecnical detais:
http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/
http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-part-1-nikon-vs-sony/
http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol47/pdf/featuring47.pdf
My best regards
Pedro
-
Some good observations and comments, Pedro. I know exactly what you are going through; two years ago after some soul-searching and similar research, I made the leap from Olympus to Nikon. I saw the writing on the wall and lept and have never regretted.
You are correct in observing that it's not all about megapixels. In my leap to Nikon (D800E), I gained mp, as Olympus has topped out at 16 and I might be at 24mp given that I am not using the top of the line 24/1.4G, for example. However the bigger leap by far has been in dynamic range. At a tested DR of 14.4, I can shoot into the sun on a clear summer morning and capture detail right the way through with careful LR-only processing (no HDR, no PS - see Bruce Peninsula post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91872.0)). This is astounding and, for me as a landscape shooter, a game changer like no other. And now, the D810 adds yet another ½-stop of DR.
Whether or not Canon will join Nikon and Sony in this quest is the $64,000 question.
As you said, it certainly has been a great 2 decades for photography! Although, in many respects, we seem to have reached a bit of a plateau in still photography, I am certainly looking forward to see what the next 20 years brings us.
-
You are correct in observing that it's not all about megapixels. In my leap to Nikon (D800E), I gained mp, as Olympus has topped out at 16 and I might be at 24mp given that I am not using the top of the line 24/1.4G, for example. However the bigger leap by far has been in dynamic range. At a tested DR of 14.4, I can shoot into the sun on a clear summer morning and capture detail right the way through with careful LR-only processing (no HDR, no PS - see Bruce Peninsula post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91872.0)). This is astounding and, for me as a landscape shooter, a game changer like no other. And now, the D810 adds yet another ½-stop of D
This is an excellent summary of reasons for my move from Canon in mid 2012 to Nikon. I will note also, for me is was not about 36MP vs 20MP, it was the ability to get one clean frame with out excessive red green banding and shadow noise at base to mid iso range.
Deep rumors are that Canon has patents on a multilayer chip similar to Foveon design, and with that I wish them well. It should be an interesting result.
Paul
-
This was the image comparation that blow my convictions, i was in shock, not for the resolution, that its normal we see in the future canon sensors but the real shock was the amazing clean information in the file after 5 stops under exposing.
(http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/D800_5D3/d800_vs_5D3_5_stops_under_iso100.jpg)
Left: Nikon D800, ISO 100, 5 stops underexposed, RAW (NEF) image, 100% crop
Right: Canon EOS 5D MkIII image, 5 stops underexposed, RAW image, 100% crop
Amazing times ! this its the Bar for any future sensors to achieve or surpass
-
To me the next world rocker, if it ever happens is a Foveon chip Full frame with workable software solutions from LR and C1. Canon still has the multilayer patents out there, if they brought this out in 20MP even it could be very interesting. However no one has figured out higher iso on the Foveon chips yet, so who knows.
Paul
-
The Foveon chip with its "in house" Sigma brand its a little sad and exciting to see at the same time.
For me the Foveon its like to see a beautiful wild tiger in a cage, amazing, exciting but will never be free to give and show us its true potentials from Pro brands like canon or nikon and Raw software.
Sigma make some great optic lens, but i thinks it just can not deliver high super demanding professional heavy duty slrs and lens materials.
I give a good top of the line sigma lens to wife, and just 1.5 years of use little amateur use, those matte finish paint just star to peel off
-
To me the next world rocker, if it ever happens is a Foveon chip Full frame...
That is only possible with truly telecentric optics, because otherwise corner rays would travel longer through silicon and that creates a shift in color towards the corners. Calibration of that behavior seems very problematic to me, with potentially even less room for higher ISOs, and thus a software solution would be very unlikely.
... with workable software solutions from LR and C1. Canon still has the multilayer patents out there, if they brought this out in 20MP even it could be very interesting. However no one has figured out higher iso on the Foveon chips yet, so who knows.
It also seems unlikely that LR or C1 would be able to justify the R&D cost involved in such non-standard processing for a relatively limited group of potential users.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It also seems unlikely that LR or C1 would be able to justify the R&D cost involved in such non-standard processing for a relatively limited group of potential users.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes Bart that its the key point, the Foveon remember me the Betacam and the HD-DVD.
Not always the better quality and technology prevails and triumph...its sad but its real.
-
Foveon sensors are fascinating but currently flawed - see the reviews of the Sigma Quattro and before that, the reviews of the Sigma Merrill cameras on this site. I enjoy my Merrills, particularly for lightweight hiking landscape photography kit, but they are very much specialized tools for landscape, not great all-around action-handling cameras.
I am a Canon shooter, and I think that Canon makes very good all-around cameras that are a pleasure to use. I am anxiously awaiting some sign of Canon sensor / sensor read-out dynamic resolution improvement, because I find that the cameras are ergonomic, many of the lenses are wonderful, and that the system as a whole works well for me. I don't want to change systems, and there's no financial incentive to do so (I am an amateur). Nikon lenses can be used on Canon camera bodies, but Canon lenses can't be used on Nikon camera bodies (I am a manual-focus aficionado, and shoot with some inherited pre-AI/AI/AIS Nikkors along with my trusty interchangeable extra-fine focusing screen). I have a big investment in EF mount lenses and therefore have more interest in a supplemental Sony mirrorless than in a Nikon dSLR.
-
Foveon sensors are fascinating but currently flawed - see the reviews of the Sigma Quattro and before that, the reviews of the Sigma Merrill cameras on this site. I enjoy my Merrills, particularly for lightweight hiking landscape photography kit, but they are very much specialized tools for landscape, not great all-around action-handling cameras.
I am a Canon shooter, and I think that Canon makes very good all-around cameras that are a pleasure to use. I am anxiously awaiting some sign of Canon sensor / sensor read-out dynamic resolution improvement, because I find that the cameras are ergonomic, many of the lenses are wonderful, and that the system as a whole works well for me. I don't want to change systems, and there's no financial incentive to do so (I am an amateur). Nikon lenses can be used on Canon camera bodies, but Canon lenses can't be used on Nikon camera bodies (I am a manual-focus aficionado, and shoot with some inherited pre-AI/AI/AIS Nikkors along with my trusty interchangeable extra-fine focusing screen). I have a big investment in EF mount lenses and therefore have more interest in a supplemental Sony mirrorless than in a Nikon dSLR.
All good points and if Canon makes no new full frame positional or actual announcements at Photokina, the A7 or A7r are a great fit for a Canon shooter looking to expand DR. I made the switch and sold all the EF glass I had, 14 years worth, but don't look back very often.
Having used the A7r with the metabones and Acra DSLR2, it's an amazing solution, with excellent possibilities. If an adapter ever come out for use with the Nikon glass with AF, I would be in the market. I actually now prefer EVF unless it's fast moving subject matter (birds) where the EVF makes the viewing a bit harder for me and I still like optical.
But for carry in the field, the A7r can't be beat. Light weight, compact etc. And now Zeiss is coming out with 2 new E mount lenses as I recall.
The D810/and 14-24 with grip on the D810 goes get a bit heavy for me on a long day.
Paul
-
The Canon 7D Mark II is about to come out.
If it has the same old basic sensor, I am switching to Nikon.
But if there is a new, dynamic, significant change in their sensor technology, I am going to stay with Canon.
Unfortunately, I prefer Canon's Macro specialty lenses, and super-telephoto offerings better than Nikon, pretty much across the board, and the one wide-angle zoom Nikkor lens I covet (14-24), that is an asterisk to that statement, can be put on a Canon.
But if Canon expects me to wait another several years for them to "catch up," sensor-wise, they are wrong. I am not waiting much longer.
So the upgrade to the 7D will be the deciding factor for me.
Jack
-
But if Canon expects me to wait another several years for them to "catch up," sensor-wise, they are wrong. I am not waiting much longer.
Canon will have to do something soon or I suspect their loyal customers will simply die of boredom. ;)
I made the decision to switch to Nikon because there was no true successor to the 1DsIII and the D800e was just to tempting.
-
Unfortunately, I prefer Canon's Macro specialty lenses, and super-telephoto offerings better than Nikon, pretty much across the board, and the one wide-angle zoom Nikkor lens I covet (14-24), that is an asterisk to that statement, can be put on a Canon.
I would try the new Nikon 400mm f2.8 E FL / 800mm f5.6 E FL if I were you.
Expensive but even better optically than the previous version that was already the best lens available in Nikon mount IMHO (and arguably the best overall already). The previous one was too heavy and poorly balanced, the new fixes all that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Good articles. Thanks for the post.
Canon may consider dual-pixel technology (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/daf) as one of their silver bullets, IMO. Mirror-box auto-focus will be phased out at Canon implements dual-pixel tech into new cameras. Lenses may receive upgrades too, that provide smoother focusing while the mirror is slapping at 10 frames per second.
Most guys here don't need face-tracking autofocus, but in video and sports, it's a godsend.
-
Canon may consider dual-pixel technology (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/daf) as one of their silver bullets, IMO. Mirror-box auto-focus will be phased out at Canon implements dual-pixel tech into new cameras. Lenses may receive upgrades too, that provide smoother focusing while the mirror is slapping at 10 frames per second.
Most guys here don't need face-tracking autofocus, but in video and sports, it's a godsend.
Yes, innovations like Canon's dual-pixel AF may be enough to keep Canon quite competitive for video performance in still cameras and AF in non-DSLRs (both non-SLR system cameras and fixed lens compacts), and its sensors do seem good enough for all but a DR-obsessed niche of the market, judging by its continuing strong market share figures.
So I am sure that Canon has time to come up with something to improve DR, such as column-parallel ADC, if and when the commercial need is there.
-
Maybe in the past years both companies went to different efforts.
After the boom of the 5d mark II in the video and movie industries, that was a game changer , canon put they efforts in the C lines models, and not so much in new sensor technology. Us, canon photographer lose the "edge" in the digital files to nikon that don´t really do any R&D efforts, just need to buy the sensor to sony (kudos to sony, and thanks as a photographer)
Of course nikon saw a market opportunity and in the last 2 or 3 years put much more DSLR models in the market than canon, but canon don´t saw any "pressure" because they now have a new big sale segment in the video C models and the 5D mark III widely used and bought in double for photographers and cinematographers.
That its just my theory, but like me many canon photographers feel the "need" for a file like Exmor 36MP sensor, and with the time passing we just start to move to the dark side...
What its sad, its to see so much photographers that like very much the canon gear, body, lens, CPS, chang brand just because of the huge improvement of the Exmor files and resolution
Pedro
-
I would try the new Nikon 400mm f2.8 E FL / 800mm f5.6 E FL if I were you.
Expensive but even better optically than the previous version that was already the best lens available in Nikon mount IMHO (and arguably the best overall already). The previous one was too heavy and poorly balanced, the new fixes all that.
Cheers,
Bernard
Used to own the (identical optics with the just discontinued version) 400mm f2.8D... A bit pricey, but in reality one bought a 560mm f4 and an 800mm f5.6 along with it as long as he added the TCs... The bagger was perfectly usable at full aperture even with the TC-20Eiii and the Kenko 1.4x DGX stacked with it for a 1120mm f8 ! or 1700mm f8 on a D7K ...it would even AF in fairly good daylight with both the TCs stacked on it and the D7K... Amazing lens! ...the worst hood ever on a lens though! :-[ The later versions where optically identical and the Dii version was 8% lighter, but they also replaced the sturdy leg of my version for a much worst one! Latter they also added VR which of course was a totally useless addition! :-\
-
. . . but like me many canon photographers feel the "need" for a file like Exmor 36MP sensor, and with the time passing we just start to move to the dark side...
What its sad, its to see so much photographers that like very much the canon gear, body, lens, CPS, chang brand just because of the huge improvement of the Exmor files and resolution
I evaluated the Nikon D800 for my biz, specifically because of the DR and file size, but didn't enjoy the tethered workflow. Combined with having to switch out all my lenses, I passed.
-
I've been a Nikon shooter since Canon obsoleted my FD mount equipment with the EOS mount eons ago. I was actually concerned that with their bigger size Canon might just outpace Nikon and in pure number of lenses they have. However, in really thinking it over, it is better that Nikon can source key components that are not really core to "photography", but technology used in Photography.
And while MP isn't everything, it depends what you are using the MP for. Remember that the 36MP of the D800 isn't even double the resolution of the 12MP D300 which would be 48MP. Resolution is a square function.
If I had to list my priorities it would be low noise at all ISO, smooth tonal gradiations (MF film advantage over 35mm), true color rendition (lessen post processing demands), exposure depth.
-
I've been a Nikon shooter since Canon obsoleted my FD mount equipment with the EOS mount eons ago.
I, too, popped a gasket when this happened. Went with Mamiya RZ, which suited my workflow better.
-
I've been a Nikon shooter since Canon obsoleted my FD mount equipment with the EOS mount eons ago. I was actually concerned that with their bigger size Canon might just outpace Nikon and in pure number of lenses they have. However, in really thinking it over, it is better that Nikon can source key components that are not really core to "photography", but technology used in Photography.
And while MP isn't everything, it depends what you are using the MP for. Remember that the 36MP of the D800 isn't even double the resolution of the 12MP D300 which would be 48MP. Resolution is a square function.
If I had to list my priorities it would be low noise at all ISO, smooth tonal gradiations (MF film advantage over 35mm), true color rendition (lessen post processing demands), exposure depth.
It was the perfectly rational thing for Canon to do. For pros, the investment lost in their old equipment was chump change, and the new capabilities were far beyond anything Nikon could come up with, and Nikon still hasn't caught up. Digital was not even thought of at that time, of course. The larger EOS mount allowed for faster lenses and improved optical designs. The fastest lenses were dropped by Canon when digital sensors began eclipsing the sensitivity of fast films.
-
Let's hope that Canon decides to invest on low ISO image quality.
Now, the funny thing is that, at least on internet forums, many Canon shooters are claiming they don't see the current level of DR of their sensor as limiting for their art.
Some surely mean it and that's great, they won't need to buy the 16 stop DR Canon body, some apparently don't want to acknowledge the fact that they are creating their art with equipment that isn't cutting edge (some don't create any art at all and are not really photographers but more money spenders, let's ignore them here).
I am saying it is funny because such reactions certainly contribute to slowing down the pace of innovation at Canon, which only really hurts people invested in Canon lenses. Talk about a self defeating approach to purchasing...;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon will have to do something soon or I suspect their loyal customers will simply die of boredom. ;)
I made the decision to switch to Nikon because there was no true successor to the 1DsIII and the D800e was just to tempting.
I am extremely close to making that decision myself.
I shoot macro, and Canon has some key lenses there (i.e., MP-E65), and (at the time of my purchases in 2009) the EOS 7D was "it" is far as crop sensor cameras go ... but that was quite a few years ago.
The 7D was a game-changer for Canon, it stood out amongst the crowd ... and it has remained unchanged for years ... while the 5D went from II to III, the off-brand Crops caught up and passed it, as well as Nikon, and hell, even the Canon Rebels passed it.
The new 7D needs to re-define Canon and be a prelude of things to come. If the 7D isn't a game-changer again, a truly significant upgrade to give me something to buy myself for Christmas (lol), then I am going to go with the D800 as you did.
I am hoping Canon doesn't disappoint, because they have sat on their @$$ for too long IMO.
Jack
-
The new 7D needs to re-define Canon and be a prelude of things to come. If the 7D isn't a game-changer again, a truly significant upgrade to give me something to buy myself for Christmas (lol), then I am going to go with the D800 as you did.
Jack,
If you go the Nikon route, by all means get a D810.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would try the new Nikon 400mm f2.8 E FL / 800mm f5.6 E FL if I were you.
Expensive but even better optically than the previous version that was already the best lens available in Nikon mount IMHO (and arguably the best overall already). The previous one was too heavy and poorly balanced, the new fixes all that.
Cheers,
Bernard
Long lens-wise, I am wanting to buy the Canon 200-400/1.4x (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html), and have been saving for it for awhile.
On a 1.6x crop sensor, and with a 1.4x built-in converter, it is essentially a 320-896 lens, so basically there is no Nikon equivalent that can touch that.
The closest to this kind of versatility would be a D300 on the Nikon's 200-400, which (at the D300's 1.5x crop) would be 300-600, which isn't really close.
And if I get the D800, then it is just a straight 200-400 :(
Is the extender really good? Fair question.
I think extenders suck for rigorous demands of macro, but on long lenses they work pretty good, and by all accounts on this lens especially.
If the 7D Mark II has a really great sensor, I would much prefer to have it + the Canon 200-400/1.4x than any other manufacturer's offering, which really can't compare.
The Canon 200-400/1.4x is the most versatile field lens available, and if Canon brings its next crop sensor Camera up to the level that lens deserves, I will be much happier than if I have to get the D800 (or D300) + an older 200-400.
Jack
-
Hi,
Good reasoning for long lenses. The impression I have that the 200-400 is an excellent lens. Personally, I often use a small pixels APS-C body instead of full frame and 1.4X extender.
Best regards
Erik
Long lens-wise, I am wanting to buy the Canon 200-400/1.4x (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html), and have been saving for it for awhile.
On a 1.6x crop sensor, and with a 1.4x built-in converter, it is essentially a 320-896 lens, so basically there is no Nikon equivalent that can touch that.
The closest to this kind of versatility would be a D300 on the Nikon's 200-400, which (at the D300's 1.5x crop) would be 300-600, which isn't really close.
And if I get the D800, then it is just a straight 200-400 :(
Is the extender really good? Fair question.
I think extenders suck for rigorous demands of macro, but on long lenses they work pretty good, and by all accounts on this lens especially.
If the 7D Mark II has a really great sensor, I would much prefer to have it + the Canon 200-400/1.4x than any other manufacturer's offering, which really can't compare.
The Canon 200-400/1.4x is the most versatile field lens available, and if Canon brings its next crop sensor Camera up to the level that lens deserves, I will be much happier than if I have to get the D800 (or D300) + an older 200-400.
Jack
-
Let's hope that Canon decides to invest on low ISO image quality.
Now, the funny thing is that, at least on internet forums, many Canon shooters are claiming they don't see the current level of DR of their sensor as limiting for their art.
Some surely mean it and that's great, they won't need to buy the 16 stop DR Canon body, some apparently don't want to acknowledge the fact that they are creating their art with equipment that isn't cutting edge (some don't create any art at all and are not really photographers but more money spenders, let's ignore them here).
I am saying it is funny because such reactions certainly contribute to slowing down the pace of innovation at Canon, which only really hurts people invested in Canon lenses. Talk about a self defeating approach to purchasing...;)
Cheers,
Bernard
if you shoot in the studio and control the lighting then there is no issue with the dynamic range (or on some location shoots where you control the lighting) if you come from shooting E6 which i did for all my jobs then managing exposure/dynamic range was just part of the process.
i dont get the self defeating approach to purchasing? many photographers stuck with their ‘inferior’ d2x instead of switching to canon and carried on shooting/earning money, technology changes but that doesn't make things obsolete overnight (plenty of people still using old 22mp backs and dslr’s).
me, i just took a side step to an A7r body and adapter which gave me the best of both worlds and meant i didn’t have to use some of Nikons mediocre lens offerings and body idiosyncrasies or take a financial hit swapping systems.
everyone has their shooting requirements, it’s not actually that difficult to find a solution that works in the age of the internet. if you are a measurebator money spender the little gaps between camera releases must be hard to bear :'(
-
There are of course many other constraints coming into play.
I was shooting with a D2x myself when the forums were all over the 1Ds II. I couldn't afford to change.
This being said, DxO mark now tells us that the difference of DR at base ISO with the Canon was much smaller than what we have today.
My point was not about those cases though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It was the perfectly rational thing for Canon to do. For pros, the investment lost in their old equipment was chump change, and the new capabilities were far beyond anything Nikon could come up with, and Nikon still hasn't caught up. Digital was not even thought of at that time, of course. The larger EOS mount allowed for faster lenses and improved optical designs. The fastest lenses were dropped by Canon when digital sensors began eclipsing the sensitivity of fast films.
It was the right decision for Canon at the time. They were on the outside looking in and the EOS mount led to the innovations that put them in the same class as Nikon. My point was just that since my equipment got obsolete, it was the opportune time to jump to Nikon. I happened to like the rendition on Nikon lenses better and they are functionally much easier for me to operate. I still struggle when people come up to me with Canon gear and ask me how to set various functions on their cameras. I bought a S95 point and shoot because it was a great inexpensive camera with manual capability, but it is so ass backwards to operate, I will waive off Canon stuff from now on.
-
Hi,
Good reasoning for long lenses. The impression I have that the 200-400 is an excellent lens. Personally, I often use a small pixels APS-C body instead of full frame and 1.4X extender.
Best regards
Erik
The 200-400 is almost universally considered a game-changing lens, both in regards to inter-corporation long lens comparisons, as well as within each individual nature photographer's flexibility and ability to get the shot they want. Pretty much everyone who's used it has been floored by both its image quality as well as the versatility. Haven't seen a single bad review yet, but dozens of stellar reviews.
I have a few pro nature friends in Alaska and other regions, who's work is constantly on FB, who say this lens has opened up new worlds for them, and created opportunities that lens-switching would have lost for them.
For years, the Nikkor 200-400 has made Canon look bad compared to Canon's dinosaur 100-400. Now, compared to the Nikkor equivalent, Canon's answer with its own 200-400 is now considered superior on every level to the Nikkor offering ... from image quality, to range of potential use, as well as by not allowing dust inside (which one Nikon shooter said made him ultimately leave his Nikkor 200-400 home). So, in the lens department, Canon answered Nikkor's once-superiority with an epic rout, eclipsing the Nikkor on all levels.
In fact, the 200-400 is considered by many to Canon's most epic piece of glass, ever, and has pioneered the built-in extender technology, which no one else has added to a zoom. So I am sure we will watch the others play monkey-see, monkey-do in the future.
Therefore, if Canon brings their sensors up to par in the 7D, as well as the next generation full-frames ... in the same game-changing fashion they recently achieved with this remarkable lens ... it will make the wait worthwhile. Even if they just catch-up to what's out there, sensor-wise, they still offer a better deal "whole package"-wise. If not, then I can't see why they would bother upgrading their lenses like they've been doing ... if they're just going to put them overtop of inferior sensors. Would make no sense, so let's wait and see.
Jack
-
I've been an EOS shooter since 1992. I certainly don't feel limited by the resolution and DR of my 6D but I would truly be delighted to have an EOS with a Sony 36mp Exmor-like sensor.
I do a lot of exposure blending for my interior photography. I also do some for my landscapes and so on. Sometimes I get too tired of so much blending. I like to print big also but kind of heavily invested in EF and TSE lenses. Considering a switch is not an option yet but I think Canon pushed their luck too much already.
Eduardo
Let's hope that Canon decides to invest on low ISO image quality.
Now, the funny thing is that, at least on internet forums, many Canon shooters are claiming they don't see the current level of DR of their sensor as limiting for their art.
Some surely mean it and that's great, they won't need to buy the 16 stop DR Canon body, some apparently don't want to acknowledge the fact that they are creating their art with equipment that isn't cutting edge (some don't create any art at all and are not really photographers but more money spenders, let's ignore them here).
I am saying it is funny because such reactions certainly contribute to slowing down the pace of innovation at Canon, which only really hurts people invested in Canon lenses. Talk about a self defeating approach to purchasing...;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The weather around here hasn't been that good for the last couple of days - so thank you to the Fantasy Island Canon crew for keeping me entertained.
Myself, I kept on using my Canon T90 until it like my Olympus OM2n it finally died of old age well into the digital age. And have never had the urge to buy any Canon EOS whether film or digital even with all those statistics coming out about how dominant Canon was in the market place. I guess some of us have a pack mentality and others of us don't.
-
I've just been on a road trip with 7 other great photographers. I shoot canon.
6 shot nikon, all had D810's already. Most had a backup sony a7r.
TBH seeing the results they were getting , and not even needing filters long after I am using 3stops+ was sickening as a canon user.
I know I can work around the limitations here, stitch more, blend, filters. They ALL have downsides and risks, take time and effort - time and effort I could be putting in to composition and other framing options at peak light.
I have a D810 coming ( on loan for a test) and am eyeing up an a7r. I know it wont make me a better photographer. But it will make my files better and easier to work with, reduce time and risk.
-
I've just been on a road trip with 7 other great photographers. I shoot canon.
6 shot nikon, all had D810's already. Most had a backup sony a7r.
TBH seeing the results they were getting , and not even needing filters long after I am using 3stops+ was sickening as a canon user.
I know I can work around the limitations here, stitch more, blend, filters. They ALL have downsides and risks, take time and effort - time and effort I could be putting in to composition and other framing options at peak light.
I have a D810 coming ( on loan for a test) and am eyeing up an a7r. I know it wont make me a better photographer. But it will make my files better and easier to work with, reduce time and risk.
As someone who has been tempted both by the d800e and the a7r, and who is aware of the advantages offered, I was especially piqued by your comment. I know the nikon and sony raw files have tons of info hidden in them to manipulate, but I would love it if you could share some galleries.
I would absolutely love to see some of your photos and some of your companions' taken with the D810 just put some concrete pictures to your comment. Not trying to question your experience or comment, I'm genuinely just curious. I want to see what kind of a real world difference was seen here.
Also, if you wouldn't mind answering, what location was this?
Thanks!
-
I got a Sony A7R to use with my Canon lenses, using a Metabones adapter. I'm really happy with the results. Yes, the AF is sloooooooow, but very accurate and consistent (I have the impression that more so than native Canon AF). No need for no stinkin' AF micro-adjustments and other fiddling, as focus is done directly on the sensor.
For my style of landscape / no moving objects shooting, it's a great combo. When I do wildlife or people, I still have my trusty 1DsmkIII, which gets the job done when fast AF is needed.
So, frustrated fellow Canon shooters, consider the Sony, at least as a temporary solution, until Canon gets it's act together (if it ever does)...
-
It was the right decision for Canon at the time. They were on the outside looking in and the EOS mount led to the innovations that put them in the same class as Nikon. My point was just that since my equipment got obsolete, it was the opportune time to jump to Nikon. I happened to like the rendition on Nikon lenses better and they are functionally much easier for me to operate. I still struggle when people come up to me with Canon gear and ask me how to set various functions on their cameras. I bought a S95 point and shoot because it was a great inexpensive camera with manual capability, but it is so ass backwards to operate, I will waive off Canon stuff from now on.
I don't understand. Why jump to Nikon when the EOS system was far superior, built from the ground up as an autofocus system? Nikkor and Canon lenses of the late 1980s were roughly equivalent, and typical Japanese optics. If you really wanted superior optics, you should have jumped to Leica reflex cameras and lenses.
All of the new cameras (to the extent that I have looked at them) are way too complicated. I am used to an all-manual film camera (Leicaflex SL2) and all of these new-fangled digital cameras are worthless as far as I am concerned. My lenses are as good as or better than any of them, so why should I even consider switching?
-
As someone who has been tempted both by the d800e and the a7r, and who is aware of the advantages offered, I was especially piqued by your comment. I know the nikon and sony raw files have tons of info hidden in them to manipulate, but I would love it if you could share some galleries.
I would absolutely love to see some of your photos and some of your companions' taken with the D810 just put some concrete pictures to your comment. Not trying to question your experience or comment, I'm genuinely just curious. I want to see what kind of a real world difference was seen here.
Also, if you wouldn't mind answering, what location was this?
Thanks!
Talk about coming a full circle.
1. I notice this photo on flickr explore: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce-hood/15181925415/ and exclaim to myself, damn that's really quite the shot (D810) and I wonder if the 6D can manage something like that.
2. I see RobDickinson's post in this thread about the D810s and connect to that shot I had seen (along with the general impression of d800/e/810) and wonder more.
3. I make this quoted post.
4. I see RobDickinson's post in the Landscape forum https://www.flickr.com/photos/zarphag/15135937235/.
Both excellent shots. And I think I have a good answer on my hands. I wonder how much background work in both these shots.
BTW RobDickinson, I didn't realize you were in my flickr contacts, your photos are insane, the Milford Sound one blew my mind (and so did this one).
-
I don't understand. Why jump to Nikon when the EOS system was far superior, built from the ground up as an autofocus system? Nikkor and Canon lenses of the late 1980s were roughly equivalent, and typical Japanese optics. If you really wanted superior optics, you should have jumped to Leica reflex cameras and lenses.
All of the new cameras (to the extent that I have looked at them) are way too complicated. I am used to an all-manual film camera (Leicaflex SL2) and all of these new-fangled digital cameras are worthless as far as I am concerned. My lenses are as good as or better than any of them, so why should I even consider switching?
I was gifted a Canon body and lens at 16 years old and that is what I went with. At the time of the EOS mount appeared, I thought long and hard about which brand to go to. Since back then the bodies were relatively inexpensive it came down to lenses and operation. I love the old all manual Nikon FM body. I also like the rendition of Nikon lenses. I thought both about the advantages of the new mount, Canon's financial were with all and what would be a better long term investment. Having played with both and having friends with Canon gear, I am glad I chose to go Nikon.
I agree with the complication of modern cameras. My main bitch is that there is not a setting on a modern camera that is mechanical. Everything is set electronically. Hence, Why in the hell do we not have the ability to make all those settings and save them? I'm talking like 10 different banks setting absolutely everything (around some base factory settings) that can be named and commented and selected on the massive screens on these things. I don't have D4, but maybe they can do that now at the upper end. I shoot everything from night sports to macro and I have to discipline myself after I shoot to reset the camera to some base configuration so I don't screw myself up. I actually went back to shooting Shutter Priority for sports because every time I used Aperture priority and the dynamic ISO with a minimum shutter speed set, I would forget to turn that off and be shooting a candid at ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/500th.
-
I was gifted a Canon body and lens at 16 years old and that is what I went with. At the time of the EOS mount appeared, I thought long and hard about which brand to go to. Since back then the bodies were relatively inexpensive it came down to lenses and operation. I love the old all manual Nikon FM body. I also like the rendition of Nikon lenses. I thought both about the advantages of the new mount, Canon's financial were with all and what would be a better long term investment. Having played with both and having friends with Canon gear, I am glad I chose to go Nikon.
I agree with the complication of modern cameras. My main bitch is that there is not a setting on a modern camera that is mechanical. Everything is set electronically. Hence, Why in the hell do we not have the ability to make all those settings and save them? I'm talking like 10 different banks setting absolutely everything (around some base factory settings) that can be named and commented and selected on the massive screens on these things. I don't have D4, but maybe they can do that now at the upper end. I shoot everything from night sports to macro and I have to discipline myself after I shoot to reset the camera to some base configuration so I don't screw myself up. I actually went back to shooting Shutter Priority for sports because every time I used Aperture priority and the dynamic ISO with a minimum shutter speed set, I would forget to turn that off and be shooting a candid at ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/500th.
Why? Because that's the way Japanese camera industry operates. They think in terms of bells and whistles. Spend a day with a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and see what I mean.
-
Ah, you mean Kodak and Agfa silver halide sensor with grain and dangerous chemicals?!
Best regards
Erik
Why? Because that's the way Japanese camera industry operates. They think in terms of bells and whistles. Spend a day with a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and see what I mean.
-
Ah, you mean Kodak and Agfa silver halide sensor with grain and dangerous chemicals?!
Best regards
Erik
Dangerous chemicals? What do you mean?
-
Hi,
The main reason I ended up with the chemical darkroom was respiratory irritation. Several developer agents are known to cause allergies. Was considering print processors for a while.
I switched to digital 1995, first scanning film later using digital sensors. Never looked back to film and wet darkroom.
Best regards
Erik
Dangerous chemicals? What do you mean?
-
Hi,
The main reason I ended up with the chemical darkroom was respiratory irritation. Several developer agents are known to cause allergies. Was considering print processors for a while.
I switched to digital 1995, first scanning film later using digital sensors. Never looked back to film and wet darkroom.
Best regards
Erik
If you use liquids and a well-ventilated working area you should not have any major difficulties.
-
Both excellent shots. And I think I have a good answer on my hands. I wonder how much background work in both these shots.
BTW RobDickinson, I didn't realize you were in my flickr contacts, your photos are insane, the Milford Sound one blew my mind (and so did this one).
Thanks! It was a craaazy weekend for sure.
The D810 shooters were mostly working with Schnieder 50 pc super anglon tilt shift lenses, these are pretty stunning (despite the reviews! There all wrong lol) and you can easily see the 36mp detail advantage. My pano was with a 16-35f4L Is, a decent lens but certainly a step back.
I think I had to work a lot harder to get my image, both in capture and post. its that that hurts, time and effort, filters, risk, it all adds up to more missed shots, more shots ruined, less compositions etc.
Also check out Jay Daley's set from the weekend
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydaley/
-
Thanks! It was a craaazy weekend for sure.
The D810 shooters were mostly working with Schnieder 50 pc super anglon tilt shift lenses, these are pretty stunning (despite the reviews! There all wrong lol) and you can easily see the 36mp detail advantage. My pano was with a 16-35f4L Is, a decent lens but certainly a step back.
I think I had to work a lot harder to get my image, both in capture and post. its that that hurts, time and effort, filters, risk, it all adds up to more missed shots, more shots ruined, less compositions etc.
Also check out Jay Daley's set from the weekend
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydaley/
Thanks a lot. I agree with the opportunity cost associated with canon bodies. I'm actually considering moving on from my 6D despite not wanting to let go of the TS-E24II.
The photos from your buddy look excellent!
-
Some very nice images here!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks! It was a craaazy weekend for sure.
The D810 shooters were mostly working with Schnieder 50 pc super anglon tilt shift lenses, these are pretty stunning (despite the reviews! There all wrong lol) and you can easily see the 36mp detail advantage. My pano was with a 16-35f4L Is, a decent lens but certainly a step back.
I think I had to work a lot harder to get my image, both in capture and post. its that that hurts, time and effort, filters, risk, it all adds up to more missed shots, more shots ruined, less compositions etc.
Also check out Jay Daley's set from the weekend
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydaley/
Wow, the colors and detail are almost surreal ...
Those are splendid!
-
I was gifted a Canon body and lens at 16 years old and that is what I went with. At the time of the EOS mount appeared, I thought long and hard about which brand to go to. Since back then the bodies were relatively inexpensive it came down to lenses and operation. I love the old all manual Nikon FM body. I also like the rendition of Nikon lenses. I thought both about the advantages of the new mount, Canon's financial were with all and what would be a better long term investment. Having played with both and having friends with Canon gear, I am glad I chose to go Nikon.
I agree with the complication of modern cameras. My main bitch is that there is not a setting on a modern camera that is mechanical. Everything is set electronically. Hence, Why in the hell do we not have the ability to make all those settings and save them? I'm talking like 10 different banks setting absolutely everything (around some base factory settings) that can be named and commented and selected on the massive screens on these things. I don't have D4, but maybe they can do that now at the upper end. I shoot everything from night sports to macro and I have to discipline myself after I shoot to reset the camera to some base configuration so I don't screw myself up. I actually went back to shooting Shutter Priority for sports because every time I used Aperture priority and the dynamic ISO with a minimum shutter speed set, I would forget to turn that off and be shooting a candid at ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/500th.
They are too complicated for sure and I have fond memories of my Mamiya RB67 and Nikon FM2's
However cameras move on and I would not go back - least not for professional work. Even for my personal work I love digital too. My main work camera for the past 12 years has been the EOS1ds series. I mainly use Aperture priority, sometimes manual. It is such an easy camera to use - almost impossible to accidentally change any setting. I set whatever ISO I need, change the aperture with my index finger, exposure compensation with my thumb, and quickly flick across the focus point selector points. I also use a few manual focus lenses though I find them not easy to use through the viewfinder at f2! Almost the only time I will use a menu is to format the card or synchronise the clock with another camera. The 1Ds 3 could not be easier to use. I can change any of the main settings without moving my eye from the viewfinder and the whole camera feels like an extension of my mind. Now you cannot ask more than that can you? It's a heavy beast but if anybody wants one they can be picked up quite cheaply used.
My latest camera is an Olympus E-M1 - now if you want to see complicated.........
Jim
-
I am extremely close to making that decision myself.
I shoot macro, and Canon has some key lenses there (i.e., MP-E65), and (at the time of my purchases in 2009) the EOS 7D was "it" is far as crop sensor cameras go ... but that was quite a few years ago.
The 7D was a game-changer for Canon, it stood out amongst the crowd ... and it has remained unchanged for years ... while the 5D went from II to III, the off-brand Crops caught up and passed it, as well as Nikon, and hell, even the Canon Rebels passed it.
The new 7D needs to re-define Canon and be a prelude of things to come. If the 7D isn't a game-changer again, a truly significant upgrade to give me something to buy myself for Christmas (lol), then I am going to go with the D800 as you did.
I am hoping Canon doesn't disappoint, because they have sat on their @$$ for too long IMO.
Jack
Canon Rumors site has something about the 7d2 posted, sounds like a pretty lame update.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-specifications-confirmed/
-
Canon Rumors site has something about the 7d2 posted, sounds like a pretty lame update.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-specifications-confirmed/
Hmmm, I don't know what planet you're on, but those specs are pretty awesome compared to the other APS-C choices. I mean, they pretty much blow any other APS-C out of the water. Remember, this is a crop camera (for under $2,000), and you're getting 65 AF points, 10 fps shooting speed, GPS, dual Sensors, 100% viewfinder coverage, etc. That is basically pro-level performance on a pro-sumer body. (In fact, it actually has overall specs that are superior to the $7,000 Nikon D4!)
I agree, if those "dual sensors" are Digic 6, that this would be slightly anti-climactic, but to call the sum total of those proposed features "lame," for the level camera it is, is itself lame. Can you show me any any other ~$2,000 APS-C camera that can touch those features? I didn't think so.
Regarding the specific issue of the sensor, if you actually practice the art of careful reading, you will note the article does say (and I quote), "There could still be some surprises, especially around the sensor."
So we don't actually know what sensor is going to be used, but IMO those specs are pretty awesome for any APS-C, period, and would pretty much match any of the current "pro-sport" $6,000 - $10,000 cameras being offered today. Thus, while the new 7D might not quite have the D810's sensor, as an all-around package it actually is the better camera.
Hopefully, the sensor "surprises" are pleasant for Canon aficionados ... but even with "just" dual-Digic 6 sensors, it's an awesome overall APS-C package.
Jack
-
In fact, the Nikon D4 itself doesn't have quite the sensor of the Nikon D810 ... but yet it is the more expensive camera (twice the price). Why? Because it is more versatile and can actually "do more" than the D810.
So here we have specs on the 7D II that actually rival, and in some cases surpass, the D4 ... making it, too, an overall more useful field camera than the D810 ... but yet for less than $2Grand. That's pretty strong.
Not everybody's photography centers around just sitting there composing landscape shots or shooting other static subjects.
Jack
-
If you prefer the APS-C format, John, you may be right. Actually it's taken Canon way to long to get this camera to market, and the sensor may actually be the same sensor that's already in the 70D, or very similar. It will be like you say interesting to see the DR that Canon can get, but I also know a lot Canon shooters both video and non that are disappointed that there is no swivel screen. Hope that Canon gets an significant increase in DR on this camera. No wifi also, which I found surprising especially after the excellent implementation of wifi Canon did with the 6D.
To me the D810/D800 surpasses the D4/s in most ways. If I need APS-C format, it's there and I still have close to 16Mp of pixels. The frame rate on the D4s is much faster, but I can live with the new 5 to 6 on the D810 depending on the mode selected.
Noise, to be honest, I find both the D4s and D810/D800 pretty close unless you take the camera above 6400, which I never do. I would rather have the 2 D810, (close to it) than the 1 D4s and be limited to only 16MP. However I fully agree it's a individual choice.
Canon, hopefully will allow some guidance on if they are planning a full frame update in 2015.
Paul
-
It's likely the sensor is identical to the 70d which is decent but isn't a big step up over the previous ones, the main pull was the live view off the sensor.
Based on that info it's about in line with what I'd expect the AF system getting a fairly serious update, understandable considering the target market (and A77II's AF boost AF wise) I personally think Canon are right to go with GPS I use it..Sony were wrong to remove it and go with NFC and Wifi (fine have them but don't kill the GPS)
As far as market well there is room for APS-C, but it depends on the price too. I'll only pay so much for a crop sensor and a high price will only appeal to sports/wildlife shooters
-
If you prefer the APS-C format, John, you may be right. Actually it's taken Canon way to long to get this camera to market, and the sensor may actually be the same sensor that's already in the 70D, or very similar.
Hi Paul;
If the specs on the 7D II are what that article says they are, I simply am right: there is no APS-C that comes close.
The specs basically rival all current pro-level, full-frame, sports-like cameras (D4 / 1Dx) ... at 1/4 the price ... let alone blow the doors of the other ASP-Cs. That is pretty freaking awesome any way you want to slice it.
And I do prefer APS-C for macro and telephoto, yes.
However, if I were a 100% landscape shooter, I would have the D810.
Regarding how long it took to come out, while I admit have been wanting an upgrade on my 7D for a year or so, I think the 7D was such a good camera for the money, that it pretty much just "stood there" as the benchmark for the APS-C class for quite awhile.
It will be like you say interesting to see the DR that Canon can get, but I also know a lot Canon shooters both video and non that are disappointed that there is no swivel screen. Hope that Canon gets an significant increase in DR on this camera. No wifi also, which I found surprising especially after the excellent implementation of wifi Canon did with the 6D.
Regarding DR, having 2 Digic 6 sensors will already improve what it was, and having 65 AF points will make nailing key compositions easier as well. If the 7D II has some "new" sensor, so much the better, but already I am very pleased with what I read: I will basically be able to get a D4 or 1Dx specs for less than $2K.
Regarding the LCD, I don't really like a swivel-LCD, quite frankly, nor do I use wifi.
Still, all of this is speculation at this point, so we will see what it really has to offer soon.
To me the D810/D800 surpasses the D4/s in most ways. If I need APS-C format, it's there and I still have close to 16Mp of pixels. The frame rate on the D4s is much faster, but I can live with the new 5 to 6 on the D810 depending on the mode selected.
I am sure, to many, the D800/10 is the choice. If sensor is the key consideration.
However, when the sum total of features is added-up, then to Nikon (and, really, to most photographers out there), the speed/versatility and full complement of features found in the D4 makes it the better camera ... as the price reflects ;)
And, sure again, there are plenty of fine shots that have been taken by 16 mpx ASP-Cs, but (let's be real) these lessor tools still aren't going to match the overall usefulness that this new 7D II looks to be.
To get those kinds of performance specs, at that price point, will definitely resonate with most people who are actually out there shooting sports/wildlife seriously (though maybe not 100% landscape/static shooters).
Noise, to be honest, I find both the D4s and D810/D800 pretty close unless you take the camera above 6400, which I never do. I would rather have the 2 D810, (close to it) than the 1 D4s and be limited to only 16MP. However I fully agree it's a individual choice.
I hope there is less noise in this new 7D II than the 7D I had.
It took a gazillion nice shots with my original 7D, but I wanted better in some cases. Especially low light.
I got rid of my 7D earlier in the year, in anticipation of this new one coming out. Haven't even shot in a couple of months. By the end of this year, I am either going over to Nikon (if the 7D II doesn't impress me), or I am going to upgrade to the 7D II (if it does). As far as an overall package, I am already sold on what it can do (if the reports are accurate). I already know that, as an APS-C, strictly on the issue of the sensor, it is not going to surpass the D810 to the pixel-peeper committee (any more than the twice-as-much D4 does). However, as an overall field tool, the 7D II already blows the D810 away, so if the image quality legitimately passes the old 7D, it is already a huge bargain in my eyes. Especially at that price point.
And even more especially when compared to every other ASP-C on the market.
Canon, hopefully will allow some guidance on if they are planning a full frame update in 2015.
Paul
I am curious to see the next iteration of their full-frame as well.
Jack
-
I'm right on the precipice of leaving canon bodies.
Over the next couple of months I will either move entire over to nikon D810, supplement my 6d with a sony a7 of some description, buy a miracle new canon ff body.
I dont want to shift mounts, quite heavily invested in canon mount lenses, but the sony path is fraught with issues.
Least likely? the new canon body.
I have a d810 coming on loan from Nikon for trial.
-
I'm right on the precipice of leaving canon bodies.
Over the next couple of months I will either move entire over to nikon D810, supplement my 6d with a sony a7 of some description, buy a miracle new canon ff body.
I dont want to shift mounts, quite heavily invested in canon mount lenses, but the sony path is fraught with issues.
Least likely? the new canon body.
I have a d810 coming on loan from Nikon for trial.
If the majority of what you do is landscape, I don't blame you, because the ONE thing the D810 excels at is the #1 thing you need.
However, if you're a nature photographer (i.e., you photograph living things that move), or a sports photographer, then the new 7D II is pretty exciting. Especially for the money.
Here is a specs comparison I just drafted-up:
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/examples/SPECS.jpg)
Bright Green = Best In Class
Medium Green = Tied for Best
It's pretty much a landslide for the 7D II, IMO, as far as best features for the least money.
Sure, the D7100 is a little cheaper, but it doesn't stand out over "everyone else" in a single category.
By contrast, the 7D II actually stands out in any number of ways and (presumably) is under $2000 ...
Jack
-
I am stoked about the 7D2 as a wildlife camera. If the price of $1,800.00 is right, this might be the best-value-for-money upgrade from a 60D and 400mm F/5.6L combo (budget birding combo). Yes, it would be ideal to be shooting songbirds with a 1DX and 600mm f/4 L IS II, but that would be ten times as expensive an upgrade. Seeing as I am also shooting with a 6D and scavenging to fill focal length coverage gaps with ancient film-era all-manual lenses from the back of the closet, I don't see that I am going to go out and get a D810 or Sony A7r plus Schneider 50mm TS lens or monster Otus either. Hey, I need to spend some money on trips and a seminar or two (NANPA this February?) to improve the brain and eye!
P.S. Those old manual lenses are rather pleasing to use - yes, I am sure that a low-priced or mid-priced modern 100mm lens can have better resolution etc than the 40 year old Nikkor 105 f/2.5 - but I just have fun with the old-time manual lenses. Gateway drug to a Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 Apo? Perish the thought!
-
Hi,
If you regard the crop factor as an advantage when shooting wildlife, which I would suggest is a reasonable thing to do, I would suggest that you also check the pixel pitch. The pixel pitch is the deciding factor how much resolution you get from a telephoto lens. I would say the Nikon D7100 is a small bit ahead the 7D with 3.9 micron pitch versus 4.2.
There are lot of other factors involved, like the excellent 200-400 lens you mentioned with 1.4X extender built in, accuracy of autofocus etc.
Best regards
Erik
If the majority of what you do is landscape, I don't blame you, because the ONE thing the D810 excels at is the #1 thing you need.
However, if you're a nature photographer (i.e., you photograph living things that move), or a sports photographer, then the new 7D II is pretty exciting. Especially for the money.
Here is a specs comparison I just drafted-up:
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/examples/SPECS.jpg)
Bright Green = Best In Class
Medium Green = Tied for Best
It's pretty much a landslide for the 7D II, IMO, as far as best features for the least money.
Sure, the D7100 is a little cheaper, but it doesn't stand out over "everyone else" in a single category.
By contrast, the 7D II actually stands out in any number of ways and (presumably) is under $2000 ...
Jack
-
I am stoked about the 7D2 as a wildlife camera. If the price of $1,800.00 is right, this might be the best-value-for-money upgrade from a 60D and 400mm F/5.6L combo (budget birding combo). Yes, it would be ideal to be shooting songbirds with a 1DX and 600mm f/4 L IS II, but that would be ten times as expensive an upgrade.
I don't mind the expense, if I am getting something for the money. Again, if I were shooting only landscape, I would for sure go with the D810.
But not so as a wildlife photographer. The most important lens I can think of, and one which I am insanely committed to *wanting* to spend nearly $12,000 on, is the Canon 200-400 with the built-in 1.4x extender ;D
If the 7D has all of those specs, and remains a 1.6x crop, my wildlife focal shooting range with that combo (when I am done saving/spending) will be 320-896 mm, which is almost mind-boggling as to its flexibility.
If I saved and bought the D810 + Nikkor 200-400, I would only have a 200-400 mm. Is the resolution of the Nikon combo going to be 'that' noticeable on a book/website/magazine-sized image? I doubt it. How big do I need to blow-up a photo of a hummingbird, a butterfly, or a mountain goat? I doubt there will be any legitimately-noticeable difference in image quality ... but I do not doubt for a minute that I would be FAR better served, as a wildlife shooter, with DOUBLE the range available on a 7D II + 200-400/1.4x combo ... plus DOUBLE the FPS shooting rate. (Ditto that for a sports photographer.)
It is a more advanced, flexible overall combo than even the same 200-400 on a Canon 1Dx ... or possibly anything else.
Seeing as I am also shooting with a 6D and scavenging to fill focal length coverage gaps with ancient film-era all-manual lenses from the back of the closet, I don't see that I am going to go out and get a D810 or Sony A7r plus Schneider 50mm TS lens or monster Otus either. Hey, I need to spend some money on trips and a seminar or two (NANPA this February?) to improve the brain and eye!
LOL, honestly, if I were going to get a manual lens like the Otus, which pretty much is NOT for movement, but for precision (static) shots, I would put it on a D810, not a 7D II :)
P.S. Those old manual lenses are rather pleasing to use - yes, I am sure that a low-priced or mid-priced modern 100mm lens can have better resolution etc than the 40 year old Nikkor 105 f/2.5 - but I just have fun with the old-time manual lenses. Gateway drug to a Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 Apo? Perish the thought!
With controlled macro, I prefer manual focus. Wish the Zeiss 100 macro was 1:1 ...
Jack
-
Hi,
If you regard the crop factor as an advantage when shooting wildlife, which I would suggest is a reasonable thing to do, I would suggest that you also check the pixel pitch. The pixel pitch is the deciding factor how much resolution you get from a telephoto lens. I would say the Nikon D7100 is a small bit ahead the 7D with 3.9 micron pitch versus 4.2.
I definitely consider the 1.6x an advantage for wildlife photography, for the previously-stated reasons you mention :)
Thanks for the reminder on the pixel pitch (versus the old 7D of 5 years ago); my grid was versus the proposed new 7D II. (The old 7D is still a stout camera.)
It will be very interesting to see what the final, actual specs are on the new 7D II, compared to these others, once it comes out.
Curious though; on your chart the pixel pitch is 4.9 on the D810, and 4.2 on the old 7D, but only 3.9 on the D7100. Are you saying less is better?
Hi,
There are lot of other factors involved, like the excellent 200-400 lens you mentioned with 1.4X extender built in, accuracy of autofocus etc.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly, which is why I made that little matrix and tried to articulate all of the factors.
Each camera may have an advantage or two ... but, as a whole package, at least to the wildlife photographer, I think the 7D + 200-400 will be *the* ultimate combo.
I hope it comes out actually as good (or better) than it's speculated to be :)
Jack
-
Jack,
If you are shooting telephoto, and want best detail, pixel pitch is "all that matters", crop factor only says how large the image will get.
The difference between 3.9 and 4.2 microns is small in my book, anyway something like 7%.
There are many other factors that matter, lenses may be most important but AF-performance and high ISO behaviour also plays a role.
Best regards
Erik
Curious though; on your chart the pixel pitch is 4.9 on the D810, and 4.2 on the old 7D, but only 3.9 on the D7100. Are you saying less is better?
Jack
-
Jack,
If you are shooting telephoto, and want best detail, pixel pitch is "all that matters", crop factor only says how large the image will get.
The difference between 3.9 and 4.2 microns is small in my book, anyway something like 7%.
Thank you for your response Erik, but that didn't really answer my question. Is smaller better? Reason I ask is the D810 is 4.9 and the old 7D is 4.2, while the new D7100 is 3.9.
There are many other factors that matter, lenses may be most important but AF-performance and high ISO behaviour also plays a role.
Best regards
Erik
That is one of the other key elements I am anxious to see: improved low light performance.
As far as AF (not to mention FPS), it looks like the 7 D II is it.
While the $11,900 200-400 lens seems expensive, how much money in glass would you have to spend with Nikon to get thaf same 320-896 range with a D810? I would simply be impossible with the same convenience. Swapping lenses like a 300, a 600, and an 800 (not to mention carrying them--and not to mention paying for them) would be a drag.
Even if you tried to do something similar with the D7100, a Nikkor 200-400, and a external 1x4 converter, that you have to take on and off, you would still come up short: 1) you still don't have quite the range; 2) you definitely don't have the same level of ease-of-use going from one extreme to another; 3) I highly doubt the combined image quality is the same with the D7100 old the Nikkor lens + external converter ... versus the new Canon 7D II + new 200-400 lens; and 4) in a fast-action nature, or sports, scenario the new 7 D II has double the FPS on top of the smooth convenience of being all-in-one.
Therefore, assuming the technical skill is equal between two wildlife (or sports) photographers, the man with the 7D II and Canon 200-400 is better-equipped to take advantage of every possible opportunity, near and far, than the man with Nikon equipment.
Jack
-
Jack,
Here is a well written article on the issue: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/index.html
Edit: I removed the links as they just showed the text "Copyrighted image…".
Best regards
Erik
Thank you for your response Erik, but that didn't really answer my question. Is smaller better? Reason I ask is the D810 is 4.9 and the old 7D is 4.2, while the new D7100 is 3.9.
-
It's likely the sensor is identical to the 70d which is decent but isn't a big step up over the previous ones
Actually, it is: it's very clean (if you know what you're doing) in the shadows at low ISO, so there's a lot of latitude there that wasn't available from (say) the 7D sensor; pattern noise is effectively absent; and its output is just all-round better than the 7D sensor across the board, right up to five-figure ISOs.
This is speaking from owning and using both cameras.
I would have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a 70D sensor (or more likely a enhanced derivative) being in the "7D Mk II"...
-
I hope there is less noise in this new 7D II than the 7D I had.
On that.
This (http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/70D_10000_ISO.jpg) is 10,000 ISO from the 70D - Capture One 7 Pro at default NR, with no additional NR in PP.
And this (http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/70D_6400_ISO.jpg) is a 100% crop from the same camera (mine) at "only" 6400 ISO - again, a Capture One 7 Pro conversion at default NR.
Check the Exif in these files - this is low light - and frankly I consider this level and quality of low noise performance to be amazing from an APS-C camera, and as I suggest, a "70D+" sensor in the new camera would be no bad thing at all.
At the other end of the spectrum: does this (http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/DR/IMG_0263_DPP_crop.jpg) - 100% crop - from this (http://kazemisu.me.uk/images/DR/IMG_0263_DxO-1_crop.jpg) look OK for low ISO DR?
Yes, it's a bit flat - I wasn't looking for "art" here - but in terms of the lack of noise in the shadows, point made, I think. I lifted the shadows in DPP, incidentally - it does a brilliant job if opening up the shadows to this extent is a must-have...
-
I am saying it is funny because such reactions certainly contribute to slowing down the pace of innovation at Canon, which only really hurts people invested in Canon lenses. Talk about a self defeating approach to purchasing...;)
It does - and is - no such thing.
Hate to break it to you, Bernard, but there's more to image quality than low ISO DR, and much more to innovation than clean shadows - which in any event is essentially a Sony, not a Nikon, "innovation".
Unless we're now calling the buying-in of another company's hardware "innovation"?
-
"While the $11,900 200-400 lens seems expensive, how much money in glass would you have to spend with Nikon to get thaf same 320-896 range with a D810? I would simply be impossible with the same convenience. Swapping lenses like a 300, a 600, and an 800 (not to mention carrying them--and not to mention paying for them) would be a drag"
While I feel the Canon 200-400 with a built in 1.4 teleconverter is expensive, price is a selective issue. But I don't agree that a 800 class camera could not get there just as easily. The D810 in DX mode (something I don't think Canon does not yet offer), allows for the APS-C format. So all I need to add to a say a Nikon 200-400 is a Nikon 1.4 III converter. I still have 51 AF points and quite good results at 3200 and 6400 when needed. Personally, the difference from 1.5 to 1.6 to me is close enough I feel I can still get the shot.
Does the Canon lens have better optical capabilities, I hope so, for the cost. But I have had no issues with my Nikon 200-400 in regards to resolution and details.
Paul
-
Another reason why Landscape (or Full Frame) Canon users/hopefuls *may* find the 7D2 announcement lackluster is because they (prematurely) project the sensor advancement of the 7D2 to the newer FF bodies. It's illogical to draw an conclusions about what happens with the Full Frame Canon bodies, but it's a (again, premature) impression about the direction of the Company.
That said, I would love for nothing more than Canon to launch a better sensor FF camera.
-
It does - and is - no such thing.
Hate to break it to you, Bernard, but there's more to image quality than low ISO DR, and much more to innovation than clean shadows - which in any event is essentially a Sony, not a Nikon, "innovation".
Unless we're now calling the buying-in of another company's hardware "innovation"?
Keith,
No issues here. I am brand agnostic, I couldn't care less whether it is Nikon's innovation, Sony's or Canon's.
I am currently lucky enough to own lenses in the right mount. I won't hesitate to criticize Nikon if they fall behind and generate an opportunity cost in the process although I'll probably just buy a Canon body.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While I feel the Canon 200-400 with a built in 1.4 teleconverter is expensive, price is a selective issue. But I don't agree that a 800 class camera could not get there just as easily. The D810 in DX mode (something I don't think Canon does not yet offer), allows for the APS-C format.
Are you saying a D810 shoots at a 1.5x crop ???
So all I need to add to a say a Nikon 200-400 is a Nikon 1.4 III converter. I still have 51 AF points and quite good results at 3200 and 6400 when needed. Personally, the difference from 1.5 to 1.6 to me is close enough I feel I can still get the shot.
Well, if you like to put a 1.4x extender on, and take it off, when each is called-for, then more power to you.
But I think there are a lot of shots that would be "lost" by the effort at doing so ... versus having it all bundled into one awesome package.
Also the D810 will never reach 896 mm with a 200-400 mm lens on it, unlike the 7D II with a 200-400mm lens on it, with built-in conversion.
With the 810D, a 200-400mm, and the 1x4 external converter, your range stops at 560 mm and your frame rate is cut in half.
With the Canon equipment, your range stretches out to 896mm (another 330 mm), not only that, but your frame rate doubles.
That is significant to any wildlife of sports shooter.
Hate to break the news to you, but on a safari that means LOST shots with the Nikkor combo, which would be gained with the Canon combo ...
So, while landscape shooters may be migrating to the D810, for good reason, I promise you wildlife/sports shooters will be migrating the the 7D II / 200-400, for equally-good reason.
Oh, and I do agree that 51 vs. 65 AF points is not much to quibble about ... just as any slight edge in resolution with the D810 offers is quibbling over minutia also.
However, the convenience, full range, FPS, and overall wildlife/sports package Canon offers (versus Nikon at this point) most definitely is significant.
Does the Canon lens have better optical capabilities, I hope so, for the cost. But I have had no issues with my Nikon 200-400 in regards to resolution and details.
Paul
Ultimately, Canon has quite a bit better 200-400 lens.
Actually, if you read the comparisons, Canon's new 24-70 II lens, their 70-200 II lens, and (especially) their 200-400 lens all edge-out Nikkor's equivalents.
So, while Nikon offers a better 14-24 ... the buck stops there ... and from 24-70, from 70-200, and from 200-400 Canon's offerings stretch out across the board after that.
Unlike Erik's article (which compares sucky, off-label zooms), the newer Canon zooms above compare quite favorably (and even surpass) primes in their ranges.
That is a pretty long and significant range of first-rate lens offerings, so it will be interesting to see how they pan out placed over whatever new sensor the upcoming 7D II is going to have.
Jack
-
Are you saying a D810 shoots at a 1.5x crop ???
Yes. http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cXYH
Are you saying a D810 shoots at a 1.5x crop ???
Well, if you like to put a 1.4x extender on, and take it off, when each is called-for, then more power to you.
But I think there are a lot of shots that would be "lost" by the effort at doing so ... versus having it all bundled into one awesome package.
Also the D810 will never reach 896 mm with a 200-400 mm lens on it, unlike the 7D II with a 200-400mm lens on it, with built-in conversion.
With the 810D, a 200-400mm, and the 1x4 external converter, your range stops at 560 mm and your frame rate is cut in half.
With the Canon equipment, your range stretches out to 896mm (another 330 mm), not only that, but your frame rate doubles.
That is significant to any wildlife of sports shooter.
Hate to break the news to you, but on a safari that means LOST shots with the Nikkor combo, which would be gained with the Canon combo ...
So, while landscape shooters may be migrating to the D810, for good reason, I promise you wildlife/sports shooters will be migrating the the 7D II / 200-400, for equally-good reason.
Oh, and I do agree that 51 vs. 65 AF points is not much to quibble about ... just as any slight edge in resolution with the D810 offers is quibbling over minutia also.
However, the convenience, full range, FPS, and overall wildlife/sports package Canon offers (versus Nikon at this point) most definitely is significant.
Ultimately, Canon has quite a bit better 200-400 lens.
Actually, if you read the comparisons, Canon's new 24-70 II lens, their 70-200 II lens, and (especially) their 200-400 lens all edge-out Nikkor's equivalents.
So, while Nikon offers a better 14-24 ... the buck stops there ... and from 24-70, from 70-200, and from 200-400 Canon's offerings stretch out across the board after that.
Unlike Erik's article (which compares sucky, off-label zooms), the newer Canon zooms above compare quite favorably (and even surpass) primes in their ranges.
That is a pretty long and significant range of first-rate lens offerings, so it will be interesting to see how they pan out placed over whatever new sensor the upcoming 7D II is going to have.
Jack
Also, sorry for being lazy and not reading your entire post, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that a 36MP RAW file from a D800 can be cropped plenty to get a APS-C equivalent FOV. Now I haven't done the math, but maybe you won't get a 20MP image at 400*1.6 FOV, but you'll surely get in the ballpark after cropping a 36MP from the D800/810.
I haven't done the calculations so I'll be more than happy to get slapped by math if it corrects my perception.
Edit: DX mode is compatible with DX Lenses, increase the fps, and FX mode can be cropped out as well.
Disclaimer: Not having read most posts in this thread, I have no idea why we are comparing the D810 vs 7D2, for reach, and trashing third party brands. In fact, I'm wondering why I even played along. Need coffee.
-
The Nikon D600, D610, D800, D810,D4, D4s and now the D750 all offer the ability to crop in camera to DX, in effect 1.5 crop called DX mode. It's a great feature.
With the 800 series I can get the focal equivalent of 600mm or 840mm if I take a few seconds and add the 1.4 converter.
I give that the Canon has this built in. I can afford to loose a few seconds in my shooting to make the change.
As for who has the better glass. Nikon or Canon both have excellent long range glass and can't justify switching brands on that. Nikon has superior DR with the Sony chips. That's been shown in enough reviews over the past 2.5 years. That difference in DR WAS worth the switch for me. Never looked back.
It's so easy now to rent bodies from lensrentals.com. Take a week rent both and see which works best for your style. Just a suggestion.
Paul
-
Yes. http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cXYH
Interesting, but it looks like the image quality drops (though at least your range increases).
Which means any superiority the 810 had in the sensor is therefore lost, and there is no way around the fact your frame rate still remains cut in half.
-
Honestly, I would love to see an image comparison of the D810 (degraded to crop) + old Nikkor 200-400 lens + external 1x4 extender versus the images produced by the new 7D II + new 200-400 with a built-in extender.
Notwithstanding the issue of only 5 fps versus 10 fps, trying to capture in-action footage, I would just like to see an image-by-image comparison of static shots.
-
So do the frame rate and buffer capacity increase when you shoot a Nikon FX camera in DX mode?
-
You get 7fps in DX mode. Not bad really.
-
John.
No doubt if you are after 10 FPS the 7d MKIII may be it. I just don't need it that often.
Also you are not degrading the shot by going to DX. If anything you are improving it as you are only using the center of the sensor, less light fall off etc. I think the D810 gives a bit faster frame rate in DX mode which was not true with the 800 and 800e.
I love the feature.
Paul
-
A crop sensor doesn't magically reach longer. It's still 560 mm but the field of view is different. Much like cropping a full frame image. What can make a difference is the pixel pitch. More resolution on target if you will. Then you can compare sensors of different size with regards to detail they are able to resolve.
-
Interesting, but it looks like the image quality drops (though at least your range increases).
Which means any superiority the 810 had in the sensor is therefore lost, and there is no way around the fact your frame rate still remains cut in half.
In addition to what Paul said, you're ignoring the quality of that cropped image, it will still have the same DR, ISO characteristics etc that the FX mode offers.(An assumption, but IMHO a reasonable one)
EDIT: I don't understand what the main topic of discussion here is (readin this thread post by post might help :D), but is it that Canon offers the longest FL for a 20MP image compared to a Nikon?
-
A crop sensor doesn't magically reach longer. It's still 560 mm but the field of view is different. Much like cropping a full frame image. What can make a difference is the pixel pitch. More resolution on target if you will. Then you can compare sensors of different size with regards to detail they are able to resolve.
I fully understand this however most people seem to overlook it including magazines and reviewers. So I just play along. It's a cropped field of view. Still I love the feature of DX. Most subject matter where I am wanting a DX view full frame would be wasted and I would be writing a lot of unnecessary data.
Back to John's point on the 7Dmkii, you will have all 20MP in the 1.6 crop so overall better resolving power and ability to print larger. The D810 in DX mode is 15MP but again for my needs 15MP is enough most of the time.
It's all about what fits your individual shooting style and needs. I know that a dedicated 1.6 crop would be detrimental for 85% of my shooting needs. So the Nikon-crop is a good compromise for me.
Paul
-
I fully understand this however most people seem to overlook it including magazines and reviewers. So I just play along. It's a cropped field of view. Still I love the feature of DX. Most subject matter where I am wanting a DX view full frame would be wasted and I would be writing a lot of unnecessary data.
Back to John's point on the 7Dmkii, you will have all 20MP in the 1.6 crop so overall better resolving power and ability to print larger. The D810 in DX mode is 15MP but again for my needs 15MP is enough most of the time.
It's all about what fits your individual shooting style and needs. I know that a dedicated 1.6 crop would be detrimental for 85% of my shooting needs. So the Nikon-crop is a good compromise for me.
Paul
Let's not ignore the side effect of DX mode, you can use DX lenses which can be cheaper/lighter if you can get away with your 15MP.
Of course that's more a F-Mount advantage than DX mode, but +1 Nikon.
-
Let's not ignore the side effect of DX mode, you can use DX lenses which can be cheaper/lighter if you can get away with your 15MP.
Of course that's more a F-Mount advantage than DX mode, but +1 Nikon.
Actually, it's -1 for Nikon.
If you're now beating the "cheaper" drum, the 7D II with cheap (but still pretty good) lenses is the better, cheaper, higher-resolving choice there too.
And, if you want to go back to the best you can do for long-range wildlife photography, the 7D still is the better, more flexible/capable choice on the best lenses.
The only real advantage to the D810 is landscape / static portrait, etc.
Jack
-
Actually, it's -1 for Nikon.
If you're now beating the "cheaper" drum, the 7D II with cheap (but still pretty good) lenses is the better, cheaper, higher-resolving choice there too.
And, if you want to go back to the best you can do for long-range wildlife photography, the 7D still is the better, more flexible/capable choice on the best lenses.
The only real advantage to the D810 is landscape / static portrait, etc.
Jack
Perhaps I'm not on board with the point your trying to make. Are you trying to suggest that the 7D2 is a better wildlife/sports/action camera than a D810/800? Because if that's so, then your comparison should be with the D7100 and whatever the successor to that will be (D7200 or the like).
???
-
D7100 is not a serious action camera: buffer capacity 6 RAWs, or one second worth. What were they thinking?
Thanks for info on "DX" mode in D810. 7 fps, 23 RAWs buffer capacity, 15.3 MP, pixel pitch 4.88 microns, top shutter speed 1/8000 sec. That makes this the best "DX" action camera in the Nikon list - the D750 is 10 MP, 6.5 fps (maybe faster), buffer size unknown, pixel pitch (larger - too lazy to calculate), top shutter speed 1/4000 - the genuine DX camera D7100 has 24 MP, 6 fps, buffer size only 6 RAWs, 1/8000 top shutter speed.
It looks as if Canon still may have the best crop action DSLR with the 7D2 (for the moment), but the D810 specs for DX aren't too much behind my old Canon 60D for frame rate, buffering, MP, and of course the DR is much better.
-
D7100 is not a serious action camera: buffer capacity 6 RAWs, or one second worth. What were they thinking?
Thanks for info on "DX" mode in D810. 7 fps, 23 RAWs buffer capacity, 15.3 MP, pixel pitch 4.88 microns, top shutter speed 1/8000 sec. That makes this the best "DX" action camera in the Nikon list - the D750 is 10 MP, 6.5 fps (maybe faster), buffer size unknown, pixel pitch (larger - too lazy to calculate), top shutter speed 1/4000 - the genuine DX camera D7100 has 24 MP, 6 fps, buffer size only 6 RAWs, 1/8000 top shutter speed.
It looks as if Canon still may have the best crop action DSLR with the 7D2 (for the moment), but the D810 specs for DX aren't too much behind my old Canon 60D for frame rate, buffering, MP, and of course the DR is much better.
Thanks for that summary, but I think we should hold out for Nikon to show up with the D7200 until drawing a conclusion. (Or wait for the 7D2 to be officially announced for that matter!)
-
Hi,
I don't really feel to make a table based comparison. Discussing FPS without also discussion AF speed, for instance, makes little sense to me. The way I see it is very hard to tell from tabled data which system will perform better in a set situation.
A small pixel pitch camera will always have an advantage in sucking most detail out of a high quality telephoto lens. Personally I would rather use an APS-C camera without 1.5X extender compared to a full frame with extender, assuming the same number of pixels.
The Canon D7 is intended to be a professional camera in APS-C format, so it has good AF, high FPS etc.
If we need the megapixels, high DR at base ISO and ultimate image quality a high resolution full frame camera would be the best option, and the alternatives are Nikon D800/D800E/D810 and the Sony Alpha 7r. In my view the Sony Alpha 7r has a problem with shutter vibration, when Sony rectifies that problem that system may be an alternative in my book.
Best regards
Erik
-
It seems pretty clear that the 7DII is going to be the best APS-C camera when it becomes available and therefore the best option for BiF. That shouldn't come as a surprise considering the time they took to get it right.
Based on the currently known specs, it sounds like a very competent camera, but none of those specs appear to be something Nikon couldn't come up with fairly quickly, not to say today, if they so decided, at least on the photography side.
Overall, I would wait a few more months to see what comes from Nikon in terms of D7100 replacement. Odds are that the camera's design has been ready for months. A competitor such as the 7DII was probably the only thing they needed to decide to proceed with its market release.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I guess that almost any camera can do the job. Nikon has some lead in sensor technology as they use the best sensors in the market they can get while Canon rolls it's own.
I have the impression that a major percentage of the best images in this world have been shot on Canon. Why, because Canon was not messing around with APS-C CCD sensors but went ahead and made full frame CMOS available at an early time. Canon has also developed some of the best lenses using flourite glass may years ago. So Canon won photographer's hearts by offering what they perceived they needed.
Nikon is catching up and doing a good job at it.
Best regards
Erik
It seems pretty clear that the 7DII is going to be the best APS-C camera when it becomes available and therefore the best option for BiF. That shouldn't come as a surprise considering the time they took to get it right.
Based on the currently known specs, it sounds like a very competent camera, but none of those specs appear to be something Nikon couldn't come up with fairly quickly, not to say today, if they so decided, at least on the photography side.
Overall, I would wait a few more months to see what comes from Nikon in terms of D7100 replacement. Odds are that the camera's design has been ready for months. A competitor such as the 7DII was probably the only thing they needed to decide to proceed with its market release.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps I'm not on board with the point your trying to make.
It seems more like you're feigning ignorance after having your own points refuted.
Are you trying to suggest that the 7D2 is a better wildlife/sports/action camera than a D810/800?
I am not "trying to suggest" this; I have directly stated it.
It seems you are "trying" to come to grips with the reality of how the facts are panning out, after having your own bubble burst twice now.
If you would like a recap of "what happened," one person called the new 7D II's overall specs, "lame." What I did was refute that ridiculous statement by showing how (basically) the 7D II may well prove to be the best camera out there for the money. Essentially, the 7D II looks to have all the capability of the Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx for a fraction of the cost. That is strong, not lame.
What YOU are having trouble understanding is that other overall features "make" a camera; it's not just resolution. I guess I have to repeat myself, until it sinks in with you: this is why the D4 is twice as expensive as a D810; it is a more useful, higher-spec, camera in pretty much every other useful category, and it resolves awfully well too. Just not quite as well as the D810, but it does everything else better. Same with the 1Dx: it is a more useful overall camera, which is why it is likewise almost twice as expensive.
The D810 is a great camera at pretty much only ONE aspect: resolution. Say that to yourself until it resonates with you ...
Other than that, the D810 is basically is a mid-level runner at everything else ...
So, yes, the 7D Mark II is a better overall wildlife camera for about half the cost of the D810.
Quite frankly, it basically has all the capabilities (and more) of the D4 and 1Dx at a fraction of the cost of these.
This makes the overall specs of the 7D II GREAT, not "lame."
Because if that's so, then your comparison should be with the D7100 and whatever the successor to that will be (D7200 or the like).
???
I guess you're burying your head in the sand of your own creation ;D
A quick review of our conversation reveals you are the one who said "+1 for Nikon," just because the D810 also shoots crop-only lenses ;)
I merely pointed out the fact that so does the 7D II ...
And when you make the comparison as a crop, the D810 is actually a lamer crop-level camera than the 7D II. The 7D II would handle cheap lenses better, for cheaper $$, and would produce better images as a crop than the D810 too. So, the truth is exactly the opposite; your own comparison is another +1 for the 7D II. Basically, ANY way you want to slice it, whether putting the most expensive Zoom + extender on the D810, or by putting cheap lenses on the D810 using at as an ASP-C, you have a lesser system on the crop D810 than you would with the 7D II + anything.
The truth is, the D810 only excels by using the full capability of its sensor, not as a crop, and with the best prime (not zoom) glass.
Then you indeed have a special camera, and that is the only +1 for Nikon. But that comes after taking two -1s.
If you are now trying to back-pedal out of your own statements regarding crop capabilities ... feigning comprehension of what "I" am trying to say (lol) ... and are now trying to pass the buck onto the D7100, it too falls short in most categories. But not all.
Hope this clarifies,
Jack
-
It seems pretty clear that the 7DII is going to be the best APS-C camera when it becomes available and therefore the best option for BiF. That shouldn't come as a surprise considering the time they took to get it right.
Actually, the old 7D is still a better overall tool than the D7100. Canon has "had it right" since the 7D came out in 2009 ...
Based on the currently known specs, it sounds like a very competent camera, but none of those specs appear to be something Nikon couldn't come up with fairly quickly, not to say today, if they so decided, at least on the photography side.
You're also forgetting Canon's considerable lead in heavy glass too ...
Overall, I would wait a few more months to see what comes from Nikon in terms of D7100 replacement. Odds are that the camera's design has been ready for months. A competitor such as the 7DII was probably the only thing they needed to decide to proceed with its market release.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, that has been going on for years, and in both directions, and will continue to go on for as long as both are in business ...
But, right now (and since the 7D came out), the most overall useful and capable ASP-C camera has been the 7D ... and it looks like it will continue to be this way for quite awhile with the 7D II.
Again, the 7D II compares favorably to the D4 and 1Dx, and pretty much blows the doors off of other ASP-Cs in overall functionality.
Jack
-
its a "tabu" to canon buy " other brands sensors" ? and put for example the same 36mp sony in a future 5d mark4?
why its imperative canon body - canon sensor? no other brands do that, maybe sony...not much more.
-
its a "tabu" to canon buy put the same 36mp sony in a future 5d mark4?
why its imperative canon body - canon sensor?
You raise an interesting point, Pedro.
Bernard mentioned how "easy" he thinks Nikon could adjust to catch up to Canon ... in point of fact, it would be easier for Canon to surpass Nikon ... just by catching up on the sensor (even if via outsourcing), because every other camera feature (as well as Canon's lens portfolio) is already superior.
Jack
-
Bernard mentioned how "easy" he thinks Nikon could adjust to catch up to Canon ... in point of fact, it would be easier for Canon to surpass Nikon ... just by catching up on the sensor (even if via outsourcing), because every other camera feature (as well as Canon's lens portfolio) is already superior.
Jack,
My view is that, in terms of photography (video is different), the only point where Canon has a unique proposition for distant photography is the 200-400 f4 with built-in converter. That seems to be a very sweet lens although it generates some concerns about long term durability at the level of the converter IMHO. In terms of pure quality, Nikon has IMHO with the new 400mm f2.8 FL the best long lens on the market. Their 800mm f5.6 is also superior to the Canon offering, admittedly a bit old now. But all of these lenses are simply brilliant and more than good enough for practical applications. Even my 7 years old 300mm AF-S VRI is absolutely splendid on the D810 in terms of image quality, focus speed/accuracy and stabilisation.
On the body side, I frankly don't see any single aspect where the best so far Canon body, the 5DIII, is superior to a D810. OK, one more fps. We can assume that the 7DII might improve a little bit over the 5DIII, which will make it, as I mentioned above, the best APS-C camera on the market. I don't disagree that the 7D was already in many ways superior. Nikon simply messed up big time by not upgrading the D300s. They had all the technology, they just decided they wanted to push their users towards FF. Another incredibly misguided decision on their side.
Perhaps I am missing something and I wouldn't mind the least bit being corrected, but I don't see any single technology relevant for photographers the 7DII is rumoured to have that Nikon doesn't already have in the D810 (or the D750 for that matter). Perhaps AF to some extend? But the AF of the D4s/D810 is extremely good already. On the other hand Canon clearly doesn't have the sensor technology till now, and they have been unable to release something close in the last 5 years. I am genuinely disappointed by this because, as mentioned countless times, I would love them to release something better because it would give me even more options. It is Canon that resulted in Nikon releasing the D3, but they haven't been able to challenge them the least bit image quality wise since then.
Back to the point. all it would take for Nikon to release a D400 with specs similar or superior to those of the 7DII is repackaging of existing technologies. It could frankly be done in a few months even if they kicked off the project today. But I agree with you that the major difference is that the 7DII (most probably) exists today and will be in the hands of photographers within a few weeks, while the D400 is paper talk.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jack,
My view is that, in terms of photography (video is different), the only point where Canon has a unique proposition for distant photography is the 200-400 f4 with built-in converter. That seems to be a very sweet lens although it generates some concerns about long term durability at the level of the converter IMHO.
Hi Bernard.
The 200-400 is considered by many to be the single, greatest, most versatile advent in long lens history period. And it would be hard to argue that.
Your raising doubts about the durability of the extender is reaching, pure speculation, nothing more. We agree it is a sweet lens :)
In terms of pure quality, Nikon has IMHO with the new 400mm f2.8 FL the best long lens on the market. Their 800mm f5.6 is also superior to the Canon offering, admittedly a bit old now. But all of these lenses are simply brilliant and more than good enough for practical applications. Even my 7 years old 300mm AF-S VRI is absolutely splendid on the D810 in terms of image quality, focus speed/accuracy and stabilisation.
Mmmmm ... most people would say the Canon 600 is the better lens.
I would never spend the money on a 400mm (from either company). Don't know about the 800s, would never buy one of those either.
Don't need to with the 200-400 on a 7D II (320-890) :)
I have no doubts that your D810 with a prime 300mm takes superb images! That is where the D810 excels.
On the body side, I frankly don't see any single aspect where the best so far Canon body, the 5DIII, is superior to a D810. OK, one more fps. We can assume that the 7DII might improve a little bit over the 5DIII, which will make it, as I mentioned above, the best APS-C camera on the market. I don't disagree that the 7D was already in many ways superior. Nikon simply messed up big time by not upgrading the D300s. They had all the technology, they just decided they wanted to push their users towards FF. Another incredibly misguided decision on their side.
We agree here. I would not buy the 5DMkIII.
If I was going for that type of camera, a landscape FF, I too would get the D810.
We also agree on what you said about the ASP-Cs.
Perhaps I am missing something and I wouldn't mind the least bit being corrected, but I don't see any single technology relevant for photographers the 7DII is rumoured to have that Nikon doesn't already have in the D810 (or the D750 for that matter). Perhaps AF to some extend? But the AF of the D4s/D810 is extremely good already. On the other hand Canon clearly doesn't have the sensor technology till now, and they have been unable to release something close in the last 5 years. I am genuinely disappointed by this because, as mentioned countless times, I would love them to release something better because it would give me even more options. It is Canon that resulted in Nikon releasing the D3, but they haven't been able to challenge them the least bit image quality wise since then.
I never said anything about single technology; what I said was the 7D II is the better overall package.
We agree that Nikon has had a lock on the single issue of top sensor quality; they have a lock on nothing else.
The 7D II (if the specs are right) will simply be the better, overall more useful tool. It may not eclipse the D810 in absolute resolution on a fixed prime, but it will have better AF, will shoot more FPS, will have a better range of efficacy, and pretty darned good resolution, all for less money. Again, same with the D4. That is why the D4 is more expensive than the D810: it's a better overall tool. So too (it looks like) will be the 7D II ... but for half as much, not twice as much, as the D810.
Back to the point. all it would take for Nikon to release a D400 with specs similar or superior to those of the 7DII is repackaging of existing technologies. It could frankly be done in a few months even if they kicked off the project today. But I agree with you that the major difference is that the 7DII (most probably) exists today and will be in the hands of photographers within a few weeks, while the D400 is paper talk.
Cheers,
Bernard
Again, it would be simpler for Canon to plop a Sony sensor in its cameras than it would be for Nikon to equal the 24-70 II, the 70-200 II, the 200-400+ built-in extendor, etc. of Canon.
Even the new D7100 still can't match the overall pro specs of the old 7D of 5 years ago, and it is pretty much smoked by the specs of the new one.
And even if Nikon released a D400, it still wouldn't have the 200-400 that can come close to the Canon offering (nor the 24-70, nor the 70-200).
Okay, Nikon has the 400mm, but Canon's 200-400 is a much sweeter, overall more capable lens ... and then there's their new 600L II ...
But, hey, both camera companies have their strengths.
I just happen to like Canon's lens offerings better (*save one :) ).
Jack
-
There is no doubt that the Nikon APS-C cameras since at least the D90 have been less than they could / should have been. That is of course a different argument most of the time from say whether Canon should have pulled their collective fingers out and produced improved sensor packages several years ago. I say most of the time because you can make the argument that Nikon has been so complacent because Canon has been so complacent - but others will argue it's the other way round.
Here in Australia, Canon has held 50 to 60 percent for quite a few years in DSLR type cameras. You could say that the dealers and the buying consumer public know their places in the market, and so far this has been a self sustaining advantage in pure numbers and potential profit - for now. But say in the smart phone business it is said that Apple has only 20 % of the market ( depending on how you define a smart phone )but somewhere around 65 -70 % of the profit. And an Apple Watch anyone ?
-
The post started with sensor technology, and has now been side tracked to body and lense debate. Why dont we get back to the sensor part.
Though Nikon bodies have higher MP, the Canon sensor + processor combination seems to deliver better performance, at least at FPS and AF side.
-
Don't forget dynamic range, read noise, sans OLPF, and ISO performance.
-
The post started with sensor technology, and has now been side tracked to body and lense debate. Why dont we get back to the sensor part.
Though Nikon bodies have higher MP, the Canon sensor + processor combination seems to deliver better performance, at least at FPS and AF side.
We don't know yet about the 7DII, but the D4s/D810 have a remarkably fast and robust AF that IMHO outdoes that of 5DIII a bit or is at least not overall worse. We'll have to test the D750 but Nikon says it is the same.
Sensor wise they are much superior at low ISO (the gap is larger than that btwn MF digital at its best days and the best DSLRs) and they basically identical at high Iso after downsizing.
Fps is indeed a bit higher than the the D810, similar to the D750.
There are some great lenses in Canon's line up, some without equivalent in Nikon's line up (17mm T/S, 200-400 + converter after 10 years without a fast 200-400,...) but the bodies are very competent but overall un-impresive IMHO. The 7DII specs are the best among APS-C cameras but mostly because Nikon has been sleep walking for 7 years. How long is that going to continue? Besides, some would argue that the rumored Samsung NX1 may steal the show big time...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Keith,
No issues here. I am brand agnostic, . . .
Cheers,
Bernard
Well you certainly had me fooled. ;D
-
Well you certainly had me fooled. ;D
I currently use camera equipment from various brands including Nikon (D810 and lenses), Sony (RX100, a5100), Sigma (DP2 Quattro and lenses), Ebony (45SU), Betterlight, Zeiss (lenses), Leica (lenses), Profoto, Epson, RRS, Gitzo,...
Pretty much what I think is best for my needs in every category, that I can afford and that makes sense in the context of my past investments.
I used to own Canon cameras too (G10 and S90) and they served me well but today I don't see any Canon camera being best in class in each category that would help me by doing things better than the cameras I currently own. That does obviously not mean that canon cameras can't be used to produce amazing photography.
Canon has some great lenses but unfortunately they don't mount on any of the cameras I currently own (not quite true since I could now mount some on the a5100).
So yes, I am totally brand agnostic but I don't see why it should prevent me from sharing my views about the equipment I have selected as being the best for my needs relative to those I didn't pick.
One recent example is the Sony a5100 that is IMHO the best mirror less offering out there today as a compact complement to a classic DSLR, even if I know full well that nobody else has expressed this view here at LL.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mmmmm ... most people would say the Canon 600 is the better lens.
Pity it can't be mounted on a Canon camera with any real resolution like the D800e :P ;D
-
One recent example is the Sony a5100 that is IMHO the best mirror less offering out there today as a compact complement to a classic DSLR, even if I know full well that nobody else has expressed this view here at LL.
Cheers,
Bernard
That or the a6000 with the compact 16-50 would be my recommendation for a beginner who just wants significantly better photos with a remote possibility for upgrade despite the fact I never used one outside the store.
They have a large good sensor yet are quite compact with that lens so more likely to have them with you, very good autofocus, very good movies. The sharpness and distortion are overrated for that level.
The recently advanced compact released at Photokina might challenge this.
You can see if Canon advanced its sensor on the G7x (hint, it might be the one from Sony, so they are not opposed to outside sources for sensors)
-
I thought this was rather interesting. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1
It features the first backside iluminated CMOS in a crop sensor (the first bigger than 1"). If the specs are right it blows the 7D II out of the water. On sensor (28 MP!) phase detect 15 fps autofocus. And Wifi. I think the serious sports and BIF cameras will be mirrorless sooner than we might think. Thom Hogan has said he wouldn't be surprised if the D5 was mirrorless, electronic 30 fps shutter. There is just no way to go much beyond 15 fps with a flappy mirror.
The Canon offering might still be the best system with mature AF and lenses but things are moving fast.
-
You can see if Canon advanced its sensor on the G7x (hint, it might be the one from Sony, so they are not opposed to outside sources for sensors)
The G7x seems very nice, especially the lens, but most reports mention it as using the Sony sensor used in the RX100III.
Canon has a history of using Sony sensors in sizes smaller than APS-C, so I am not sure this indicates a change.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I thought this was rather interesting. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1
It features the first backside iluminated CMOS in a crop sensor (the first bigger than 1"). If the specs are right it blows the 7D II out of the water. On sensor (28 MP!) phase detect 15 fps autofocus. And Wifi. I think the serious sports and BIF cameras will be mirrorless sooner than we might think. Thom Hogan has said he wouldn't be surprised if the D5 was mirrorless, electronic 30 fps shutter. There is just no way to go much beyond 15 fps with a flappy mirror.
The Canon offering might still be the best system with mature AF and lenses but things are moving fast.
The problem it has is that it doesn't have a large user base. You need to get new lenses also, and for the good ones it will not be that light and it will be expensive. As far as I recall Samsung doesn't have the best track supporting its old products although come to think off Sony also changed directions several times but they got away with the longer history that they have.
For example I am quite covered on Nikon APS-C side, with Sigma 8-16, and Nikons 16-85, 70-300 (full frame), 35 1.8 DX and 50 1.8 D (full frame). If they come up with a better quality 16-85 range and a good upgrade of the D7100 I will get it to alternate with my current Fuji, particularly for more active shooting. I would rather do this then switch to Samsung (or Canon for that matter), I might even get a full-frame than going for other competing APS-C systems.
I am using Fuji because of being significantly lighter yet with similar quality. Samsung looks very competitive if you are starting new, although that tracking and 15 fps needs to be proved first and those are the main draws, and who knows, the resolution if the combination lens/sensor is better than in the past.
I might be alone but the reason I didn't upgrade my D90 is because I didn't like the sensor in D7100, it has that grain at all ISOs (similar to m43) and the most important part when I looked at 100% shots on dpreview the curved lines were jagged; it might not mean anything in real life but it felt artificial.
-
There is just no way to go much beyond 15 fps with a flappy mirror.
that does not mean that mirror will go away... first of all there is a fixed mirror cameras and then you can keep flappy mirror, but switch to high FPS with mirror raised.
-
I shoot with an entire camera and lens system, not just a sensor. So while there is no question that Canon is behind the times as regards its sensors, the system provides good usability for me. And I am not averse to trying new things, within fiscal reason. I enjoy my Sigma DP Merrills. Perhaps in the future I will try a Sony A7r body and adapter for my existing lens set. Perhaps even cheaper would be serious grunt work at improving my post-processing skills. ;)
-
That or the a6000 with the compact 16-50 would be my recommendation for a beginner who just wants significantly better photos with a remote possibility for upgrade despite the fact I never used one outside the store.
I had the opportunity to compare the size of the a5100 and a6000 this Saturday since we had both on the same table right next to each other. The a6000 is a much larger body.
As far as the target users, yes, it is a great camera for beginners. But my view is that it is also the perfect complement for a high end DSLR. I would go as far as saying that it is the best completement to a high end DSLR there is on the market today, which is why I have bought one. ;)
The sensor used in the a5100 is equal or superior to that of the D3x at low ISO. With the right lens, this thing can produce exhibition quality prints without any problem.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I didn't realize they are that different in size, although if you add the lens it's less significant: http://j.mp/1nYTaob
-
My view is that, in terms of photography (video is different), the only point where Canon has a unique proposition for distant photography is the 200-400 f4 with built-in converter. That seems to be a very sweet lens although it generates some concerns about long term durability at the level of the converter IMHO. In terms of pure quality, Nikon has IMHO with the new 400mm f2.8 FL the best long lens on the market. Their 800mm f5.6 is also superior to the Canon offering, admittedly a bit old now. But all of these lenses are simply brilliant and more than good enough for practical applications. Even my 7 years old 300mm AF-S VRI is absolutely splendid on the D810 in terms of image quality, focus speed/accuracy and stabilisation.
Aside from it not really being "the best" long lens on the market, even if (for the sake of argument) we said it is, then actually this is another reason to go with Canon, quite frankly.
1. Canon's overall lens lineup is simply better;
2. On the few instances where Nikon has an edge on a particular lens, you can still mount it on a Canon, increasing the versatility of the Canon system all the more;
3. On the many instances where Canon has the edge, over a wide variety of lens types, you basically have to do without that lens if you own a Nikon.
4. And, let's face it: Canon sensors are already good enough to have pros using them successfully all over the world; the difference isn't that much; and sooner or later they will equal or surpass Nikon in sensor development too.
It's the whole package, the versatility, it's not just about a sensor comparison.
Jack
-
Aside from it not really being "the best" long lens on the market, even if (for the sake of argument) we said it is, then actually this is another reason to go with Canon, quite frankly.
1. Canon's overall lens lineup is simply better;
2. On the few instances where Nikon has an edge on a particular lens, you can still mount it on a Canon, increasing the versatility of the Canon system all the more;
3. On the many instances where Canon has the edge, over a wide variety of lens types, you basically have to do without that lens if you own a Nikon.
4. And, let's face it: Canon sensors are already good enough to have pros using them successfully all over the world; the difference isn't that much; and sooner or later they will equal or surpass Nikon in sensor development too.
It's the whole package, the versatility, it's not just about a sensor comparison.
Jack
Jack,
We both are happy to have selected the right system for our needs, this is great! ;)
Just one point among those you mention above. Fast and accurate AF are super important criteria for super tele lenses. Mounting a Nikon 400mm f2.8 FL on a Canon body will offer the superb image quality, but you will loose the AF which makes the lens pretty useless for most applications where a fast tele is needed.
As far as I am concerned, I value lenses more than bodies in the long term, so I am indeed glad to know my F mount lenses will potentially all be usable on a Canon body in the future, but I consider this to be pretty irrelevant for the super teles because of AF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In fact, the 200-400 is considered by many to Canon's most epic piece of glass, ever, and has pioneered the built-in extender technology, which no one else has added to a zoom.
I actually asked why Canon did not make the lens a 200-560mm f/2.8 - 5.6 zoom. Might have been smaller and cheaper than playing with the built-in converter, and faster at the short end also. Maybe they were stuck with the idea of a zoom with converter, as it sounds more professional and has constant aperture, but in fact it is clumsier and has no continuous zoom range throughout. Reviewers and commentators have swallowed Canon's offering hook, line and sinker without asking the same question.
I am not doubting it is a good lens, but just askin'...
-
Fast and accurate AF are super important criteria for super tele lenses.
Nonsense. Manual focus is better.
-
I'm starting to wonder about this forum, a hive of information but I do wonder if anyone actually creates imagery any more? Or photography is now some kind of intellectual pursuit that doesn't involve pressing a shutter release or being visually aware?
-
Hi,
I cannot comment on weather Nikon's nor Canon's telephoto lenses. To do that we need to either shot both on identical cameras or have MTF curves measured in similar setup.
What I can definitively say is that a high resolution APS-C body will extract more detail with a telephoto at a set distance than a full frame body with similar pixel count. On the full frame body an extender can be added, but it is questionable if it would improve resolution.
The very simple truth is that for telephoto work with fixed lens type and distance the camera with the smallest pixel pitch would give best detail reproduction.
So, a D7 would outresolve a D810 and a D7100 would outresolve D7 and a Nikon V1 would outesolve all of them. With a larger format you need a longer lens to fully take advantage of the image size.
Best regards
Erik
-
Stuck inside on my back end. Otherwise, I would be out shooting.
Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures. On the other hand, I see people complain about autofocus speed on macro lenses and I think - huh? who uses AF at macro distances? Focus confirm is a handy thing for macro, but AF not so much. It all comes down to different shooting constraints, different shooting styles, different needs of individual photographers.
-
To do that we need to either shot both on identical cameras or have MTF curves measured in similar setup.
Wow, this DxO comparison (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Carl-Zeiss-Macro-Planar-2-100mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Canon-EF-180mm-F35L-Macro-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-AF-Micro-Nikkor-200mm-F4D-ED-IF-on-Nikon-D800E___340_814_631_795_1081_814) shows that the similarly-equipped Nikon literally blows Canon out of the water.
I appreciate all of the features in the new 7D II, but in macro shooting absolute sharpness is critical.
According to DxO, the comparably-equipped Nikon shooter has enough of an advantage to make me re-think everything I just said, lol ;D
Jack
-
Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93032.0
all manual focus
-
Stuck inside on my back end. Otherwise, I would be out shooting.
Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures.
Rare? Are you kiddin'? This is hilarious in the extreme. I do it all the time.
-
I actually asked why Canon did not make the lens a 200-560mm f/2.8 - 5.6 zoom. Might have been smaller and cheaper than playing with the built-in converter, and faster at the short end also. Maybe they were stuck with the idea of a zoom with converter, as it sounds more professional and has constant aperture, but in fact it is clumsier and has no continuous zoom range throughout. Reviewers and commentators have swallowed Canon's offering hook, line and sinker without asking the same question.
I am not doubting it is a good lens, but just askin'...
Would a Canon 200-400mm f/2-f/4 be feasible to build? Is there a reason we don't see professional superteles with variable aperture?
-
Hi,
I guess that "your mileage may vary", I guess many of us prefer a well working AF instead of life long training of manual focus. I have seen examples of great MF images, but that is a skill that not anyone has.
Best regards
Erik
Stuck inside on my back end. Otherwise, I would be out shooting.
Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures.
This is hilarious in the extreme. I do it all the time.
-
Would a Canon 200-400mm f/2-f/4 be feasible to build?
Probably not.
-
Nonsense. Manual focus is better.
With a film camera perhaps. My old 600mm f5.6 manual focus Nikkor was designed for that.
When you are trying to tap into AA filter less 36mp resolution on anything that moves 6-8 meters away at f2.8 in pretty low light, no way.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5570/15093877952_c0cd913882_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93032.0
all manual focus
Very nice images and tack sharp also, but those birds were mostly not moving, correct?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very nice images and tack sharp also, but those birds were mostly not moving, correct?
Cheers,
Bernard
I was going to say the same thing. Let's see some moving subject matter.
-
Very nice images and tack sharp also, but those birds were mostly not moving, correct?
You're kidding, right? When perched a hummingbird is in constant motion, is often perched for only a second or two, and the DOF is so scant that the photographer has to decide which part of the eye to focus on. Try photographing them sometime.
-
I was going to say the same thing. Let's see some moving subject matter.
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/chen/rogoos07.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/bucephala/cogold06.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/bucephala/cogold07.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/threskiornithidae/wfibis03.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre05.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/egretta/snegre02.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/webster02.jpg)
There's no magic or supernatural powers involved, but it takes a good viewfinder and well-designed lens focus control. CaNikon have gotten away with their sh!tty viewfinders because most people now haven't seen a good one for comparison, and more than enough has been written about the poor suitability of AF lenses for manual focus.
-
There's no magic or supernatural powers involved, but it takes a good viewfinder and well-designed lens focus control. CaNikon have gotten away with their sh!tty viewfinders because most people now haven't seen a good one for comparison, and more than enough has been written about the poor suitability of AF lenses for manual focus.
Nice, I stand corrected, you are able to do it. I know I wouldn't.
What equipment are you using for these if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as I know lenses and SLRs by Leica, hands and eyes by God.
Erik
Nice, I stand corrected, you are able to do it. I know I wouldn't.
What equipment are you using for these if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
About manually focusing: I once attended a lecture given by a famous Sports Illustrated photographer. He said that he still uses only manual focus, even though he was a Nikon sponsored shooter with truckloads of newest gear. What was most interesting was that he practices focusing for 20-30 minutes every day. He said it was like playing an instrument, it has to come naturally and it can not be done reliably without constant practice. So every day he takes out a long telephoto and practices on moving subjects.
Manual focusing has gotten more difficult with the modern cameras which are designed for AF only. In the "good" old times I had a full matte focusing screen on my Canon F1 without any focusing aids, it worked perfectly for me. I miss it sometimes, but fortunately not too often...
-
Probably not.
Probably true. Still there seems to be the attitude that 200-560 f/2.8-5.6 zoom would be an amateur thing with variable aperture, but a 200-400 f/4 & 280-560 f/5.6 combined is a true professional instrument, constant aperture (wow!) with built in extenders and all…
(yes I know it could be f/2 at the 200mm end with that front lens diameter, but I try not to ask for the impossible, just give me something remotely possible).
-
Hi,
I would say that modern lenses are difficult to focus manually, too. Manual focusing requires an appropriate throw on the focusing ring, to little or to much makes MF difficult.
Personally, I am a strong adherent of magnified LV focusing, but it would not be usable for subject that moves fast. There have been a lot of progress in AF, and there is still progress to be made. The major issue is still probably that the camera does not know the intended point of focus.
Focusing accuracy improves all the time and with mirrorless/LV we now have on sensor phase detection and contrast sensing AF. Phase detection for speed and contrast sensing for precision.
Best regards
Erik
About manually focusing: I once attended a lecture given by a famous Sports Illustrated photographer. He said that he still uses only manual focus, even though he was a Nikon sponsored shooter with truckloads of newest gear. What was most interesting was that he practices focusing for 20-30 minutes every day. He said it was like playing an instrument, it has to come naturally and it can not be done reliably without constant practice. So every day he takes out a long telephoto and practices on moving subjects.
Manual focusing has gotten more difficult with the modern cameras which are designed for AF only. In the "good" old times I had a full matte focusing screen on my Canon F1 without any focusing aids, it worked perfectly for me. I miss it sometimes, but fortunately not too often...
-
Nice, I stand corrected, you are able to do it. I know I wouldn't.
What equipment are you using for these if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
Of course you could. It's not hard at all. Learning to walk was harder, I assure you.
-
What equipment are you using for these if I may ask?
Leica R8 with DMR, Leica-R lenses (a 40-year-old 560mm f/6.8 and a 20-year-old 280mm f/4 APO with or without extenders), shoulder stock, 62-year-old eyes & hands.
No front- or back-focus issues, no left-side errors, no micro adjustment needed, no grabbing the near wingtip instead of the eye, not confused by busy backgrounds, no distinction between cross-type and non-cross-type focus points, no need to 'upgrade' to the latest equipment that is supposed to reduce these problems, and an infinite number of focus points covering the entire picture area all with the same sensitivity and usable at all apertures.
-
Leica R8 with DMR, Leica-R lenses (a 40-year-old 560mm f/6.8 and a 20-year-old 280mm f/4 APO with or without extenders), shoulder stock, 62-year-old eyes & hands.
No front- or back-focus issues, no left-side errors, no micro adjustment needed, no grabbing the near wingtip instead of the eye, not confused by busy backgrounds, no distinction between cross-type and non-cross-type focus points, no need to 'upgrade' to the latest equipment that is supposed to reduce these problems, and an infinite number of focus points covering the entire picture area all with the same sensitivity and usable at all apertures.
Just make sure the lenses are clean and you're good to go!
We don't need no stinkin' autofocus!
http://youtu.be/VqomZQMZQCQ
Less is more.
-
Leica R8 with DMR, Leica-R lenses (a 40-year-old 560mm f/6.8 and a 20-year-old 280mm f/4 APO with or without extenders), shoulder stock, 62-year-old eyes & hands.
Thanks for the info.
I had never thought of using my Leitax F mount converted 280mm f4 APO that way, but it is worth a try.
I have some doubts about optimal focusing though because, on the D800, I could see a clear difference between VF focusing accuracy and live view focusing accuracy on... static subjects... but I'll give it a try anyway. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I had never thought of using my Leitax F mount converted 280mm f4 APO that way, but it is worth a try.
I have some doubts about optimal focusing though because, on the D800, I could see a clear difference between VF focusing accuracy and live view focusing accuracy on... static subjects... but I'll give it a try anyway. ;)
This is one of the reasons I have such a low opinion of CaNikon viewfinders. Focussing screen accuracy isn't a priority for the camera makers because people think manual focus is too difficult - and they're right, manual focus is difficult, because the viewfinders are so bad. Chicken/egg.
Shimming might help a little but for accurate focus over the entire picture area the mirror must first be aligned correctly before the view screen is aligned. Again, not a high priority for the mainstream camera makers because it doesn't sell widgets as easily as counting pixels or fps or ISO ratings does.
This is one of the benefits of mirrorless cameras - no mirror box calibration problems.
-
This is one of the reasons I have such a low opinion of CaNikon viewfinders. Focussing screen accuracy isn't a priority for the camera makers because people think manual focus is too difficult - and they're right, manual focus is difficult, because the viewfinders are so bad. Chicken/egg.
Shimming might help a little but for accurate focus over the entire picture area the mirror must first be aligned correctly before the view screen is aligned. Again, not a high priority for the mainstream camera makers because it doesn't sell widgets as easily as counting pixels or fps or ISO ratings does.
This is one of the benefits of mirrorless cameras - no mirror box calibration problems.
Indeed.
If it is not too much asking, out of a typical sequence of action, how would you estimate your success rate in terms of totally satisfactory images from a technical standpoint?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If it is not too much asking, out of a typical sequence of action, how would you estimate your success rate in terms of totally satisfactory images from a technical standpoint?
It's hard to say what's typical. Sometimes 100% (Ibis, Egrets & Goldeneye duck above), more often about 50% (goose & falcon above) or as low as 10% with flight shots of hummingbirds. Aside from keeping the bird in the field of view, the biggest technical problem with my flight shots of hummingbirds is DOF, there isn't any and it's not good enough to have some part of the bird in focus. I want the eye to be in focus.
-
It's hard to say what's typical. Sometimes 100% (Ibis, Egrets & Goldeneye duck above), more often about 50% (goose & falcon above) or as low as 10% with flight shots of hummingbirds. Aside from keeping the bird in the field of view, the biggest technical problem with my flight shots of hummingbirds is DOF, there isn't any and it's not good enough to have some part of the bird in focus. I want the eye to be in focus.
you can't beat that with AF of any camera I'm familiar with. Maybe the new Canon 7D II will come close, but then you have to worry about primary focus point chosen by chip-brain
Do you "lead" your focus by varying amounts depending on experience or do you go for smack on and high shutter speed?
-
you can't beat that with AF of any camera I'm familiar with. Maybe the new Canon 7D II will come close, but then you have to worry about primary focus point chosen by chip-brain
Do you "lead" your focus by varying amounts depending on experience or do you go for smack on and high shutter speed?
One tactic is to focus a little ahead of a moving subject and wait for it to enter the plane of focus. You can anticipate the action, and it's really not that difficult.
-
you can't beat that with AF of any camera I'm familiar with. Maybe the new Canon 7D II will come close, but then you have to worry about primary focus point chosen by chip-brain
Do you "lead" your focus by varying amounts depending on experience or do you go for smack on and high shutter speed?
For birds flying parallel to the plane of focus or hovering hummingbirds I push the button when the bird's eye is in focus. For activity heading toward the camera I follow-focus and follow-through when I make the exposure.
-
For activity heading toward the camera I follow-focus and follow-through when I make the exposure.
This is known as AI focus (Actual Intelligence). :D
-
For birds flying parallel to the plane of focus or hovering hummingbirds I push the button when the bird's eye is in focus. For activity heading toward the camera I follow-focus and follow-through when I make the exposure.
Yes, this is exactly how it's done. This fellow knows what he's talking about. You 'keep focusing' through the shot.
-
what ever happened to "focus-gateing"...?
-
what ever happened to "focus-gateing"...?
Not familiar with that term here...
-
Not familiar with that term here...
Could set "where" you wanted the AF and shutter to trigger when something appears in the space you designate
-
Could set "where" you wanted the AF and shutter to trigger when something appears in the space you designate
it is known more as catch in focus/trap in focus in dSLR world, PDAF can do this...
-
Could set "where" you wanted the AF and shutter to trigger when something appears in the space you designate
What has that to do with manual focusing?
-
What has that to do with manual focusing?
oh, it doesn't.
but was just asking about various strategies
I took the OT as being about more than manual focusing
yes, focus trapping, thank you for the correction
-
Well this is all very interesting. In my opinion, one of the biggest advantages of the pro-grade cameras is that they seem to have a decent screen selection. Canon 1DX has about 10 screens including the old-style microprism ring / split screen center/ very fine ground glass periphery screen that was used in every film SLR, and which I miss. The Canon extra-fine matte screen available for low-end cameras (6D) is better than the appalling-for-manual-focus factory installed version, but not as appealing as the old film SLR screens.
I don't doubt that you can get great shots with manual focus, given lots of regular practice. I could get significantly better at supertelephoto MF if I worked out on some tree and barn swallows for 20 minutes a day (small, fast, irregular flight path) ;) .
-
Well this is all very interesting. In my opinion, one of the biggest advantages of the pro-grade cameras is that they seem to have a decent screen selection. Canon 1DX has about 10 screens including the old-style microprism ring / split screen center/ very fine ground glass periphery screen that was used in every film SLR, and which I miss. The Canon extra-fine matte screen available for low-end cameras (6D) is better than the appalling-for-manual-focus factory installed version, but not as appealing as the old film SLR screens.
I don't doubt that you can get great shots with manual focus, given lots of regular practice. I could get significantly better at supertelephoto MF if I worked out on some tree and barn swallows for 20 minutes a day (small, fast, irregular flight path) ;) .
Hyperactive children or pets will also work.
-
Leica R8 with DMR, Leica-R lenses (a 40-year-old 560mm f/6.8 and a 20-year-old 280mm f/4 APO with or without extenders), shoulder stock, 62-year-old eyes & hands.
No front- or back-focus issues, no left-side errors, no micro adjustment needed, no grabbing the near wingtip instead of the eye, not confused by busy backgrounds, no distinction between cross-type and non-cross-type focus points, no need to 'upgrade' to the latest equipment that is supposed to reduce these problems, and an infinite number of focus points covering the entire picture area all with the same sensitivity and usable at all apertures.
And no compromising your composition so that you can put the little red rectangle onto what you want in focus. And no more focus and recompose issues. Manual focus allows you to totally focus on your composition and what's in front of you rather than playing the line up the red rectangle with what you want in focus game. Actually very liberating.
-
And no compromising your composition so that you can put the little red rectangle onto what you want in focus. And no more focus and recompose issues. Manual focus allows you to totally focus on your composition and what's in front of you rather than playing the line up the red rectangle with what you want in focus game. Actually very liberating.
Yep! In making it "easy" the Japanese make it hard. Same in cameras and cars. A million bells and whistles vs control and lean designs.
I drive a 2001 VW Passat V6 stick. Same design philosophy as the Leicaflex.
-
yep
this is why my M240 is such a sublimely pleasurable camera to use.
you are more than a bystander and it gets ya going
-
yep
this is why my M240 is such a sublimely pleasurable camera to use.
you are more than a bystander and it gets ya going
Yep. I will never own a Japanese car or camera, ever.
-
May I offer another 'yep'?
-
May I offer another 'yep'?
yep...
-
May I offer another 'yep'?
Japocrap turns my stomach...
-
Yep! In making it "easy" the Japanese make it hard. Same in cameras and cars. A million bells and whistles vs control and lean designs.
How could anything be simpler to use than a D810 in Auto ISO (inverse of shutter speed + 1 stop faster), A mode set at F2.0 in highlight priority mode, AF Auto mode?
The only button you need to touch is the shutter release to get perfectly exposed for the face of your subject, focused on the eye images that you can print at A1.
And if ever you need to change something on the fly, you have a button available just under your finder tip to do that. Basically everybody, from Pentax to Leica, has copied the 2 wheels thumb/index control paradigm invented by Nikon with the F5/F100.
I am sorry, I just don't get your comment.
Clean design was invented by Japanese, just visit a Zen temple and you'll understand why. Steve Jobs was influenced by Sony more than by anything else in his life.
So Japanese can do clean design better than anybody else when that is the right thing to do. It simply isn't for cameras from a physical standpoint, but they have managed to supplement this by very smart automation that turn the most advanced DSLR ever in the simplest of the point and shoot.
Best of both world if there ever was one.
Have you been in Tesla S? I love the car and the company but their flat screen based center column is IMHO a disaster from an argonomic standpoint. Not everything is a smartphone.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How could anything be simpler to use than a D810 in Auto ISO (inverse of shutter speed + 1 stop faster), A mode set at F2.0 in highlight priority mode, AF Auto mode?
The only button you need to touch is the shutter release to get perfectly exposed for the face of your subject, focused on the eye images that you can print at A1.
And if ever you need to change something on the fly, you have a button available just under your finder tip to do that. Basically everybody, from Pentax to Leica, has copied the 2 wheels thumb/index control paradigm invented by Nikon with the F5/F100.
I am sorry, I just don't get your comment.
Clean design was invented by Japanese, just visit a Zen temple and you'll understand why. Steve Jobs was influenced by Sony more than by anything else in his life.
So Japanese can do clean design better than anybody else when that is the right thing to do. It simply isn't for cameras from a physical standpoint, but they have managed to supplement this by very smart automation that turn the most advanced DSLR ever in the simplest of the point and shoot.
Best of both world if there ever was one.
Have you been in Tesla S? I love the car and the company but their flat screen based center column is IMHO a disaster from an argonomic standpoint. Not everything is a smartphone.
Cheers,
Bernard
Don't need autofocus
Don't need auto film advance
Don't need auto-exposure
It's all garbage.
Less is more.
-
Don't need autofocus
Don't need auto film advance
Don't need auto-exposure
It's all garbage.
It depends on the situation.
There are many cases where these automation are precious help to take a great picture instead of an average one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It depends on the situation.
There are many cases where these automation are precious help to take a great picture instead of an average one.
Cheers,
Bernard
Then why are my photos always better than those taken with all that automatic crap?
-
Then why are my photos always better than those taken with all that automatic crap?
Your ego? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Japocrap turns my stomach...
I won't go so far as to paint all cameras originating in Japan with the same brush. I'll evaluate each camera model on its own merits.
-
Your ego? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Look at the photos taken by wildlight guy, it isn't ego, my lad.
-
Look at the photos taken by wildlight guy, it isn't ego, my lad.
I was talking to you! ;)
I am not denying that MF is a useful tool nor that it is the most suitable to some applications. I use my Otus a lot on the D810. 100% of my landscape work has been shot on MF Zeiss and Leica lenses for 4-5 years, mostly in full manual mode. Some baby girl portraits too recently.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3868/15304717752_52de9f3ae9_o.jpg)
But this is not what we were discussing initially.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was talking to you! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Concentration on essentials.
-
And if ever you need to change something on the fly, you have a button available just under your finder tip to do that. Basically everybody, from Pentax to Leica, has copied the 2 wheels thumb/index control paradigm invented by Nikon with the F5/F100.
If I'm not mistaken, those wheels were introduced by Canon on the EOS 1, no?
-
Yep! In making it "easy" the Japanese make it hard. Same in cameras and cars. A million bells and whistles vs control and lean designs.
I drive a 2001 VW Passat V6 stick. Same design philosophy as the Leicaflex.
Talk about invalidating a whole argument. A VW product shouldn't be used as an example of a quality (ok, ok, at least a reliable) product to anyone residing in the US or Canada for the last 30 years. The Germans may be good at a quality car feel, but their products just don't last economically.
-
Japanese products are engineered with users in mind. They are easier and less expensive to maintain, generally last longer and are so reliable that it is boring. European engineering may be brilliant, but is general expensive and a pain to maintain. If I want the state of art, I would go European, but if I want peace of mind and long life Japanese products are the way to go.
-
Japanese products are engineered with users in mind. They are easier and less expensive to maintain, generally last longer and are so reliable that it is boring. European engineering may be brilliant, but is general expensive and a pain to maintain. If I want the state of art, I would go European, but if I want peace of mind and long life Japanese products are the way to go.
Try changing a water pump in a Scion or a window regulator in a Toyota Matrix. My VW JSW TDI has been very reliable.
-
If I'm not mistaken, those wheels were introduced by Canon on the EOS 1, no?
The EOS rear wheel is pretty different from the Nikon one in terms of position/orientation and ergonomics.
It may be a matter of taste, but it doesn't work at all for me and no other manufacturer has made the same decision in terms of placement/orientation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Um, Germans make the best guns, and the best knives, but as someone who sold cars for a few years, "German engineering" didn't create longstanding reliability in their vehicles. They may look better, and they may cost more, but their reliability and re-sale values suck.
Remember a guy who traded a 3-year-old Mercedes SL500 convertible (that he paid $88,000 for), and only got $33,000 on his trade. He basically kissed 55-Grand goodbye after only 3 years of driving. It was immaculate. We didn't even hang onto most of our VWs, choosing instead to dump them onto substandard lots, because of their low reliability rating after 50,000-75,000 miles ...
Best Cars (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/04/who-makes-the-best-cars/index.htm)
Best Resale Value (http://www.kbb.com/new-cars/best-resale-value-awards/best-brand)
I had 230,000 miles on an old 1999 Nissan Maxima ... and went from L.A. to Miami (and back again) ... nearly 6,000 miles round trip ... and didn't burn even 1 quart of oil.
Have about 247,000 on it now ... and would still trust it more than any German car with half as much mileage.
Good luck getting that kind of life out of a VW ... or trusting it on multiple cross-country trips as a mile-eater :D
Jack
PS: Here's a laughable indictment (http://dougdemuro.kinja.com/german-reliability-the-greatest-myth-ever-sold-to-amer-1572026115) on the oxymoron of "German reliability" ;D
-
Try changing a water pump in a Scion or a window regulator in a Toyota Matrix. My VW JSW TDI has been very reliable.
Well in India here is what we have
. Mercedes brakes pads - changed every 20,000km, Toyota or Suzuki after 60,000
. Mercedes service (washing, oil and fluid changes every 15,000km) cost $800, Japanese around a $100
. Spares for European cars/machinery is twice that of Japanese/Korean
. Honda Accord costs nearly a third of Mercedes E class/BMW 5series and lasts three times and even after that sells for more than the Germans after 3 years. At end of 6 years the German cars have practically no value.
. Siemens/Bosch washing machines cost twice as much and last half the time of Samsung/LG
I could go on and on, but what is the point, Western Engineering has taken a back seat in reliability and maintenance, to such an extent that in India people buy Western cars as a status symbol as it takes a really rich man to maintain one, not for their engineering and comfort.
-
Well in India here is what we have
. Mercedes brakes pads - changed every 20,000km, Toyota or Suzuki after 60,000
. Mercedes service (washing, oil and fluid changes every 15,000km) cost $800, Japanese around a $100
. Spares for European cars/machinery is twice that of Japanese/Korean
. Honda Accord costs nearly a third of Mercedes E class/BMW 5series and lasts three times and even after that sells for more than the Germans after 3 years. At end of 6 years the German cars have practically no value.
. Siemens/Bosch washing machines cost twice as much and last half the time of Samsung/LG
I could go on and on, but what is the point, Western Engineering has taken a back seat in reliability and maintenance, to such an extent that in India people buy Western cars as a status symbol as it takes a really rich man to maintain one, not for their engineering and comfort.
I wouldn't touch Mercedes or BMW because they're 'luxury' brands. Likewise any other 'luxury' car no matter where it was designed, made or where the corporate office is. 'Luxury' is a waste of money IMHO. It seems silly to compare the cost of 'luxury' brands with the cost of Toyota and Suzuki and use this as an example of the failure of Western engineering.
In the examples I cited above, how do you feel about removing the engine from a car to replace the water pump? It's a US$1100 repair. Or US$800 to replace a window regulator? These were supposed to be inexpensive vehicles, and these repairs were not on old cars, they were less than 3 years old. These cars, both products of Toyota engineering, were not designed to be repaired.
-
Um, Germans make the best guns, and the best knives, but as someone who sold cars for a few years, "German engineering" didn't create longstanding reliability in their vehicles. They may look better, and they may cost more, but their reliability and re-sale values suck.
Remember a guy who traded a 3-year-old Mercedes SL500 convertible (that he paid $88,000 for), and only got $33,000 on his trade. He basically kissed 55-Grand goodbye after only 3 years of driving. It was immaculate. We didn't even hang onto most of our VWs, choosing instead to dump them onto substandard lots, because of their low reliability rating after 50,000-75,000 miles ...
let's say his lease was s36mo 20K miles for ~$1700/mo sound fair?
$61K in lease payments and pray no end of lease fees
Cars, with very very very few exceptions are the poster child for depreciating asset Ask me how I know...
-
I wouldn't touch Mercedes or BMW because they're 'luxury' brands. Likewise any other 'luxury' car no matter where it was designed, made or where the corporate office is. 'Luxury' is a waste of money IMHO. It seems silly to compare the cost of 'luxury' brands with the cost of Toyota and Suzuki and use this as an example of the failure of Western engineering.
In the examples I cited above, how do you feel about removing the engine from a car to replace the water pump? It's a US$1100 repair. Or US$800 to replace a window regulator? These were supposed to be inexpensive vehicles, and these repairs were not on old cars, they were less than 3 years old. These cars, both products of Toyota engineering, were not designed to be repaired.
I was talking about the fact that Japanese cameras have always been more 'feature' oriented with lots of bells and whistles, than Leicas, especially. The Leicaflex was infinitely superior in handling and design to the Nikon F or F2.
How many people used the removable prism, ever? Maybe 1 in 10,000. Yet, making the prism and screen removable meant more play and slop in the screen's position, causing loss of focusing accuracy. Ever see sponge at the front of a Leicaflex screen? No, and you won't. Leitz developed a special mechanism that 'brakes' the mirror mechanically, brining it to a slow stop instead of allowing it to bang into sponge.
-
let's say his lease was s36mo 20K miles for ~$1700/mo sound fair?
$61K in lease payments and pray no end of lease fees
Cars, with very very very few exceptions are the poster child for depreciating asset Ask me how I know...
The two best times to buy a car (a reliable, well-selected car) are either.
1) At the 3-year mark; or
2) After they hit 100,000 miles.
Ask me how I know, lol
Jack
-
Hi,
In my job I often had rental cars from Volskwagen, Audi and Skoda. I liked the Passat best, Audi less so. I would say Passat, Skoda and Audi last. Audi had to much design and to little functionality.
But, I know that service for all of them is a mess, here in Nyköping, reason enough not to buy any of them.
Best regards
Erik
I wouldn't touch Mercedes or BMW because they're 'luxury' brands. Likewise any other 'luxury' car no matter where it was designed, made or where the corporate office is. 'Luxury' is a waste of money IMHO. It seems silly to compare the cost of 'luxury' brands with the cost of Toyota and Suzuki and use this as an example of the failure of Western engineering.
In the examples I cited above, how do you feel about removing the engine from a car to replace the water pump? It's a US$1100 repair. Or US$800 to replace a window regulator? These were supposed to be inexpensive vehicles, and these repairs were not on old cars, they were less than 3 years old. These cars, both products of Toyota engineering, were not designed to be repaired.
-
I was talking about the fact that Japanese cameras have always been more 'feature' oriented with lots of bells and whistles, than Leicas, especially. The Leicaflex was infinitely superior in handling and design to the Nikon F or F2.
How many people used the removable prism, ever? Maybe 1 in 10,000. Yet, making the prism and screen removable meant more play and slop in the screen's position, causing loss of focusing accuracy. Ever see sponge at the front of a Leicaflex screen? No, and you won't. Leitz developed a special mechanism that 'brakes' the mirror mechanically, brining it to a slow stop instead of allowing it to bang into sponge.
I am also a big fan of the Leicaflexes but I wouldn't extrapolate its engineering excellence to an entire nation. Neither would I extrapolate the Nikon F's engineering to the entire nation. The Nikon was very reliable for me (aside from the light meter) because the tolerances were so loose that any crud that fell in would also fall out just as quickly. The Leicaflexes were slightly less reliable because it was so well made that any crud that managed to get in would stay in.
-
I am also a big fan of the Leicaflexes but I wouldn't extrapolate its engineering excellence to an entire nation. Neither would I extrapolate the Nikon F's engineering to the entire nation. The Nikon was very reliable for me (aside from the light meter) because the tolerances were so loose that any crud that fell in would also fall out just as quickly. The Leicaflexes were slightly less reliable because it was so well made that any crud that managed to get in would stay in.
This more design than engineering. If you make a really great focussing screen (they did) you don't need interchangeable screens. I ordered my SL2s with the SL screen, and have had the screen changed in my other SL2 (recently acquired) to the SL screen.
If you have even owned German phonograph records or other German products you'll see it is cultural.
-
Michael Scarpitti has re-appeared.
-
All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense. No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way. There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.
Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus. Of course it can be done and I love shooting in manual focus mode - in fact I have a number of lenses that are MF only. But there are also many instances of when AF just works to get the shot with certainty and regularity.
I bought a Zeiss 50mm lens a few years back and I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point. And I still think that - but AF has it's place too. In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices. Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand. MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!
Here are two pictures from a shoot this year taken with an 85mm lens at 2.8. I think you can see which one benefited from AF and which one could easily have been shot with MF.
And on the OP topic in general - I think the current or last five years of technology has given most of us more quality than we could ever exploit fully. My main camera may be six years old but I'm in no doubt my progression in photography will not come through a newer sensor - just more practice!
Jim
-
I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point. And I still think that - but AF has it's place too. In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices. Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand. MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!
+1
-
All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense. No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way. There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.
My comments were not directed at users but at Japanese camera manufacturers. Did you miss that part?
Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus.
So what? Maybe those who do so aren't members.
-
All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense. No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way. There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.
Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus. Of course it can be done and I love shooting in manual focus mode - in fact I have a number of lenses that are MF only. But there are also many instances of when AF just works to get the shot with certainty and regularity.
I bought a Zeiss 50mm lens a few years back and I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point. And I still think that - but AF has it's place too. In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices. Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand. MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!
Here are two pictures from a shoot this year taken with an 85mm lens at 2.8. I think you can see which one benefited from AF and which one could easily have been shot with MF.
And on the OP topic in general - I think the current or last five years of technology has given most of us more quality than we could ever exploit fully. My main camera may be six years old but I'm in no doubt my progression in photography will not come through a newer sensor - just more practice!
Jim
whole lot of "for real" in your post, Sir
but to be fair, I've tried late Nikons and Canons... plus a few Sonys and Fujis for good measure looking for The Camera and am gobsmacked by how often, even with what I'd call just about optimal conditions, AF just blows the shot. it's one thing to "fuzz" a forelock with an M, and quite another to blow it with a high-tech. I will admit, the D4 was darned good, but not perfect by any means... and the Fuji...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa........... surely you jest
-
whole lot of for real in your post, Sir
but to be fair, I've tried late Nikons and Canons... plus a few Sonys and Fujis for good measure looking for The Camera and am gobsmacked by how often, even with what I'd call just about optimal conditions, AF just blows the shot. it's one thing to "fuzz" a forelock with an M, and quite another to blow it with a high-tech. I will admit, the D4 was darned good, but bot perfect by any means... and the Fuji...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa........... surely you jest
Why am I not surprised? Auto-focus has difficulty with evenly lit smooth featureless surfaces.
-
All this talk about manual focus being better than autofocus is a nonsense. No one photographer can claim that because manual focus works for them on their camera so it is the best way. There are so many different photographers and types of photography it is almost impossible to generalise about anything in photography at all.
Absolutely disagree. It's not nonsense.
No focusing is more demanding than macro focusing: getting the tiniest details from the tiniest subjects. So much so that ardent practitioners often partake in "focus-stacking" ... of blending 2-100+ images, all focused on subtly different planes of focus on the subject, which are then "stacked" together for one full image with 2-100+ different focus points. I can assure you NO ONE does focus stacking using AF (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Almost no macro shooter uses AF in their single imagery either. Maybe to capture a bug moving in the field, but any macro shooter who is seriously-composing a macro shot for ultimate focus is going to be behind a tripod using MF. Live view blown-up 10x the size. Critical shots obtained via MF (or by macro-rail adjustment for really critical shots). Shutter tripped by remote switch.
Wildlightphoto has outstanding pictures, but I've yet to see any other outstanding action pictures in this thread shot on manual focus. Of course it can be done and I love shooting in manual focus mode - in fact I have a number of lenses that are MF only. But there are also many instances of when AF just works to get the shot with certainty and regularity.
Check out the last page of Macro thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=31943.80) ...
I bought a Zeiss 50mm lens a few years back and I remember the feeling of freedom from the tyranny of the AF point. And I still think that - but AF has it's place too. In fact my favourite lenses mostly are MF primes - but I do not lecture others on their choices. Use the tools that suit you and the task at hand. MF if you like, or AF - the choice is yours!
I don't lecture anyone on their choices of what to do, but I also think facts are facts. The choice may be yours as to what to go with, but the FACT is the people who are the most serious about absolutely critical focus are NOT using AF to capture their best, most focus-critical shots. Manual focus only. Period.
Here are two pictures from a shoot this year taken with an 85mm lens at 2.8. I think you can see which one benefited from AF and which one could easily have been shot with MF.
Beautiful shots of children, but not exactly critical-focus macro photography.
And on the OP topic in general - I think the current or last five years of technology has given most of us more quality than we could ever exploit fully. My main camera may be six years old but I'm in no doubt my progression in photography will not come through a newer sensor - just more practice!
Jim
For the most part, this is true.
But some things cannot be achieved without the necessary technology to achieve them, just as some "magic moments" cannot be captured without the necessary "eye" to see and capture them.
So both are needed, ultimately.
Jack
-
Yes, for critical focus you cannot beat manual focus. The reasons are many, but it boils down to one fact - the AF does not focus on a small dot say 1/2mm diameter, but on a larger area (if take a bee's eye it may focus on the centre, one side or at the tip of the antenna, if it is in the focus rectangle, while you choose what to focus on), and then it can get confused if there is little light or low contrast. With magnified live view it is a breeze to focus fast manually.
Similarly it will be extremely difficult to AF on a particular leaf in a dense bush. If leaves are staggered, you never know whether AF focused on the distant leaf or the nearest or one in the middle - all three are in the focus rectangle.
-
I can assure you NO ONE does focus stacking using AF
but technology is there, lenses (most recent) created for CDAF have stepper motors to move focusing group of optical elements - it is just a matter of firmware to enable stacking step by step...
-
On the specific issue of action shots, that would depend if you're using a tripod or not.
If you're hand-holding, then already (by default) precision focusing is NOT your main goal ... versatility is. Therefore AF will probably be your choice to capture the action. Macro shooters who hand-hold in the field will invariably also have flash, use AF, etc.
However, if you're composing your shots on a tripod, say to capture a bee in flight. And (say) you've selected "the" flower you're going to set your gear in front of, then you're going to use MANUAL focus to nail your shot, because you've already taken the trouble to stabilize your shot via tripod. You've already composed your framing. So, at this point, you're simply waiting for the bee to come in front of the flower, and you will zero-in on him critically using manual focus.
So if you're hand-holding looking for action shots, and just trying to "get" focus, then AF may be the only way you can get the shot.
But if absolute focus is your goal, then you're using a tripod, you're using MF, and mirror lockup/live view. Even in action shots.
I forget the guy's name, but he is widely considered "the" best photographer of bees, and the latter is the way he gets his best action shots: set up on a tripod in front of a flower ... not running around chasing bees with a camera in his hands.
Jack
-
Yes, for critical focus you cannot beat manual focus. The reasons are many, but it boils down to one fact - the AF does not focus on a small dot say 1/2mm diameter, but on a larger area (if take a bee's eye it may focus on the centre, one side or at the tip of the antenna, if it is in the focus rectangle, while you choose what to focus on), and then it can get confused if there is little light or low contrast. With magnified live view it is a breeze to focus fast manually.
Similarly it will be extremely difficult to AF on a particular leaf in a dense bush. If leaves are staggered, you never know whether AF focused on the distant leaf or the nearest or one in the middle - all three are in the focus rectangle.
Or on the eyelashes of a little girl...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/
-
On the specific issue of action shots, that would depend if you're using a tripod or not.
If you're hand-holding, then already (by default) precision focusing is NOT your main goal ... versatility is. Therefore AF will probably be your choice to capture the action. Macro shooters who hand-hold in the field will invariably also have flash, use AF, etc.
However, if you're composing your shots on a tripod, say to capture a bee in flight. And (say) you've selected "the" flower you're going to set your gear in front of, then you're going to use MANUAL focus to nail your shot, because you've already taken the trouble to stabilize your shot via tripod. You've already composed your framing. So, at this point, you're simply waiting for the bee to come in front of the flower, and you will zero-in on him critically using manual focus.
So if you're hand-holding looking for action shots, and just trying to "get" focus, then AF may be the only way you can get the shot.
This is false.
But if absolute focus is your goal, then you're using a tripod, you're using MF, and mirror lockup/live view. Even in action shots.
Huh?
I forget the guy's name, but he is widely considered "the" best photographer of bees, and the latter is the way he gets his best action shots: set up on a tripod in front of a flower ... not running around chasing bees with a camera in his hands.
Jack
In common parlance, 'action shots' are not of bees.
-
This is false.
Huh?
In common parlance, 'action shots' are not of bees.
If you say so (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
-
Or on the eyelashes of a little girl...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/
Is that supposed to be critical focus? (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
-
Is that supposed to be critical focus? (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Well I may have missed the front part of the iris by 0.000000000000001mm. Nobody's perfect you know.
8)
-
Well I may have missed the front part of the iris by 0.000000000000001mm. Nobody's perfect you know.
8)
Exactly my point :)
That type of measurement is what I mean by "critical focus."
Getting "the eyelashes" sharp (when they only comprise 1/200th of the entire frame) is an easy thing to do.
However, try filling the frame with only the eyelashes ... and capturing the surface texture of each lash, at 5:1 magnification, hand held ... where the slightest movement is a major shift to the tiny scale you're working with ... and tell me how AF works for you then (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Jack
-
Exactly my point :)
That type of measurement is what I mean by "critical focus."
Getting "the eyelashes" sharp (when they only comprise 1/200th of the entire frame) is an easy thing to do.
However, try filling the frame with only the eyelashes ... and capturing the surface texture of each lash, at 5:1 magnification, hand held ... where the slightest movement is a major shift to the tiny scale you're working with ... and tell me how AF works for you then (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Jack
Uhmmmmmmmmmmm...this was manual focus! That's my point! You cannot focus this accurately with AF!
-
Uhmmmmmmmmmmm...this was manual focus! That's my point! You cannot focus this accurately with AF!
Was it hand-held? ;)
-
Was it hand-held? ;)
Yes, and I am quadriplegic, have Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flat feet, halitosis, and heterochromia!
My doctor told me I have one of the worst cases of heterochromia he's ever seen!
-
Yes, and I have Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, flat feet, halitosis, and heterochromia!
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
-
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
what were we talking about then, and who are you again?
-
what were we talking about then, and who are you again?
I forget (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
-
Yes, for critical focus you cannot beat manual focus. The reasons are many, but it boils down to one fact - the AF does not focus on a small dot say 1/2mm diameter, but on a larger area (if take a bee's eye it may focus on the centre, one side or at the tip of the antenna, if it is in the focus rectangle, while you choose what to focus on), and then it can get confused if there is little light or low contrast. With magnified live view it is a breeze to focus fast manually.
Similarly it will be extremely difficult to AF on a particular leaf in a dense bush. If leaves are staggered, you never know whether AF focused on the distant leaf or the nearest or one in the middle - all three are in the focus rectangle.
Well said.
-
but technology is there, lenses (most recent) created for CDAF have stepper motors to move focusing group of optical elements - it is just a matter of firmware to enable stacking step by step...
It will never work for critical focus. The first step of a stack shot is the manual focus of the beginning point.
Once that is achieved, and you want to do things in an automated fashion, an automated macro rail (http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php) is the way to go, not lens.
-
It will never work for critical focus. The first step of a stack shot is the manual focus of the beginning point.
Once that is achieved, and you want to do things in an automated fashion, an automated macro rail (http://www.cognisys-inc.com/stackshot/stackshot.php) is the way to go, not lens.
But auto-focus doesn't work well at all, for anything.
-
Mercedes commercial TRUCKS, on the other hand, have a decent reputation for reliability, don't they? I figured that the engineering parameters are completely different for the commercial truck line (reliability foremost) than for the car and SUV line (performance and frills foremost).
Near-macro single-shot hand-held in the field is a compromise, but I don't necessarily use classic manual focus. I put the lens on MF and gently move the camera/lens back and forth to get focus - process assisted by grabbing a stick (hiking pole, monopod, etc) stuck in the ground with the camera holding hand, and rocking the stick back and forth (the "Lord V" method, after a Fred Miranda macro forum stalwart). Framing is governed by height of hand placement on stick, angle of hand holding the camera, etc. Focus confirmation helps. So does burst shooting while slowly moving camera forward.
Focus stacking using AF to advance the lens focus is an old magic lantern hack. It works well for close-ups and for landscape focus stacks but not as well for true macro. The alternative automated option is to motorize the camera platform ("StackShot" rail and DIY motorized rails), a better choice for macro.
-
Hi,
No comment TRUCKS but I bought a Stackshot recently and it is great stuff.
Best regards
Erik
Mercedes commercial TRUCKS, on the other hand, have a decent reputation for reliability, don't they? I figured that the engineering parameters are completely different for the commercial truck line (reliability foremost) than for the car and SUV line (performance and frills foremost).
Near-macro single-shot hand-held in the field is a compromise, but I don't necessarily use classic manual focus. I put the lens on MF and gently move the camera/lens back and forth to get focus - process assisted by grabbing a stick (hiking pole, monopod, etc) stuck in the ground with the camera holding hand, and rocking the stick back and forth (the "Lord V" method, after a Fred Miranda macro forum stalwart). Framing is governed by height of hand placement on stick, angle of hand holding the camera, etc. Focus confirmation helps. So does burst shooting while slowly moving camera forward.
Focus stacking using AF to advance the lens focus is an old magic lantern hack. It works well for close-ups and for landscape focus stacks but not as well for true macro. The alternative automated option is to motorize the camera platform ("StackShot" rail and DIY motorized rails), a better choice for macro.
-
Melchior Pavone, you are missing the point of focus stacking. Set outer limits of focusing range manually. Then program (or manually advance) your camera platform to take a shot every (n microns or n millimeters) for the length of the desired focusing range. Then throw the 5 to 100 images into Your Favorite Software, choose your automated blend algorithm, render, and count every hair on all six or eight legs of your fly or spider subject.
-
Melchior Pavone, you are missing the point of focus stacking. Set outer limits of focusing range manually. Then program (or manually advance) your camera platform to take a shot every (n microns or n millimeters) for the length of the desired focusing range. Then throw the 5 to 100 images into Your Favorite Software, choose your automated blend algorithm, render, and count every hair on all six or eight legs of your fly or spider subject.
What has that to do with anything that is not stationary? I don't see the relevance to manual vs auto-focusing in any case.
-
What has that to do with anything that is not stationary? I don't see the relevance to manual vs auto-focusing in any case.
Since you didn't realize that, even in automated stack shots, the parameters are first set manually, and what is automated is the camera platform, not the lens, the relevance is this:
1) The absolute, most critical focusing is always done manually on tiny, still subjects (not via AF).
2) The absolute, most critical focusing of moving subjects is always done on a tripod, with manual focus also atop a gimbal or other movable head.
AF has been brought up to a good, appreciable level that works on many larger subjects (landscapes, large animals, humans, etc.), but this can hardly be considered "critical focus" ...
In fact, razor-sharp imagery is often avoided for portraiture, so by all means keep using AF there if you like.
But, where absolute detail is everything, MF is the way to go.
-
Since you didn't realize that, even in automated stack shots, the parameters are first set manually, and what is automated is the camera platform, not the lens, the relevance is this:
1) The absolute, most critical focusing is always done manually on tiny, still subjects (not via AF).
2) The absolute, most critical focusing of moving subjects is always done on a tripod, with manual focus also atop a gimbal or other movable head.
AF has been brought up to a good, appreciable level that works on many larger subjects (landscapes, large animals, humans, etc.), but this can hardly be considered "critical focus" ...
In fact, razor-sharp imagery is often avoided for portraiture, so by all means keep using AF there if you like.
But, where absolute detail is everything, MF is the way to go.
What you are saying may be true, but not germane to the topic, of focussing typical subject matter (people, sports, etc.) hand held. It has nothing to do with it. My claim is that manual focus is superior for such subject matter.
In portraiture, a little diffusion is often appropriate, but not 'out-of-focus'.
-
What you are saying may be true, but not germane to the topic, of focussing typical subject matter (people, sports, etc.) hand held. It has nothing to do with it. My claim is that manual focus is superior for such subject matter.
We agree. Manual focus is superior, period.
The only caveat to this is that AF sometimes allows you to capture shots you would of missed altogether, which does count for something, and in some cases is everything.
-
We agree. Manual focus is superior, period.
The only caveat to this is that AF sometimes allows you to capture shots you would of missed altogether, which does count for something, and in some cases is everything.
Yes, agreed.
-
Japocrap turns my stomach...
We're not being a little bit opinionated and prejudiced are we by any chance?
What DOES suit your fancy m'lord?
-
We're not being a little bit opinionated and prejudiced are we by any chance?
What DOES suit your fancy m'lord?
I have one of each, chrome and black:
http://www.summilux.net/r_system/SL2-bon-4.jpg
and eight lenses...
-
OK, auto-focus doesn't work well for anything - until it does.
FWIW, if AF doesn't do a great job for featureless no-contrast surfaces, neither do my eyes.
This is devolving into the War of Win v. OSX
-
Where AF works beautifully is in action shots, Bodies like1D and D4 have an extremely robust AF system, which can track fast moving objects reasonably well, much better than an average person can. So as you track and shoot at 10fps, most of your shots will be in focus. In contrast in this situation with MF you either wait for the object to reach the location where you had pre-focussed or try to change the focus continuously while shooting a burst. Many photographers did this successfully in MF era, but today most can do it with good AF. That is the difference, with MF you can get it perfect some times, but with AF you get it reasonable every time.
One area that I would lay my bets on is AI algorithms which can transform a moderately out of focus image to one that is razor sharp. You loose a lot of MP, but if you have 100MP then a 20MP sharp image is worth a lot more than a 100MP fuzzy one.
-
Absolutely disagree. It's not nonsense.
Jack
Jack - my opening sentence which I though I elaborated on was that it is a nonsense to generalise and say that MF is superior to AF. I did specifically say that it depends on the type of photography and as I pointed out I am a big fan of MF. I don't understand why in these forums people jump on one line in a post and tear it to pieces. My whole post was saying it depends on the photographer, the subject, the gear etc. I would always use MF on a tripod with macro work - and even when hand-held sometimes too!
And when I said "few pictures in this thread" I did mean in THIS thread - I appreciate that there are millions of first class MF shots around. I always put more store by posters who put up pictures when talking about photography - a picture being worth a thousand words etc. I posted two to show where AF is an advantage and where MF is also quite suitable.
Jim
-
But auto-focus doesn't work well at all, for anything.
That is quite obviously a ridiculous statement as my picture in post183 above shows. And I'm not even an apologist for AF - but quite clearly AF does work well. Is it fool proof - of course not, but AF and MF live side by side. Yesterday I was shooting a choir in a dimly lit College and several times switched between MF and AF depending on the shot.
But then I think maybe many of your posts are simply aimed at stirring.....
Jim
-
(http://)
(http://)
First Image is with MF, second with AF
-
That is quite obviously a ridiculous statement as my picture in post183 above shows. And I'm not even an apologist for AF - but quite clearly AF does work well.
Some people might think AF as "full auto" only, where the camera decides where to focus. That certainly works practically every time, but focus is not necessarily where the photographer wants it... I use just one focusing spot and get sharp photos 99% of the time, certainly faster and better than I would get with manual focus, so I use so called AF almost avery time. As I decide where the focus should be, maybe this should not be called AF, but "auto assisted focus"?
(I have shot professionally since -78, with full matte screens on Canon F1, football with Novoflex speed grips etc, so I do know what manual focus is...)
-
That is quite obviously a ridiculous statement as my picture in post183 above shows. And I'm not even an apologist for AF - but quite clearly AF does work well. Is it fool proof - of course not, but AF and MF live side by side. Yesterday I was shooting a choir in a dimly lit College and several times switched between MF and AF depending on the shot.
But then I think maybe many of your posts are simply aimed at stirring.....
I have to agree with Jim here, AF helps. 90+% of the images in the attached Flckr set were shot with AF. I find them reasonably sharp but I may have low standards?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157646364292341/
This being said the following image was MFed yesterday.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2942/15141226379_4e96217503_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some people might think AF as "full auto" only, where the camera decides where to focus. That certainly works practically every time, but focus is not necessarily where the photographer wants it... I use just one focusing spot and get sharp photos 99% of the time, certainly faster and better than I would get with manual focus, so I use so called AF almost avery time. As I decide where the focus should be, maybe this should not be called AF, but "auto assisted focus"?
(I have shot professionally since -78, with full matte screens on Canon F1, football with Novoflex speed grips etc, so I do know what manual focus is...)
Quite - The camera is just a tool and AF is one part of that tool. Learning a system inside out is the way to use the tool - and the AF does not need to be used in idiot mode as you quite rightly point out.
Jim
-
Jack - my opening sentence which I though I elaborated on was that it is a nonsense to generalise and say that MF is superior to AF. I did specifically say that it depends on the type of photography and as I pointed out I am a big fan of MF. I don't understand why in these forums people jump on one line in a post and tear it to pieces. My whole post was saying it depends on the photographer, the subject, the gear etc. I would always use MF on a tripod with macro work - and even when hand-held sometimes too!
And when I said "few pictures in this thread" I did mean in THIS thread - I appreciate that there are millions of first class MF shots around. I always put more store by posters who put up pictures when talking about photography - a picture being worth a thousand words etc. I posted two to show where AF is an advantage and where MF is also quite suitable.
Jim
Okay.
-
Some people might think AF as "full auto" only, where the camera decides where to focus. That certainly works practically every time, but focus is not necessarily where the photographer wants it...
Yes! That is the problem! It isn't that it doesn't focus, it's that it is dumb!
-
Yes! That is the problem! It isn't that it doesn't focus, it's that it is dumb!
That is why YOU are needed to pick the right place to focus at, and the electronics do the dirty work (faster and more accurately than at least I can do).
-
That is why YOU are needed to pick the right place to focus at, and the electronics do the dirty work (faster and more accurately than at least I can do).
I don't agree.
-
Quite - The camera is just a tool and AF is one part of that tool. Learning a system inside out is the way to use the tool - and the AF does not need to be used in idiot mode as you quite rightly point out.
Jim
These statements should really clear the air here.
AF is most definitely a good tool. It may not be for critical focus, but it can sometimes be critical just to get the shot, at all, and AF can be a life-saver in that regard.
If I am on a trek and see a really cool, erratic butterfly, that won't sit still long, I am not going to waste my time trying to set up a tripod, activate Live View, blow what I see up 10x, and try to get razor-sharp manual focus. No time for that!
Instead, I would hand-hold and just try to use one of my AF points, compose via the viewfinder, and hope that my AF can nail the eye in focus (or center point if presented with a wing-spread), and let AF do its thing before the subject is gone.
Once I nail a couple shots, and if the subject sits still, maybe then I will try to compose a more thoughtful MF shot, but I might not ever have that opportunity.
If I tried only MF, I may never get a shot at all ...
-
These statements should really clear the air here.
AF is most definitely a good tool. It may not be for critical focus, but it can sometimes be critical just to get the shot, at all, and AF can be a life-saver in that regard.
If I am on a trek and see a really cool, erratic butterfly, that won't sit still long, I am not going to waste my time trying to set up a tripod, activate Live View, blow what I see up 10x, and try to get razor-sharp manual focus. No time for that!
Instead, I would hand-hold and just try to use one of my AF points, compose via the viewfinder, and hope that my AF can nail the eye in focus (or center point if presented with a wing-spread), and let AF do its thing before the subject is gone.
Once I nail a couple shots, and if the subject sits still, maybe then I will try to compose a more thoughtful MF shot, but I might not ever have that opportunity.
If I tried only MF, I may never get a shot at all ...
I don't do "nature photography"; mostly people and sports. What you might call "fancy PJ style".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/
Auto-focus would have not helped me with this one, given how the subject matter is placed towards the edges of the frame:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/
Very little is in focus on that shot, except the eyes of the fellow on the left. He is just starting to react to my camera, and a couple of seconds later he turned away. Fortunately I was able to capture this instant, right as he is seeing me and the camera. This was with a 180mm. It is sometimes better to work with even longer lenses than that, to minimize disturbing the "fauna". A 350mm works wonders:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5497339741/
-
What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?
-
Nothing, this is probably what they call a kidnapping a thread…
Getting back to the original topic, I would say that it is a bit of good enough. Sony/Nikon has the DR and MP advantage, but that matters little if we don't shoot base ISO on tripod.
Most people don't shoot base ISO and don't use tripod, but still they take most of the award winning pictures.
It is simply that stuff is good enough. Yeah you can gain a bit of quality using Sony sensors or even MFD, avoid stopping down past f/5.6 and never use anything but base ISO, but folks care about the image and the story than ultimate quality.
Best regards
Erik
What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?
-
What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?
Nothing, but it's fun watching them argue about some minute points although they were on the same page.
What they missed in proclaiming that autofocus is not good for anything is that it's actually faster and good enough for most things, and the market is proof of that for the last couple of decades.
Arguing that a camera it's dumb because it doesn't know where to focus it is beyond funny; this not one Asimov's periods yet, of course it doesn't unless you tell it. That's why there are focus points which, shockingly, you can position, or the old, wait for it, focus and recompose.
Manual focus is preferred for macro photography, but that's a pretty small niche, and for some stationary subjects. Or as a backup for the increasingly rare occasion when AF cannot lock and few other very out of ordinary situations.
In terms of accuracy, the phase detect can have 20-30% missed focus which sounds bad (and it is) but you will be able to take more pictures and be faster so in the end it might be a wash, particularly as the MF focus skills will likely be much more variable, some people will be very good and show it can be done as in this thread but many will be quite bad at it.
Now with the increased use of contrast based AF it will be at least as accurate as the best MF. I'm sure the Internet will give enough references.
In the end there will always be situations when AF is not working and that's when you have the backup of MF, but those situations are not the norm, and this days that's what MF focus is for most photographers, a backup and not the first choice.
Paradoxically maybe these days I use more MF for stationary objects because the electronic aids make it easier (eg. Focus peaking, etc)
-
What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?
Where's the signpost that says, "Digressions/tangents not allowed?"
-
Arguing that a camera it's dumb because it doesn't know where to focus it is beyond funny; this not one Asimov's periods yet, of course it doesn't unless you tell it. That's why there are focus points which, shockingly, you can position, or the old, wait for it, focus and recompose.
Actually modern cameras do use sort of artificial intelligence to make an educated guess about where the probable main subject is, and both focus and adjust exposure accordingly. Of course this is not foolproof and if the main subject is in the far side or in the corner (which do not even have focus points in most DSLRs) it can not focus properly. Face detection is also available in many/most new cameras and it works quite good. With small sensors and slow lenses used in typical P&S cameras it does not matter if the camera focuses on the tip of the nose or iris, face will be sharp throughout with the large DOF available. So this alone proves that AF works perfectly, at least in those circumstances. And that cameras are not as dumb as suggested.
-
I tried in the past to let the camera decide but it just wasn't what I needed too often. It is great when I hand a camera to somebody who's not into photography.
The face detection, particularly on the smaller sensor, is a very neat feature though.
-
Actually modern cameras do use sort of artificial intelligence to make an educated guess about where the probable main subject is, and both focus and adjust exposure accordingly. Of course this is not foolproof and if the main subject is in the far side or in the corner (which do not even have focus points in most DSLRs) it can not focus properly.
Right. Autofocus would be hopeless here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/
Note how I placed the focus on the plane of the eyes of the fellow on the left, not the tip of his nose.
-
Right. Autofocus would be hopeless here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/
Note how I placed the focus on the plane of the eyes of the fellow on the left, not the tip of his nose.
Not arguing with your technique, but as you have little experience with AF I can understand that you would not know how easy it would be to achieve this with AF. And not wishing to prolong the AF/MF discussion in this thread (you could start a new one) I would finish with AF and MF are two techniques to achieve the same result - getting what you want in focus, in focus. And as experienced photographers obviously achieve that with or without AF surely we can all be happy and work the way that is best for us. I can see from your Flickr pages that you are mainly a 'breast' sort of man - whereas i'm more a 'bottom' man. Each to their own I say.
Jim
-
Not arguing with your technique, but as you have little experience with AF I can understand that you would not know how easy it would be to achieve this with AF. And not wishing to prolong the AF/MF discussion in this thread (you could start a new one) I would finish with AF and MF are two techniques to achieve the same result - getting what you want in focus, in focus. And as experienced photographers obviously achieve that with or without AF surely we can all be happy and work the way that is best for us. I can see from your Flickr pages that you are mainly a 'breast' sort of man - whereas i'm more a 'bottom' man. Each to their own I say.
Jim
But could you do it in time? That's the point. A second or two after I took the shot the fellow on the left turned away, peeved that I was taking his photo. I had hardly any time. I lifted the SL2 to my eye, composed and focused very rapidly, and shot. I had no time to lose.
When you have been working with equipment for a long time, everything becomes second nature. My cameras are 40 years old, and I am used to them. I doubt that AF would have been of any advantage whatsoever here, and quite likely a disadvantage. The fellow on the left was applying makeup to the one on the right. As I approached, he stopped and looked right at me, and that's this shot. Then he turned away, peeved. I had time only for this one shot before it all fell apart.
-
I don't understand why in these forums people jump on one line in a post and tear it to pieces.
Jim
I used to attribute this to recalcitrance, but I'm leaning towards it being a lack of reading comprehension as the culprit. I just can't believe that so many people can be so quick to disagree and take issue with so many comments.
This doesn't imply that people don't have reading comprehension; it's more likely a matter of not taking the time to thoroughly determine the meaning of some other persons writings (which can also be the culprit).
Glenn
-
I used to attribute this to recalcitrance, but I'm leaning towards it being a lack of reading comprehension as the culprit. I just can't believe that so many people can be so quick to disagree and take issue with so many comments.
This doesn't imply that people don't have reading comprehension; it's more likely a matter of not taking the time to thoroughly determine the meaning of some other persons writings (which can also be the culprit).
Glenn
I agree. There is also this inherent impatience which prevents most posters from reading the whole thread, but latch on to the last few and comment immediately.
This attitude, may be the refection of times we are in - brief glance, comment and carry on.
-
But could you do it in time? That's the point. A second or two after I took the shot the fellow on the left turned away, peeved that I was taking his photo. I had hardly any time. I lifted the SL2 to my eye, composed and focused very rapidly, and shot. I had no time to lose.
When you have been working with equipment for a long time, everything becomes second nature. My cameras are 40 years old, and I am used to them. I doubt that AF would have been of any advantage whatsoever here, and quite likely a disadvantage. The fellow on the left was applying makeup to the one on the right. As I approached, he stopped and looked right at me, and that's this shot. Then he turned away, peeved. I had time only for this one shot before it all fell apart.
Well you've picked one particular picture out of hundreds when you focal point is right on the edge of the frame to 'prove' that MF is inherently superior and I cannot argus that in this particular instance for you it was the best way. Not that you had any choice. But yes, I probably would have been able to have selected the LH focus point and caught focus then slightly re-composed to frame. And in case the 135mm lens I might have used for such a shot has full time manual foci over-ride so I would have had the choice. And the 135mm Canon f2 lens is incredibly easy to manually focus. I have not used my gear for 40 years but I've been using the 1Ds bodies for 12 years and they are like an extension of my hands and brain. They are not the only cameras I use but I suppose I may have shot half a million pictures with them so can honestly say I know what I'm going to get when I lift the camera to my eye.
Jim
Ps - it would be useful to now your name as I quite often address people by name in posts and MelchiorPavone is a bit of an effort to type - I guess I could just refer to you as Mel.....
-
Hi,
I am not sure about the validity of Mr Pavone's examples, it's hard to judge from the samples I have seen. He maybe has a point, maybe has not.
It is very nice for him that he is perfectly happy with his 40 years old camera. Development went a different way.
Personally, I find that critical manual focusing is difficult, at least on my Hasselblad 555/ELD. I am only using that camera on static objects shooting on tripod. My success rate is decent in high contrast situations but going down in low contrast. On digital I use magnified live view and manual focus when shooting stationary objects from tripod, in that case success rate is 100%.
I seldom have problems with AF.
Best regards
Erik
Well you've picked one particular picture out of hundreds when you focal point is right on the edge of the frame to 'prove' that MF is inherently superior and I cannot argus that in this particular instance for you it was the best way. Not that you had any choice. But yes, I probably would have been able to have selected the LH focus point and caught focus then slightly re-composed to frame. And in case the 135mm lens I might have used for such a shot has full time manual foci over-ride so I would have had the choice. And the 135mm Canon f2 lens is incredibly easy to manually focus. I have not used my gear for 40 years but I've been using the 1Ds bodies for 12 years and they are like an extension of my hands and brain. They are not the only cameras I use but I suppose I may have shot half a million pictures with them so can honestly say I know what I'm going to get when I lift the camera to my eye.
Jim
Ps - it would be useful to now your name as I quite often address people by name in posts and MelchiorPavone is a bit of an effort to type - I guess I could just refer to you as Mel.....
-
Isn't magnified live view THE BEST! No matter how nostalgic I may get, this is one digital innovation that just makes me sing every time I use it. Now I would like to see implementation of "pick any two areas in frame, magnify 10x, put the magnified views side by side on the LCD, allow real time focusing while viewing those two areas". AKA quick hyperfocal focusing technique or quick check-your-tilt focusing technique. Come on manufacturers! Nikon, you are halfway there in the most recent camera. (Nikon allows you to pick a "left" and a "right" area at same pixel on y axis, enlarge, use the comparative view to level your horizon).
-
Nancy,
Nikon is there already if you shoot in portrait orientation, right?
All U need to do is stitch 3 frames if U need a portrait composition.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
True. But silly me, I am hoping that the idea becomes widespread - it would not seem to be such a difficult aid to set up. Currently I need to live view - 10x mag - steer box to area #1 - check focus - steer box to area #2 - check focus - adjust focus if needed -keep steering box back and forth to check. The Nikon feature is on the D750, not the D810, unfortunately, and I am already invested in Canon lenses (plus some inherited old AIS Nikkors which are perfectly usable on Canon but Canon EF not usable on Nikkor) - no point in changing platform and leaving lenses behind if I don't get the best possible sensor for landscape, and the D750 is not that sensor.
-
Hi,
I would absolutely agree, but just add that I find peaking quite useful for tilts. The technique you suggest is even better, of course.
Best regards
Erik
Isn't magnified live view THE BEST! No matter how nostalgic I may get, this is one digital innovation that just makes me sing every time I use it. Now I would like to see implementation of "pick any two areas in frame, magnify 10x, put the magnified views side by side on the LCD, allow real time focusing while viewing those two areas". AKA quick hyperfocal focusing technique or quick check-your-tilt focusing technique. Come on manufacturers! Nikon, you are halfway there in the most recent camera. (Nikon allows you to pick a "left" and a "right" area at same pixel on y axis, enlarge, use the comparative view to level your horizon).
-
True. But silly me, I am hoping that the idea becomes widespread - it would not seem to be such a difficult aid to set up. Currently I need to live view - 10x mag - steer box to area #1 - check focus - steer box to area #2 - check focus - adjust focus if needed -keep steering box back and forth to check. The Nikon feature is on the D750, not the D810, unfortunately, and I am already invested in Canon lenses (plus some inherited old AIS Nikkors which are perfectly usable on Canon but Canon EF not usable on Nikkor) - no point in changing platform and leaving lenses behind if I don't get the best possible sensor for landscape, and the D750 is not that sensor.
Nancy,
I am not suggesting you move to Nikon, just confirming that the curent Nikon spec is close to what you need.
It is available in the D810 btw. I will check whether the D750 has it too, but it is true that its sensor us optimized for high ISO and therefore probably less differentiated for landscape.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nancy,
I am not suggesting you move to Nikon, just confirming that the curent Nikon spec is close to what you need.
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
-
(http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
+1
-
+1
x2
Cheers,
Bernard