Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Nick Walt on October 27, 2014, 05:06:02 am
-
Hi Everyone,
I've been going around in circles looking for the right camera system. I have no gear at all, so starting from scratch.
After four months experience with the excellent and highly nuanced Olympus E-M1 I decided to upgrade to a full-frame system. This change was sparked by my interest in purchasing the upcoming Olympus 40-150 f2.8 PRO weather sealed lens, and TC. I figured that if I was going to invest that much money I should think carefully about where I want to be going in the next few years (for a primary system - secondary systems not withstanding). Turns out it wasn't with the m43 sensor.
So, I've ended up with two candidates: the Nikon D750, and Canon 6D. It looks like the Nikon would easily earn the place in my bag. But with a few considerations it isn't as clear cut, at least to me.
When push comes to shove I found that the 6D was more nuanced in the design than the D750. The feel and feedback of the controls, OVF, etc, felt more refined on the Canon than the Nikon. The Canon just had more options and, like the E-M1, just seemed better worked out than the Nikon. To my mind the control layout was a bit more logical. It felt like it was designed by a committee and felt like things had been intentionally left out. Simple things that would have added ease of use and depth of control and customisability.
Although, to be fair to both, neither Canon nor Nikon could match the nuanced design, build quality and number of technologies found in the E-M1 - at least when it came to using and controlling the camera functions to take the shot. The little Olympus packs a punch well beyond the measly $1300 it cost. If only the sensor were a little bigger or more capable in situations that stressed it (low light, for example).
When people were praising the D750 for having a dedicated 1:1 image review button I was totally dumbfounded. This is a clear indication of the way Nikon removes functionality that could otherwise have been included. From my experience with the 6D I did not perceive the same level of restriction from Canon. The 6D had similar nuance in many features, like the E-M1 (although, not as deep nor as many).
I really liked the grip on the D750, and this, along with the host of awesome technologies packed into the camera, makes me want to buy it. However, as a company and a system I am hesitant to make the commitment.
I want to be able to buy a new mirrorless DSLR for the lenses I will be investing in. A mirrorless camera that is well designed and doesn't hold back on features and control systems. Much like how the E-M1 is - very well thought-out and implemented. I don't trust Nikon to deliver on this level or any time soon.
The perception I get from Canon is that when it produces an upper tier mirrorless it will be better thought out, more nuanced and feature laden than the Nikon mirrorless. The company just seems to care more about this stuff. I also get the impression that they will likely release before Nikon. Maybe with an all-new sensor that will match Nikon's fantastic efforts.
So, at this point, due to my perception of a different philosophy at canon, I'm leaning more to the 6D and L lenses than the D750.
What are your thoughts?
-
I went from 6D to EM1, so the opposite from you. This is after more than 20 yrs shooting EOS. For me, the 4/3 sensor is enough, and the benefit of smaller cameras and lenses is palpable to my back and shoulder.
You really can not go wrong with Canon or Nikon, so just choose whatever feels better in your hand.
You also mention mirrorless FF? This to me means Sony A7 series at the moment, and the lenses will be coming soon.
-
When people were praising the D750 for having a dedicated 1:1 image review button I was totally dumbfounded. This is a clear indication of the way Nikon removes functionality that could otherwise have been included.
On this particular point, I have configured my D750 so that a single click on the button in the middle of the rear joystick jumps to 1:1 zoom in both live view and review modes. You can configure the degree of zoom to 1:1, 2:1 (200%) just like on its bigger brother the D810.
Globally, I am not sure what exactly you mean by "nikon removing functions". The only one I can think of is the removal of the dedicated AF-ON button at the back, but I have configured my AE-L button to perform AF-ON. Other than that, the D750 has the same AF as the D810/D4s, which is really outstanding.
Fit the D750 with Nikon's f1.8 primes (85mm f1.8 and 20mm f1.8 are particularly outstanding but they are all very good, light and affordable) and you have something that is really hard to beat.
In case that can be of help, some images recently captured with the D750. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157648041237962/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nick, I'd like to warn you of mistakes I have made over the past decades. I kept changing gear, buying new and supposedly improved lenses and camera bodies. In analog days, the body basically only held the film and lens. There's more to it but I'll keep it simple.
Some 12 years ago it dawned on me, that I was continuously feeding the manufacturers and wasn't really getting any improved results (negatives or slides) or greater satisfaction while photographing. With the switch to digital, I swore to use what I had and only undertake a major switch if any game-changing innovations were introduced. I kept my Canon lenses, bought a 20D (or was it D20?) and have stuck to Canon ever since.
I've learned, that pleasure and satisfaction while being outdoors and performing my hobby was important. The results from almost all gear were basically good enough for my purposes. What I would consider today, if searching for a cameras system are the following details:
- do the macro lenses offer a tripod mount?
- does the body offer a viewfinder blind?
- does the body have one switch or button for mirror lockup? (Nikon is far superior to Canon here)
- which lenses to I need and who offers them?
- how does the body and how to the lenses feel in my hand?
- how does the setup handle on a tripod?
- can I operate the gear with gloves?
- what is the weight of the gear?
- how good can a focus manually with the given viewfinder (a major concern with almost all cameras)
My Canon 5D MkIII lacks certain features I find important but these don't warrant a switch. I've begun using the Fujifilm X system in parallel and I like it so much, that I'll be closely looking at next year's new lenses and the lovely X-T1 body. I might switch to Fujifilm for good and get rid of my Canon gear. That will leave me short in a few areas but that seems acceptable.
You failed to mention, which sort of photography youRe mainly interested in. Hourses for courses. Also, you didn't mention what your final output will be. Both are important when making any decisions.
-
Nick
This is such an open ended question that it is almost pointless trying to answer it.......
You need to specify what sort of photography you are doing and at what level you are at. The E-M1 is a superb all round camera, and so is the 5D. But they have their strengths and weaknesses (I don't have a 6D).
In what way was your Olympus lacking for you? I have gone over to the Olympus for most of my work now and while the image quality is not as good as the Canon, it is adequate for all my personal work and most of my professional work - which is mostly photographing people. Then of course it is much more portable too. It would not be my first choice for fast action photography. There is no perfect camera - they are all a series of compromises and you have to experiment to find which suits you. By far the biggest determinant of picture quality will be yourself - not the camera. I would say the camera is perhaps 10-20% important.
If you want specific advice please do tell us your subject matter. And if general purpose then any of the cameras you discuss will be more than up for the job.
Jim
-
Just to clarify a few things. In my original post I'm really speaking to the perception I have of Olympus, of Canon, and of Nikon, a perception gained through my experience of their implementation of features and overall design of their products.
From my experience with the E-M1 an expectation was established with which I reviewed the 6D and D750. Both the Canon and Nikon lacked features in various ways, but it was the Nikon's lack of depth in its usability that was the most striking.
It was as though the D750 was designed by a committee and that committee was instructed to leave features out. Features that could be considered fairly elementary and which were included in a much less costly product - the E-M1 (and to a lesser degree, the 6D). Features that are typically implemented in firmware and which show customers that the company is committed to bringing improved usability to their experience.
For example: both the E-M1 and 6D allow a photographer to specify the length of time that the just captured image is displayed on the rear screen (and in the EVF of the E-M1). The D750 just had ON or OFF.
Then there was Nikon withholding the direct 1:1 review on lesser products, like the D610. A simple, simple feature that everyone commented about (and praised) on the D750. The implication being that it is a special feature only reserved for the high-end products. Which, of course, is correct. Like many companies, Nikon dictates the design and capability of its products according to the target market.
However, and this is my conclusion, Nikon seems to do it far more with their products than do Olympus or Canon. From this conclusion arises the question that I posted originally:
Is it reasonable to identify Nikon as being the least likely to develop excellence in usability (as distinct from technologies) to most of its products except for its top of the line Dx series? And, who agrees that, based on this conclusion, Canon would be the better choice for anyone seeking a more nuanced approach to design in a system?
Lastly, with the most speculation, who would agree that it might be Canon that seeks to bring mirrorless into their higher end DSLR products before Nikon?
It is this last point that I am really interested in because, really, it just feels like I will be buying into an already obsolete line of products with the 6D and D750 - the lack of EVF and the streamlining it brings to the process of taking the shot. The company that will bring about the most innovative mirrorless DSLR product is the company I want to commit to. The system I want to spend money on.
This is why I'm trying to ascertain which horse is going to keep providing a more innovative experience (sensor capability aside).
Sorry about the long winded post. However, it is a difficult perception and thinking to articulate. Cheers.
-
Maybe.
Now what I see today is that you need to pay 3,000 US$ to get a pro AF in a Canon body while the D750 offers pretty much the best AF of the market at 2,200 US$ with the best image quality at the same time, a tiltable screen, a weather sealed body and wifi.
I am not sure who is holding off in terms of features?
To many photographers these matter more in terms of photographic outcome than a theoretical analysis of Nikon's future behaviors in terms of product features planning or the control of images instant display time? ;)
Don't get me wrong, Nikon should definitely include these no cost options, but it seems to me that you are looking at the tree and ignoring the forest a bit here.
Now, if you prefer EVFs, I am not sure why you are considering the 6D and D750 in the first place. EVF is IMHO only useful if a significant part of your shooting relies on MF lenses. For the reste I am personally not convinced it adds to the shooting effectiveness/pleasure, but that is just me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...I am not sure who is holding off in terms of features?
Hi Bernard, you really need to experience the E-M1 to understand just what Nikon is not including (and, perceptually, to a lesser degree, Canon). I believe Thom Hogan has talked about this aspect of Nikon.
The new mirrorless cameras from Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, etc, are bringing incredible features and usability. Of the two big companies, Canon seems to have more commitment to a more nuanced usability than Nikon. Maybe this is an area in which they have always done better than Nikon and is one of the main reasons why many like Canon. Even when their sensor technology falls behind, as has happened recently.
Anyway, it's a difficult topic to discuss and I understand that it can result in quite polarised discussions. It was only after my experience with the E-M1 that I saw the usability deficiencies in more expensive products.
-
Nick - I believe you are over-thinking all this. There are pro's and con's to all systems. What you are wanting is definitive answers and there aren't any. You just have to work with the strengths and weaknesses of each system.
Nobody here has any idea whether or when Canon or Nikon will bring out EVF DSLR's. My personal opinion is that within five years they will all be mirror less - except maybe a couple of models. I would love to have had a 5D with EVF - just for shooting video with my extensive range of Canon lenses. But now I am going down the M43 route and already have many lenses for that system - it becomes less and less likely I will buy another Canon DSLR.
But there is so much choice now we are all in a great position. If you do not already have a lens inventory then you could consider Sony - or even the new Samsung. But it sounds like you are swinging towards Canon, and why not - they make great cameras and you could make great images with them.
Jim
-
Shoot whatever system that feels natural to you.
Spec sheets can only tell so much. They can't force you to make good images with gear you dislike.
-
You keep using the word 'nuanced' and to be honest I have no idea what you are talking about.
The E-M1 is probably one of the most customisable cameras on the market and you can bring so many functions to within the touch of a button (it may even be the camera that turns me from the Panasonic's ergonomics) and as Jim says it is impossible to say whether Canon or Nikon will bring mirrorless to the higher point the soonest: one rumour is that they will not bring FF mirrorless at all.
You still talk about the E-M1 in glowing terms of design but still haven't said what it is about the 6D/D750 that made you ditch the E-M1 because some reviews/tests show the E-M sensor to have one of the highest dynamic ranges on the market. And one of your repeated themes is the potential qulity of CaNikon mirrorless - if that is so important wouldnt it have made sense to keep the E-M1 and see if CaNikon made on better?
I'm not critcising your decisions to date, just trying to work out what is behind them.
-
Nuanced? My various cameras have a lot of qualities, but nuanced? Actually, I think one camera has a hint of tobacco, cassis, and leather. Oh wait, that's wine, never mind.
Any of these systems will serve you well.
-
I shoot Nikon. I have a friend and colleague that I work with frequently who is a Canon shooter. We have a good natured debate and then agree that it's the jerk behind the trigger that determines the quality of the image.
-
Ergonomics matter a lot.
Then, what do you shoot? If you are a landscape and macro shooter, you won't care about the 6D having a measly 11 AF points because you don't use AF all that much. I use mine with some film-era legacy lenses as well as some modern AF-capable lenses (one of four lenses I took on Saturday's outing had AF, the others were Zeiss, Samyang, and an ancient Nikkor AIS). If you are a sports shooter, ignore the 6D. For action, you will want the 5D3, D750 for full frame non-pro-gripped cameras. If you are looking to be a budget birder, I would go for the new Canon 7D2 APS-C camera with the old Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L non-IS and Canon 1.4x teleconverter II or III (greater pixel density on APS-C gives you more resolution for any given focal length).
I am a Canon shooter, and by and large the lens types offered by Canon and Nikon are similar, with some exceptions:
Canon specialties: 400mm f/5.6L, best prime budget birding lens out there, $1350.00 USD and 1.25 kg. MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1x to 5x macro lens, like having a bellows set-up, but handles much better and is suited to field use - every expert insect photographer seems to have this lens. And, these tilt-shift offerings from Canon: TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm. Nikon has longer TS focal lengths (called PC by Nikon), but not the short FL. Oddball, not sure if there is a Nikon equivalent: zoom fisheye 8mm to 15mm.
Nikon: the fabulous 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. Canonista landscape photographers have bought adapters and use this lens on manual-everything mode. Giant brick of a lens, needs special filter holder for 150mm to 165mm sized filters. By the way, Canon can use Nikon lenses with adapters, Nikon cannot use Canon lenses, due to different lens flange to sensor distances.
Sensors: Nikon is the leader here, without a doubt, due to the Sony sensors. Better dynamic range, more MPs. Canon is "good enough" but not great. Still, the 6D is a fine low light camera.
The Canikons of the world are huge compared with the Olympus and mirrorless offerings. Ergonomics is huge here, some like the little cameras, some like the big cameras, some people swear by optical viewfinders, some like electronic viewfinders.
-
Thanks everyone. Yeah, I'm approaching this from the position of not wanting to make another costly choice that doesn't work for me. Yes, the E-M1 was truly an excellent camera, as many of you know. However, the sensor gets stressed very quickly and I wanted to move to a camera that was more flexible and capable of giving me excellent IQ in a wide range of light conditions.
I looked at using Voigtlander f0.95 lenses with the E-M1 but was told that I could only realistically expect shutter speeds as fast as 1/150'ish in low-light using ISO 800 at f0.95 - and that is manual focus.
I wish to do a lot more landscape, as well as travel/street. Basically, to attempt to capture everything that interests me. Trying to satisfy both in a single camera has been interesting. Ideally I would want to experiment with a couple of cameras, including small cameras like the Ricoh GR.
I used the word nuanced because, to me, it describes depth in design. That aspect of usability that gives us not only ease of use and customisation, but which helps the camera to disappear.
I'll use the E-M1 as an example: when you bring up the grid to change the focus point - you can either use the four-way directional pad, or you can use the front and back wheels (dials) to move it vertically or horizontally, or you can touch the screen anywhere and it will go there. The other method was you can look at the point you want to focus on and then blink to release the shutter... oh, wait, that is in the next version, haha.
The biggest thing that I miss on the OVF is the ability to roll the exposure compensation dial (the one of your choice and in the direction you desire) and watch the highlight clipping overlay decrease to where you want it to be (or not at all). This is especially good for ETTR and being able to nail your highlights quickly and accurately. The camera also provides you with the controls to fine-tune the highlight clipping sensitivity to better reflect the RAW file (the preview is based on a real-time JPEG conversion of the scene hitting the sensor).
With the OVF I'll need to do a lot of guesswork and chimping to gradually improve my ability to gauge the right amount of exposure compensation for the desired highlight exposure. It will still be a hassle and will still get in the way of getting the right exposure. It's hard going backwards.
Nancy, thank you. Yes, I like Canon's range of great glass and their commitment to affordability. I'll add to the list that Nikon's 70-200 f4 VRIII is almost $500 more than Canon's, and isn't weather sealed. Nikon has produced a nice range of lightweight and compact f1.8 primes.
If there is a viable full-frame mirrorless (DSLR or rangefinder style) on the way fairly soon from Canon I can sell the 6D and likely use all of my L glass. I would think that the first mirrorless will be DSLR style with the same flange distance as existing models. If a mirrorless model is more than two years away then perhaps I might have to consider the D750. However, the price for the D750 and 70-200 f4 is almost $1400 more than for the 6D and equivalent Canon lens.
The E-M1 already sold and I've got until the 9th November to choose a system to last me the forseeable future. After the 9th I leave Bangkok for a few months in India. I really want to be shooting while I'm there.
Cheers.
-
First... throw out the spec sheets since both are nice
Then rent both from lens rentals (maybe even buy the one you choose from there) with a nice lens, one you'd like to use. I seem a little more sensitive to overall capture colors than most and don't like Nikon/Sony color cast. To my eye Canon is far more natural, but to each their own and I consider this essential since I have a bear with LR or C1 trying to make Nikon files look like Canon's.
Then consider lens line up. In the usual lengths they are about the same. But Canon has some speciality lenses that Nikon does not have. When I had Nikon used the 14-24 quite a bit, and it's a great lens. But outside of that one I'm afraid I run out of Nikon lenses superior to Canon
As you, I like the 6D's feel (and you can make mirror up in two clicks, a bit more burdensome than one-click, but not that much) but the 750 is a nice camera too, I'm sure
Waiting for either company to go mirrorless is an open-ended issue that you cannot plan for today. But by all means look at the files before you buy. Before I went Canon was all Nikon and while the files looked "good" I could not put my finger on what was "wrong" with them. Then I came across some old Canon files (IDs MkIII,, I think) while going through my older LR files and had an epiphany. Borrowed a 6D and for me the files looked "Great".
You can't go "wrong" either way. Get what feels/looks good and be happy... take pictures... don't get hung up on spec sheets, they're mostly lies or under careful conditions anyway. My wife's RX-100 II takes great pics too...
-
Cheers, allegretto. I'm in Thailand so unfortunately cannot hire or try. I agree with you about the Canon colors. However, the images from the D750 look quite different to the D610 and D810. Much more neutral-warm and noticeably less cold. Closer to the Canon I think.
-
Nick, the 6D's sensor is not better than the E-M1's, it's just the opposite. A technological humilliation for Canon brought to you by a Sony sensor design with 1/4 the Canon's size.
-
Nick, the 6D's sensor is not better than the E-M1's, it's just the opposite. A technological humilliation for Canon brought to you by a Sony sensor design with 1/4 the Canon's size.
huh???
on what do you base that?
-
I looked at using Voigtlander f0.95 lenses with the E-M1 but was told that I could only realistically expect shutter speeds as fast as 1/150'ish in low-light using ISO 800 at f0.95 - and that is manual focus.
Cheers.
I've had the 25mm Nokton for three years - fantastic lens. And now with my new E-M1 it is stabilised too! So I can shoot in candlelight - brilliant.
Jim
-
Nick, the 6D's sensor is not better than the E-M1's, it's just the opposite. A technological humiliation for Canon brought to you by a Sony sensor design with 1/4 the Canon's size.
Guillermo, for me it is only the result that matters and full-frame still produces a noticeable improvement in tonality and acuity, especially at high ISO.
-
I've had the 25mm Nokton for three years - fantastic lens. And now with my new E-M1 it is stabilised too! So I can shoot in candlelight - brilliant.
Jim
I totally agree, Jim. IBIS makes so much sense that I can't believe everyone else still continues with lens based stabilisation. Apparently, even the 3-axis stabilisation on the E-M10 is comparable with the 5-axis in the E-M1. Recently, Fuji announced new weather sealed lenses and at least one of them did not have stabilisation. When asked about the omission, Fuji said it was to keep weight and size down. IBIS and mirrorless - awesome technology for the future.
-
Nick, the 6D's sensor is not better than the E-M1's, it's just the opposite. A technological humilliation for Canon brought to you by a Sony sensor design with 1/4 the Canon's size.
just to clarify... E-M1 has Panasonic sensor, not from Sony... the same as in GH4... E-M5 & GH-3 both had Sony sensor, but the last round in m43 was won by Panasonic over Sony
-
huh???
on what do you base that?
he means noise in deep shadows @ base gain (or close to that)... naturally above deep shadows there is no replacement for displacement and even Canon sensor gathers more light because it is FF vs m43
-
he means noise in deep shadows @ base gain (or close to that)... naturally above deep shadows there is no replacement for displacement and even Canon sensor gathers more light because it is FF vs m43
I see, so noise in deep shadows at low ISO becomes the "standard test"...?
Even though, it just ain't so
i think dpreview is one of the lamest sources of info, however they do one thing I like in that they actually have a "test shot" and you can call up other cameras and compare almost apples to apples
Used RAW ISO 200. Low light and regular light. Guess what isn't so...?
And above 200... well the Oly can't keep up on noise, DR, sharpness etc. And no one should expect it to do that.
This is not a slam on Oly. It's a great system and camera. This is simply a citation for what I think a very biased and inaccurate statement.
-
I see, so noise in deep shadows at low ISO becomes the "standard test"...?
no, but if you do test DR that naturally plays... plus there is banding on top of that (noise in deep shadows @ base ISO)... older Canon FF sensors were not exactly good in that respect
i think dpreview is one of the lamest sources of info
who says anything about dpreview ? please do not bring their tests into any discussions...
And above 200... well the Oly can't keep up on noise, DR, sharpness etc.
dpreview did not test E-M1 with EFCS - that's about sharpness, as for DR - DxoMark or http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/, as for noise above deep shadows - that was already said - no replacement for displacement (when photon shot noise dominates vs noise relared to readout/ADC related sources), unless you compare something totally obsolete technological-wise
-
Thank you, everyone. I look forward to resuming photography once I get the new camera and lenses.
Cheers
-
My apologies, I locked the thread because I didn't want to ask people to stay on topic and figured that perhaps people no longer wanted to comment about the topic in the original post (it's a strange topic, I know). But, I had some people PM me so figured I'd reopen the thread in case anyone wanted to post (on topic, ya).
Cheers,
Nick
-
Nick, I will point out one problem with IBIS. IBIS does not work that well for long telephotos. Now, I like to shoot birds, so I have a 400mm f/5.6L lens, older design (inexpensive) but very sharp, and it does not have in-lens image stabilization (and Canon DSLRs do not have IBIS). I have had to work on my holding and my panning technique to get reliably sharp birds in flight photos. A while back I looked into Pentax DSLRs, which are small APS-C IBIS cameras with waterproofing when used with certain Pentax lenses - potentially ideal for someone who wants to photo birds from a kayak (the birds allow a closer approach when one is in a small boat). Pentax users report that the keeper level is decreased with the 300mm f/4 lens as opposed to shorter lenses, and that the keeper rate of the 560mm lens is maybe 20%. However, if you shoot in the shorter telephoto to wide angle range, IBIS sounds pretty good. Pentax has come up with a novel use for the IBIS sensor shifting apparatus - you can put the camera on "astro" mode, and it will rotate the sensor in tandem with the earth's rotation, thereby ensuring that your stars are round, not streaks.
-
Thanks OP, I find discussions as this fascinating as long as there are no flames and everyone makes a rational case
For example, the page ddjjjaaaa (did I spell it right?) sent me to is fantastic. Alas it doesn't include the 6D specs, but very good info nonetheless. Also does not include what may be my next camera, the A7s. renting it this weekend with adapters for EF and M glass.
Woo-hooo....
Keep good honest questions coming....
-
Glad you reopened. One thought I had in reading your responses to the input you've received is, "I wonder if he realizes the significant difference in size and weight for a FF system of the same capability FOV-wise?" You've talked a lot about your desire for more image quality. That's certainly understandable, but the gain in absolute image quality (which really only means "how large a print I can make" - not image quality per se, if that makes sense) comes with a price in lugging around larger and heavier gear. I have both a FF system and a mirrorless APSC system. While the FF does have the advantage of being able to print larger at "the same quality" as the APSC system, I find that my ability, desire, and willingness to explore a subject is greater with the smaller, lighter, more versatile system. I often end up with more interesting images from a creative standpoint with the smaller, lighter system.
The point is, you may have been benefitting from this w/ the EM-1 w/o ever realizing it. Give that some thought and perhaps rent a FF and a few equivalent lenses and go out and play and see if you've "lost something" in the process even though you've gained something in "absolute" IQ.
I think many of us are being refreshed, creatively, as we've started using the compact sysem cameras. I know it is true for me. I'll keep my FF gear, and reach for it when I "need" that next increment of IQ for a specific situation. But I can tell you that it is happening less and less often as time goes by. And I'm enjoying photography more and more with the smaller system. And, if you really want a shocker IQ wise, get your hands on a Sigma Merrill camera and make some big prints from that little brick of a camera. But that's a whole different discussion from the one you started.
Rand
-
...IBIS does not work that well for long telephotos...A while back I looked into Pentax DSLRs...Pentax users report that the keeper level is decreased with the 300mm f/4 lens as opposed to shorter lenses, and that the keeper rate of the 560mm lens is maybe 20%.
there are different implementations of IBIS... why do you assume that Pentax users are blessed with the decent IBIS at all (not to mention that they are also blessed with mirror slap and absent EFCS...) ???
-
Alas it doesn't include the 6D specs
but you can do the test and supply the author with your data - he provides software and instructions... and answers questions - so if there is no data for 6D @ http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/ you can contribute !
-
Amen to all that...!
Glad you reopened. One thought I had in reading your responses to the input you've received is, "I wonder if he realizes the significant difference in size and weight for a FF system of the same capability FOV-wise?" You've talked a lot about your desire for more image quality. That's certainly understandable, but the gain in absolute image quality (which really only means "how large a print I can make" - not image quality per se, if that makes sense) comes with a price in lugging around larger and heavier gear. I have both a FF system and a mirrorless APSC system. While the FF does have the advantage of being able to print larger at "the same quality" as the APSC system, I find that my ability, desire, and willingness to explore a subject is greater with the smaller, lighter, more versatile system. I often end up with more interesting images from a creative standpoint with the smaller, lighter system.
The point is, you may have been benefitting from this w/ the EM-1 w/o ever realizing it. Give that some thought and perhaps rent a FF and a few equivalent lenses and go out and play and see if you've "lost something" in the process even though you've gained something in "absolute" IQ.
I think many of us are being refreshed, creatively, as we've started using the compact sysem cameras. I know it is true for me. I'll keep my FF gear, and reach for it when I "need" that next increment of IQ for a specific situation. But I can tell you that it is happening less and less often as time goes by. And I'm enjoying photography more and more with the smaller system. And, if you really want a shocker IQ wise, get your hands on a Sigma Merrill camera and make some big prints from that little brick of a camera. But that's a whole different discussion from the one you started.
Rand
-
For these kinds of decisions you need to build yourself (probably in a spreadsheet) a fuzzy logic system. It is easier than it sounds.
You might want to start with the types of shooting you do in percentages. eg 60% landscape, 30% wildlife, 5% portraits,etc
then list the features you find important. again use some breakdown like % or 1-5.
add whatever else you feel is important like lenses, warranty,etc.
then rate the cameras on those features.
rank things more important/ less important when you cannot come up with numbers.
Calculate it all out. See if your gut feel matches your numbers, if not why not? Play with the system until your decision gels.
-
For these kinds of decisions you need to build yourself (probably in a spreadsheet) a fuzzy logic system. It is easier than it sounds.
You might want to start with the types of shooting you do in percentages. eg 60% landscape, 30% wildlife, 5% portraits,etc
then list the features you find important. again use some breakdown like % or 1-5.
add whatever else you feel is important like lenses, warranty,etc.
then rate the cameras on those features.
rank things more important/ less important when you cannot come up with numbers.
Calculate it all out. See if your gut feel matches your numbers, if not why not? Play with the system until your decision gels.
The problem is you could end up with a camera that is not quite right for any scenario. Truth is - different cameras for different jobs. So possibly having several systems can work - but of course it is expensive. But then you can buy some very good gear used. So a used Canon 5D would make a good landscape camera - along with a one good zoom or a couple of mid-range primes - the 50mm 1.4, 85 1.8 etc. Buy a different camera for street photography etc. Currently I have several systems - some acquired over many years - but each has their strengths.
My old Canon 1ds3 - portrait shoots and maybe landscape from the back of a car or involving short walks.
Olympus E-M1 (formerly Panasonic GH2) for weddings and general personal shoots - walking in the forest etc.
Ricoh GR - for unobtrusive street shooting, cycling trips, and just taking anywhere I might suddenly need a good quality picture but don't want to take more gear.
The quest for the perfect compromise will always feel like - a compromise. The lenses are the key things - you may keep them for many years, the bodies you may well change.
Jim
-
Hi Nancy,
I think Olympus has nailed the IBIS like no other. A truly exceptional stabilisation system by all accounts. The company is releasing a 300mm f4 prime in 2015. Coupled with a 1.4x TC it will give about 700mm. That will be interesting and should tell us if their implementation of IBIS is good with long teles.
Thanks, Rand47. I chose the E-M1 over the X-T1, and the beautiful X-Trans output, because of the handling and features of the camera. I also chose mirrorless because of the size. I wanted a camera that I could carry with my most places and just about all the time. Handling the DSLRs feels like a step backwards because of the size.
I agree that I may end up with two systems. Perhaps the GR for close up and personal, and the DSLR for everything else.
Fine Art, thanks for the tip with the spreadsheet. However, I have been over it all a few times now and I've isolated the core things against a DSLR and will try to address them in some way. Basically, the biggest issue is that a DSLR feels a bit less connected to the process of taking pictures when compared to a mirrorless. However, if I can be certain that this disconnect will mostly go away with experience I will be fine with purchasing a DSLR. When I look at the two systems like this the issues are clear enough for me.
Art, I think full-frame brings a lot more than just resolution to the IQ equation - increased tonality and acuity. Not to mention far less noise and larger dynamic range at higher ISOs. The E-M1 is starting to scream at ISO 1600, whereas the 6D is not even breaking a sweat. The D750 is even better.
The look of the noise is different and the whole image behaves very differently. Even the X-T1 was significantly better than the E-M1. I remember testing in the shop between the two and even that rudimentary test showed a striking difference. I still chose the E-M1, which speaks to the quality of the camera. Outstanding.
My biggest concern is investing money in a system that ultimately undermines my experience.
Reading a bit more about Canon and Nikon, it seems that the people that prefer Canon over Nikon do so because of the usability and handling. This mirrors the experience I had in the couple of hours I've had with both cameras. The Canon is closest to the E-M1 from what I could tell.
I wish the camera companies actually provided road maps of their future technology releases - much like the way Intel and AMD publish road maps.
Cheers.
-
I wish the camera companies actually provided road maps of their future technology releases - much like the way Intel and AMD publish road maps.
Cheers.
Nick
I think one thing we can confidently predict is that nobody knows what the market/technology will be in five years time. Look at the massive change in the last ten years. Look what happened to compact cameras in the past couple of years. Panansonic only launched their G1 about five years ago - see what mirror less has done since then. Just buy what does the job now and don't waste time worrying about what's around the corner. You have already made one expensive error buying and selling your E-M1 - don't repeat that again.
Jim
-
Better recalculate that 300mm w/1.4 TC... more like 420mm methinks
Handling of the Canon System is nice but I prefer it to Nikon on the basis of image tones. If I liked Nikon tones better I'd have kept the great Nikon System I had
.
- agree that ISO limitations are the worst thing about 4/3. I'd be all over it if not for that. IBIS is cool, but the high ISO options that many FF systems afford kind of make up for that. Even my 6D has at least 3 stops of noise on the Oly, more in post
- finally Fuji is a great mid-point. Nice colors, sharp pics
you really can't go wrong, and as said above, don't try to predict where it's going... you'll probably be wrong. Watching is half the fun...
Hi Nancy,
I think Olympus has nailed the IBIS like no other. A truly exceptional stabilisation system by all accounts. The company is releasing a 300mm f4 prime in 2015. Coupled with a 1.4x TC it will give about 700mm. That will be interesting and should tell us if their implementation of IBIS is good with long teles.
Thanks, Rand47. I chose the E-M1 over the X-T1, and the beautiful X-Trans output, because of the handling and features of the camera. I also chose mirrorless because of the size. I wanted a camera that I could carry with my most places and just about all the time. Handling the DSLRs feels like a step backwards because of the size.
I agree that I may end up with two systems. Perhaps the GR for close up and personal, and the DSLR for everything else.
Fine Art, thanks for the tip with the spreadsheet. However, I have been over it all a few times now and I've isolated the core things against a DSLR and will try to address them in some way. Basically, the biggest issue is that a DSLR feels a bit less connected to the process of taking pictures when compared to a mirrorless. However, if I can be certain that this disconnect will mostly go away with experience I will be fine with purchasing a DSLR. When I look at the two systems like this the issues are clear enough for me.
Art, I think full-frame brings a lot more than just resolution to the IQ equation - increased tonality and acuity. Not to mention far less noise and larger dynamic range at higher ISOs. The E-M1 is starting to scream at ISO 1600, whereas the 6D is not even breaking a sweat. The D750 is even better.
The look of the noise is different and the whole image behaves very differently. Even the X-T1 was significantly better than the E-M1. I remember testing in the shop between the two and even that rudimentary test showed a striking difference. I still chose the E-M1, which speaks to the quality of the camera. Outstanding.
My biggest concern is investing money in a system that ultimately undermines my experience.
Reading a bit more about Canon and Nikon, it seems that the people that prefer Canon over Nikon do so because of the usability and handling. This mirrors the experience I had in the couple of hours I've had with both cameras. The Canon is closest to the E-M1 from what I could tell.
I wish the camera companies actually provided road maps of their future technology releases - much like the way Intel and AMD publish road maps.
Cheers.
-
Even my 6D has at least 3 stops of noise on the Oly, more in post
some people say that during the war sin/cos might get above 1.0... in fact it is even sligtly less than 2 stops above deep shadows and a little more than 1 stop in deep shadows at very high gains... that is if you take E-M1 and not ancient Kodak CCD or 12mp Panasonic sensor ;) ...
older E-M5 vs the kings of high gains (D4s and 1Dx) in deep shadows (note that theres ISOs are nominal ISOs, not Ssat ISO as in DxOMark graphs) = http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,EOS%201D%20X,D4S
-
allegretto, I was converting roughly to full-frame equivalent - so actually, according to your calculation, that would be 840mm equivalent with the TC. Not bad hey.
-
allegretto, I was converting roughly to full-frame equivalent - so actually, according to your calculation, that would be 840mm equivalent with the TC. Not bad hey.
Hey, all good
format-shifting has it's benefits...!
-
The problem is you could end up with a camera that is not quite right for any scenario. Truth is - different cameras for different jobs. So possibly having several systems can work - but of course it is expensive. But then you can buy some very good gear used. So a used Canon 5D would make a good landscape camera - along with a one good zoom or a couple of mid-range primes - the 50mm 1.4, 85 1.8 etc. Buy a different camera for street photography etc. Currently I have several systems - some acquired over many years - but each has their strengths.
My old Canon 1ds3 - portrait shoots and maybe landscape from the back of a car or involving short walks.
Olympus E-M1 (formerly Panasonic GH2) for weddings and general personal shoots - walking in the forest etc.
Ricoh GR - for unobtrusive street shooting, cycling trips, and just taking anywhere I might suddenly need a good quality picture but don't want to take more gear.
The quest for the perfect compromise will always feel like - a compromise. The lenses are the key things - you may keep them for many years, the bodies you may well change.
Jim
Quite the opposite. Most current models are quite good for many types of photography. They are not ideal. That weakness should show up in your model.
What you say is a theoretical possibility that is far more true for products at the beginning of their life cycle. At the current stage of DSLRs, most top photographers would still publish their work if they were using an entry level camera.
-
Quite the opposite. Most current models are quite good for many types of photography. They are not ideal. That weakness should show up in your model.
I agree but Nick has already tried and rejected the perfectly good Olympus - so he is looking for small differences in usability and performance. When you do that all cameras become a compromise. In my post above for instance my Ricoh GR which produces superb image quality would not be good for sports photography, and the 1Ds would be far too heavy and bulky for cycle-touring or mountain climbing.
Not many can afford extensive multiple kits, but if you are willing to keep the cameras for a bit longer and only buy lenses that are specific to your needs the cost need not be that great.
A full frame DSLR has to be the best compromise all-round type of camera - if you accept the compromises.
Jim
-
Thanks, Jim. I agree that the full-frame DSLR is the most flexible camera system right now if you want the best image quality with good all-round usability. If the A7 had more lenses and far better AF and had a body like the E-M1 that could handle larger lenses it would be a contender, too.
I'm becoming weary of looking at cameras and ultimately this just means nothing is jumping out at me. I wanted to commit to a system before I headed off to India but it is looking less and less like there is going to be a camera in my bag.
I'll probably be returning to Thailand in January so will see if anything has changed.
-
Have you considered getting an older used camera, either a bridge, a compact, or a entry level camera with kit lens, just to have something to shoot while you are in India? You can get some decent cameras for 200 to 400 bucks. I personally might be tempted by a Sony RX100 II for 400.00 with lens, 9 oz. or so (KEH). The little Canon Rebel T2i at work is a terrific little copy camera with its 60mm macro. There was a nice weatherproof Pentax K30 DSLR with weatherproof kit lens on offer for about 400 bucks. A two to five year old entry level camera is still a pretty good camera, and if this is a once in a lifetime trip I would try to get something, and sell it later if needed.
-
Hi Nancy,
That is a great idea and I had considered a GR, used E-M5, 6D, or D610. I have been looking for a used 6D ideally. I've also been considering a used Fuji X-M1, A1 or E2.
-
In terms of ergonomic design the big negative with m43 for me has always been the lack of a top plate LCD, having to look at the back screen or raise the camera to your eye to see the setting x 10,000 becomes rather tedious.
-
Hi More,
In the time that I had the E-M1 I didn't need to set exposure using the rear screen much and typically would just raise the camera to my eye and adjust according to the scene.
Some people really liked the X-T1 because they could just glance at the configuration of the dials. I guess this is a habit of experienced photographers, who shoot by the numbers and typically dial them in ready to raise the camera and press the shutter straight away. Is that accurate?
I'm not experienced and so like to adjust setting from both the numbers and the preview in the EVF.
How do you ETTR without adjusting for each scene by looking through the OVF to avoid blowing out the highlights?
-
Will typically set ISO or leave on auto. Stay in A-mode and control shutter with aperture. Also need to know where Exp Comp can be quickly adjusted. Once you're there, you're about set.
But of course others have other ways
6D is very intuitive for this and can be set up quickly. 6D also fits my hand perfectly with and without RRS L-bracket. On the A7s I'm "interviewing" my pinkie just kind of hangs in space. Not used to that but do like it's compact profile and EVF...!
-
I'll use the E-M1 as an example: when you bring up the grid to change the focus point - you can either use the four-way directional pad, or you can use the front and back wheels (dials) to move it vertically or horizontally, or you can touch the screen anywhere and it will go there. The other method was you can look at the point you want to focus on and then blink to release the shutter... oh, wait, that is in the next version, haha.
My old Canon EOS 3 film camera had eye control autofocus. Which is still the only AF system I've ever really liked. I find it really annoying that later cameras never had this incredibly useful feature and instead use faffy methods like you describe.
-
allegretto, I mostly used aperture priority on the Olympus and set the ISO manually. The exposure compensation dial adjusted the shutter speed. When shooting high contrast scenes I would change to manual mode and set everything.
When handling the 6D and exploring the features I did also find the camera to be very intuitive. Much more so than the Nikon, which was disappointing. I expected more from Nikon on the usability side of things, but then I realised how much they don't put in because, I imagine, of marketing and creating demand and movement of customers upward within their model hierarchy.
Seeing this comes back to the whole reason for this thread. Looking at not only the camera and system, but the commitment to bringing good design to customers that exists in the company ethos, or not - as in the case of Nikon to some degree.
jjj, that is pretty cool that Canon had something like eye tracking for AF point placement. I don't see why they couldn't bring it back when they finally go mirrorless: hold down the AF button to engage eye tracking and bring up the focus point that moves to where you are looking. The camera focuses and then you press the shutter button to take the image.
-
I think before changing systems you need to carefully evaluate exactly what you don't like about your current system. As others have said, changing systems very often just leads to a new set of complaints.
I immensely enjoy an optical viewfinder and FF image quality, but it comes at the cost of added weight and bulk. I have a 5D3 and love it, however I think the simplified controls on the 6D would drive me crazy.
The best solution might be to have two systems. I'm looking at complementing my Canon with Fuji.
-
jjj, that is pretty cool that Canon had something like eye tracking for AF point placement. I don't see why they couldn't bring it back when they finally go mirrorless: hold down the AF button to engage eye tracking and bring up the focus point that moves to where you are looking. The camera focuses and then you press the shutter button to take the image.
Eye tracking was much easier to use than what you described. I simply looked at what I wanted in focus and pressed shutter.
-
duane, I think having two systems is, for now, probably the best way to go - until DSLRs transition into smaller more feature packed devices that can replace a two system setup.
Getting back to the original post of my thoughts about looking at the company behind the system, Thom Hogan has provided some interesting thoughts about this year's Annual Report released by Nikon:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikons-annual-report.html
I think the report shows very clearly the lack of nuanced thought going into the usability of their cameras, at least in the low-to-mid range cameras (not including their professional line, for which they probably pull out all stops).
Now, compare that attitude to the innovation going on at Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, and to some extent, Canon. Thank you, Thom, you have helped to confirm my perception about Nikon and that I don't want to commit thousands to a company that isn't interested in creating products with deeply nuanced feature sets and control systems.
EDIT: Okay, I'm done complaining - I've resolved my conflict over the D750. I wanted all that great tech, but couldn't get past the way it handled and lacked features - fantastic grip, though!
-
Nick, there are lots of small cameras that produce really good quality images with decent sized sensors and yet still easily fit in your trouser pocket.
Something like that will easily do a lot of what many people require and you can have a hulking DSLR for when you need it. So how about one of them instead of a second system?
Better for street work than a DSLR by a long way for example.
I finally got my hands on a RX100 III after quite a wait and it's a very impressive camera. Good enough to do some pro work with and yet really tiny.
But possibly what I liked most was that I could customise just about every button/dial to do what I wanted. This is how all equipment/software should be designed.
-
jjj, I agree, there are lots of small cameras that would make for an excellent secondary. I've been mulling over the Ricoh GR for a while.
I'll end up giving something up to get a system I can get results I'm happy with and in the mean time the market will evolve towards mirrorless. By that time I'll have a lot more experience to consider the next upgrade into a mirrorless DSLR. Haha, maybe I'll be wanting to keep my OVF by then :)
-
I have a Ricoh GX 200 now retired, but one thing I particularly loved about it was that in manual mode [my prefered set up], I could push a button and it would auto expose and update your manual settings according to where you pointed it. Best of both worlds and if the auto guess was off you tweak manually. Far easier than faffing with auto and exposure compensation.
Best exposure system I've ever used and excellent for street type photography, it's main use. :)
Hopefully the GR has kept that feature.
-
1) I think the eye tracker would work off the mirror as well IIRC. So it would have to be different in a mirror less design
2) Using the exposure compensation dial to set shutter speed is very different than using the aperture dial if ISO is in "manual" mode. It is literally a different exposure (EV in film terms) with different gain.
allegretto, I mostly used aperture priority on the Olympus and set the ISO manually. The exposure compensation dial adjusted the shutter speed. When shooting high contrast scenes I would change to manual mode and set everything.
When handling the 6D and exploring the features I did also find the camera to be very intuitive. Much more so than the Nikon, which was disappointing. I expected more from Nikon on the usability side of things, but then I realised how much they don't put in because, I imagine, of marketing and creating demand and movement of customers upward within their model hierarchy.
Seeing this comes back to the whole reason for this thread. Looking at not only the camera and system, but the commitment to bringing good design to customers that exists in the company ethos, or not - as in the case of Nikon to some degree.
jjj, that is pretty cool that Canon had something like eye tracking for AF point placement. I don't see why they couldn't bring it back when they finally go mirrorless: hold down the AF button to engage eye tracking and bring up the focus point that moves to where you are looking. The camera focuses and then you press the shutter button to take the image.
-
1) I think the eye tracker would work off the mirror as well IIRC. So it would have to be different in a mirror less design
Nope. :)
"An infrared transmitter and receiver mounted around the eyepiece monitored the position of the iris, thus "knowing" where the photographer was looking and focusing on that point."
-
In terms of ergonomic design the big negative with m43 for me has always been the lack of a top plate LCD, having to look at the back screen or raise the camera to your eye to see the setting x 10,000 becomes rather tedious.
I thought this would be an issue for me, but in use I've always got my m43 cameras in my hand rather than hanging off a neck strap…so the rear LCD is nearly always in easy view. Same goes for the A7r.
-Dave-
-
duane, I think having two systems is, for now, probably the best way to go - until DSLRs transition into smaller more feature packed devices that can replace a two system setup.
Getting back to the original post of my thoughts about looking at the company behind the system, Thom Hogan has provided some interesting thoughts about this year's Annual Report released by Nikon:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikons-annual-report.html
I think the report shows very clearly the lack of nuanced thought going into the usability of their cameras, at least in the low-to-mid range cameras (not including their professional line, for which they probably pull out all stops).
Now, compare that attitude to the innovation going on at Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, and to some extent, Canon. Thank you, Thom, you have helped to confirm my perception about Nikon and that I don't want to commit thousands to a company that isn't interested in creating products with deeply nuanced feature sets and control systems.
EDIT: Okay, I'm done complaining - I've resolved my conflict over the D750. I wanted all that great tech, but couldn't get past the way it handled and lacked features - fantastic grip, though!
Great if the 6D meets your needs, but I still cannot comprehend how you can consider it superior to the D750 in terms of features/innovation/usability/photographic potential.
You seem to be rating the lack of one button compared to a higher end Nikon models (not even compared to the 6D) as being more important than pro grade AF... which is totally puzzling to me... ;)
Anyway, those are your photographs so enjoy your new camera!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Maybe he is a manual focusing type photographer like me.... :D
The 6D is rather basic, but it does what I want, which is to handle all the non-wildlife shooting I do, landscapes, macro, simple family gatherings. I am sticking with APS-C for the birds due to the higher pixel density.
The D750 is definitely the better all-around camera for the general user who may want to shoot their kids' sports.
-
Hi More,
In the time that I had the E-M1 I didn't need to set exposure using the rear screen much and typically would just raise the camera to my eye and adjust according to the scene.
I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker on a camera but if your talking weaknesses I do find it annoying using a camera without these readouts, being able to casually glance down and see your settings just helps make me more aware, especially for things like street shooting.
Some people really liked the X-T1 because they could just glance at the configuration of the dials. I guess this is a habit of experienced photographers, who shoot by the numbers and typically dial them in ready to raise the camera and press the shutter straight away. Is that accurate?
Even the X-T1 has a problem in that whilst you can see the settings you can't see the meter readout which again I would consider helpful for something like street shooting where you want to raise the camera to your eye quickly.
I'm not experienced and so like to adjust setting from both the numbers and the preview in the EVF.
How do you ETTR without adjusting for each scene by looking through the OVF to avoid blowing out the highlights?
Part of the advantage to a FF system is I would say is that you need to ETTR less for fast moving scenes with bright highlights since your noise threshold is lower.
For something like landscape shooting where you might really want to maximise IQ I think its a bit give and take with EVF vs OVF, the EVF does give you the eye level preview that won't be messed up by bright light, the OVF on the other hand does give you the greater dynamic range. Yes the EVF will show you something close to your basic output BUT what if your shooting with a view to lifting areas of shadow in post? being able to see whats in those areas as you shoot is an advantage.
-
Bernard, in terms of technology (recognised in this case as distinctly separate to usability and features) I do indeed see the D750 as being clearly superior to the 6D. It should be: the D750 has at least a two year technology advantage and a higher target market advantage.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss the companies behind the products. To evaluate their ongoing commitment to the usability of their products and of the system as a whole.
If we consider usability we can use the word clarity to best describe our experience of the control and feedback systems designed into the camera. Looking at the specifications of the D750 we would expect it to have a very high level of clarity. That the level of refinement and sophistication found in the control and feedback systems should be equal to the advanced technology packed into camera. This would be apparent from the moment we started using the camera.
Unfortunately, it isn't.
This is the key area where the Nikon falls down quite badly, particularly when compared to the E-M1 and, to a lesser extent, the 6D. The camera is a bit of a dumb box of advanced technologies. Why?
Thom has been evaluating Nikon for quite some time and has said this on his review of the Nikon annual report:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikons-annual-report.html
Here’s the line that particularly bothers me (also from Gokyu-san): “As technology has matured, our products themselves can no longer be as distinct. Consequently, price wars are becoming fiercer, making it essential to continuously and thoroughly reduce costs to maintain a profit.”
Failure to lead and innovate is the real problem. It’s statements like Gokyu-san’s that are going to give everyone the impression that Nikon Imaging is a cash cow that just needs to be milked. Milking as a strategy rarely works for long in the consumer electronics industry. Indeed, it makes you more vulnerable to ending up with dead cows. Nikon needs to figure out how to make distinct products, period.
Distinct equals:
- highly configurable and sophisticated interfaces (ugh, not at the expense of usability - it is entirely possible to have both);
- improved materials and build quality (the E-M1 shows how this can be done in a consumer product at a very affordable price);
- better EVFs (won't be long now - we are just mostly waiting on AF);
- improved touch experience in the screen and button/dial controls (haptics - mirrorless steaming full-ahead in this area);
- better menu design (in my experience Canon > Nikon);
- more functions and features (again, Canon > Nikon);
- easier connectivity to other devices;
- more granular GPS control (automatic activation when the camera is turned on or focused, etc)..
- and lots more.
It means to be, at least, competitive with the usability and feature sets found in the new mirrorless generation.
Interestingly, this comment by Gokyu-San gives some clue as to why the D750 is a box made from advanced hardware without an equivalent level of sophistication in the usability:
"Until now, Nikon was grounded in the idea of using its own technology to develop, manufacture, and market products, so it employed a hardware-oriented strategy..."
Apple is a hardware oriented company, but they understand the soft aspect of usability and it drives the development of their hardware.
Okay, so leaving the technical marvel that is the D750, alone, what impression have I gained about Nikon's ability (or desire) to release a densely featured mirrorless full-frame camera? It seems that it is going to be very difficult for them to change their thinking towards the softer (and more nuanced) aspect of usability.
I think Canon is better positioned in their thinking to join the other mirrorless companies in meeting the demand for better usability and more sophisticated features - as long as their sensors improve, obviously. If they have hit a wall in their ability to make advanced sensor technology lets hope they respond quickly by partnering up with a manufacturer like Sony.
With this in mind, I would like to purchase a second hand 6D and upgrade to the replacement as soon as it comes out. It won't be a mirrorless, but I want to be invested in a system that will deliver a mirrorless I really want to use.
People are doubting Canon in light of Nikon's use of Sony's fantastic sensor technology. But, they have to remember that competing technologies have always played a game of leap-frog. I think that in this new era of partnering for technology it is the design ethos that will ultimately set competitors apart. I believe Canon has more of the design ethos of others like Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, than does Nikon. At least, from what I can tell right now.
I remember when Apple was looking to abandon its PowerPC platform in order to change over to the 486 CPU. It was looking for a new partner and I remember thinking at the time that they would probably go with AMD. Because AMD had such a great momentum going with the Opteron CPU and NUMA system design. Intel appeared to be struggling to keep up. When Steve Jobs announced Intel as their new partner I was surprised. When I questioned why I concluded that Intel must have been able to convince Steve that what was in the pipeline was worth committing to. As it turned out Steve made the right call and Apple has never looked back.
The point is, if Apple can do it, Canon can. Now they just need to get customers to, ugh, see the seemingly impossible.
-
I find the D750 to be an amazing photographic tool putting right under my hands the functions I need to take instantly whatever comes my way. I hardly ever need to use the menus. That's what a succesful camera UI has to be to me.
I find my iPhone to be unusable as a camera, not because of its poor sensor, but because of its disastrous UI/AF/... starting by the time it takes to launch it.
My personal definition of distinct product for cameras is that they help me achieve better images in terms of image quality, timely capture, sharp focus, immediate access to functions, intuitivity of UI,... and the D750 is the best on those essential factors that define what a camera is.
All the rest that you mention is of secundary importance.
But if you like purity of lines and intent, show me anything coming closer than a Nikon J1. That is 10 times more Apple like than anything Canon ever released in my view.
Till date the mirrorless efforts of Canon have been competent but devoid of the least bit of innovation. What makes you think that this is going to change?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Nick,
the rumors kitchen sez that Sony has in the pipeline new FF cameras, most probably based on A7 series.
Subsequently there are also interesting Zeiss lenses in preparation. E mount seems to be the right choice,
at least for me coming from Canon SLR through Fuji X100 to Sony FE....
-
I find the D750 to be an amazing photographic tool putting right under my hands the functions I need to take instantly whatever comes my way. I hardly ever need to use the menus. That's what a succesful camera UI has to be to me.
All I see now is a lack of interest from Nikon in developing extensive UI sophistication into their designs. I truly did not expect this from the D750 and was quite surprised. Without having experienced the great design in other cameras I might not have noticed and had such an adverse reaction. But honestly, the D750 felt like it had been designed by a committee.
Here are a few things that jumped out at me:
I went to configure the length of time an exposure would remain on the rear display for review and found that on the D750 there was simply an ON or OFF. On both the E-M1 and 6D there was 2, 4, 8 seconds, or HOLD until the focus is reactivated.
On the 6D there is a kind of focus peaking behaviour built into the focus points, where each point will brighten as focus is achieved during a manual focus action. This happens right on the image and makes manual focus a lot easier than on the D750, which forces the user to look down at the bottom left of the viewfinder, which still doesn't give an indication as to which point is focusing (I suspect it is the middle).
I could not believe it when I heard that Nikon had withheld, on an expensive model like the D610, a basic capability that allows a user to directly review an image at 1:1.
Obviously these are just a few examples from the camera but to me they are enough to understand that this company is not really interested in competing on features and usability beyond its hardware and technology focus.
On the other hand, I have the perception that Canon does want to compete in this space, as evidenced by the depth of features found in the simple 6D.
Usability engineering is very difficult, which is why so many don't commit whole heartedly to it. The intent has to be there motivating the technology. I think in this era of sufficiency and excellent hardware usability is the great differentiator. Contrary to what Gokyu-San said, there is a way to develop distinct products by competing in this space.
-
Sigh... ok, fine, the configuration of the display time is waaaaay more important than image quality and AF speed/accuracy.
You are right, the 6D is centuries ahead of the D750. ;D
I love the way you have reviewed the spec sheet of both cameras, found one tiny aspect where the 6D is ahead and built a whole theory around it explaining why this one aspect is an evidence of a fundamental superiority of Canon's "depth of design".
What I still don't understand is how your photography will benefit from Canon's superior "depth of design" when all the other characteristics of the D750, those that help make technically superior images, are superior?
Don't get me wrong, the 6D is a very competent camera and a good option for photographers on a budget owning Canon lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sigh... ok, fine, the configuration of the display time is waaaaay more important than image quality and AF speed/accuracy.
You are right, the 6D is centuries ahead of the D750.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's not the point I'm trying to make, Bernard. Not at all.
I'm talking about the icing on the cake; all the bells and whistles; and the extra mile; all the good stuff that other camera designers seem to be adding into their products. I saw it in the little E-M1 and I expected as much from Nikon. So I am punishing them for what I perceive to be their apparent disregard of the finer points.
I definitely want that excellent image quality and fast autofocus that is in the D750 and clearly beyond the competition. But it's not enough and the real problem is that Nikon don't seem to see that it isn't enough. Canon will be competitive again with their technology, one way or another. As will Sony, and likely the next sensor by Fuji (improved detail and less NR), and Olympus might do a BSI sensor in m43 and dramatically reduce noise levels at higher ISO (then I might kick myself for not investing in their lenses).
-
That's not the point I'm trying to make, Bernard. Not at all.
I'm talking about the icing on the cake; all the bells and whistles; and the extra mile; all the good stuff that other camera designers seem to be adding into their products. I saw it in the little E-M1 and I expected as much from Nikon. So I am punishing then for what I perceive to be their apparent disregard of the finer points.
I definitely want that excellent image quality and fast autofocus that is in the D750 and clearly beyond the competition. But it's not enough and the real problem is that Nikon don't seem to see that it isn't enough.
What I don't understand is your rationale for prioritising aspects of secondary importance over the core aspects of a camera helping your photographic outcome.
Don't get me wrong, if you were telling us "the 6D fits my hand better and I am a street photographer", there would be no discussion from me. That would be a reasonable rationale.
The ability to customise display time absolutely isn't a reasonable rationale.
Anyway, as I said, it doesn't make any difference for me, enjoy your 6D and please come back to show up the images you will have captured with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Like I said before, I'd get canons for the lenses, but this thread is the first one where I have seen someone praise canon's ergonomics over nikons.
To this date, I can't understand why canon puts the power button in the worst areas possible and not around the shutter release, which makes switching on and shooting such a natural thing to do. Or the incredibly weird angle of the front control dial. Or the amazingly useful direct print button. Their fidgety joystick never lets one select the right focus point as precisely as the nikon multi controller and I don't think they wrap back when reaching the edge of af point coverage either. They won't let you swap the functions of the two dials. Up until recently, spot metering was not tied to currently selected AF point in canons. The speedlight system is unnecessarily complex. And so on. In fact, canon's iterative improvements scream "design by commitee".
I have my fair share of beef with nikon, which I have mentioned in this forum many times, but ergonomics and usability is definitely not amongst them.
YMMV.
-
Actually, the D750 is a much better fit for my hands. But you are right, how can I put such a priority on these secondary features?
These secondary features all add up to radically improve the overall handling and enjoyment of the camera, just as the improvement to the grip can make such a big difference when holding the camera for hours.
Go take a look at what Samsung is doing with the NX1. If they get the implementation right they will seriously make a splash. The thing of note here is that they have the intent to combine both the technology and usability to make a big difference to the overall experience. Not just the image quality or AF performance. EVERYTHING.
It is the "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality (without compromising quality, performance, usability) in competitors that is contrasting Nikon's fine technological efforts. I'm looking to Nikon to see them stand up and say bring it, we'll not only see you but raise you. It's not really in the D750 (it's a parts bin product at a price reflective of that) and I don't see it in their future way of business.
synn, I see your point. But that is Canon over two years ago, possibly longer (in full-frame - I'm not sure if they moved much with the 7DM2 and what that bodes for the next iteration of full-frame bodies). Nikon just revealed their hand and it is more of the same technology only focus.
-
These secondary features all add up to radically improve the overall handling and enjoyment of the camera, just as the improvement to the grip can make such a big difference when holding the camera for hours.
OK, fair enough, so what is the full list of those secondary features offered by the 6D over the D750 that improve the experience "radically"?
It is a genuine question, I have only played with a 6D for a short amount of time and I am willing to lean what I am missing.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, can I revisit the list when Canon releases the 6D Mark 2 in 2015?
I'm going on my perception of the products I've mentioned and the overall innovation happening in the mirrorless space. That is why I started this thread, to gauge my perception of the two companies with that of others so that I could make a choice which one to go with. Would Nikon change course and bring a significantly stronger value-add mentality to the table? If so, I'll buy the D750 and shoot happily with it until the mirrorless replacement comes out in a year or two. Trusting that it will have more than just great technology. A true D700 successor perhaps.
Canon isn't out of the woods yet. I just think they are probably more likely to produce nuanced designs in the future than is Nikon, based on how I see them do usability on the 6D (two years old) vs the D750. Whether they get the technology right is another matter, which is what most are becoming increasingly more sceptical about.
synn, these are definitely the kind of details that jump out at me, too. I hated the four way control pad on the Fuji X-T1. It was a deal breaker actually.
EDIT: removed irrelevant comment.
-
Bernard, I haven't handled the D700, but looking at the design I think I can see what people love about it - at least from gauging the external handling and potential haptic (touch/interactive) experience. That is the difference I get between the 6D and D750. Not totally, but enough, I feel, to tell me that they pay attention to usability more than Nikon.
If I could I would rent both of them for a couple of weeks. Unfortunately I am in Thailand. The moment I walk out of the shop with the camera I cannot return it, other than to sell it as second hand even if it is only a few hours old and basically unused.
-
Nick,
You claim that the 6D already has a significantly better "depth of design" than the D750 today. It is the main reason why you see Canon as having more potential to get it right. I don't see what the 6DII has to do with this.
Please just list the factual elements that have led you to reach this conclusion. What are the aspects where the D750 falls behind?
Again, I see it as an opportunity to learn.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think you got my point. You claim canons are more usable thank nikon. I was stating some usability issues where canon lags behind nikon.
I don't really know what "nuanced design" is, but I find the 6D very poor VFM as it has yesterday's sensor, day before yesterday's af and generally ho hum build. I don't really care how long the display stays on as I can see it again with another press of the play button. I can't fix the issues I stated above with anything.
In fact, save for the crop sensor, the 7D II is a much more vfm camera from canon than the 6D.
End of the day, going home with a top quality file is what's most important to me. This is why I shoot with medium format gear, which lags behind all 35mm DSLRs in terms of usability. Extrapolate that to your own needs.
-
Ah, okay. I also found the display of the metrics in the viewfinder of the 6D to be better, with more clarity. When I spun the rear wheel (on the outside of the 8-way controller) there seemed to be more precision as it interacted with the two displays. Easier to adjust exposure compensation and other things. I thought it would be the opposite. I really like the joystick on the D610 and D750.
Surprisingly, I found the 8-way controller to be easy to use and I preferred the design of the menu system in the 6D. Again, the combination felt more precise and easier to manipulate. Not something I expected from just looking at it. I like the fact that the D610 has the joystick up near the top, next to the thumb.
The dials on the D750 were disapointing when compared to those on the E-M1. I preferred the dials on the D810, and the rear wheel on the 6D after using the side of my thumb instead of the tip. The haptics of the wheel is surprisingly good when used this way.
I found the rear display on the 6D to be a bit clearer than the D750, and when I looked at the highlight warning on both cameras the 6D was easier to spot them. Although, both had flashing black over the highlights and the Olympus was orange and easier to see.
Compared to the E-M1, the tilting rear display seems cheap and plasticy, adding to the sense of imprecision to the camera body. Although, the grip created a similar balance that I experienced with the E-M1. The similarity between the two was immediately apparent despite the difference in size. In contrast I didn't like the 6D as much and it pulled more on my wrist. But I was prepared to hold it more with my left hand to compensate.
I found the top display on the 6D to be a bit easier to isolate information. Although this kind of thing can be overcome by familiarity it can still be distracting if you never get used to the layout. It's like muscle memory, if you have it one way it can be hard to feel comfortable another way. When I ride a motorbike I am instinctively more comfortable taking fast left corners than I am taking fast right corners - I'm a lefty in this way.
I am wondering if those that really like the way Nikon designs the control systems on its cameras would like the Olympus or the Canon, or even the Ricoh GR (which I liked and found quite remarkably intuitive after just spending five minutes with it). There were features that made themselves apparent just through exploring without thinking to deliberately get a result. It's one of those devices where you just go wow, that is just so cool. You marvel at the ingenuity in the design.
The E-M1 is like that. This is also how I found the 6D, although to a much lesser degree. Yet, significantly more so than the Nikon, which is why I reacted to it so strongly. I wanted to like the design ethos because the grip was awesome and the technologies are kick ass. But it just got in my way too much and wasn't fun when compared to the others. I kept saying that if I am serious about photography all this wouldn't matter. But what if the next Nikon was the same and I just became more weary?
So, I'm okay about getting something good enough, perhaps second hand, with the perception that the system will evolve in the way I like. Following on this line I would buy a full-frame E-M1 even if the lense range was not well developed. I trust Olympus' design choices enough that I would commit. Alas, no full-frame now or in the foreseeable future.
-
synn, all good points, thank you.
The 6D and latest 70-200 f4 L IS USM combo is about $1300 cheaper than the D750 and 70-200 f4 VR3 from Nikon, both here in Bangkok from a non-grey market store. I think that price is reflective of the difference in the capability of each body.
The ability of the 6D to focus as low as -3 EV and keep noise levels down when shooting above 6400 ISO (comparable to the D750) makes the camera appealing to me right now. I would be happy to live with it for six months until the replacement Mark 2 is released. I would expect the sensor to be competitive with the one in the D750.
Getting a used 6D would be an even more desirable choice for me because I will loose even less when I upgrade.
In the end I'm just taking a punt on a horse but the more I learn the higher the chance that I make the right choice for me.
-
I really think you should actually try the cameras for a while before you form these opinions. Paper specs can only tell you so much.
For example, the AF module in my D800 focuses even with an 8 stop ND on it. That's about as bright as moonlight. The D750's AF module is an updated version of that module and I can't expect it to do any worse.
Or how about the fact that you don't even need to look away from the viewfinder on a nikon to do exposure compensation. If you switch on "Easy exposure comp." in the menus, in both S and A modes, the secondary dial would do the compensation without pressing any additional buttons.
Make no mistake, I am not discouraging you from going for the canon if that's what your heart is set on. Just saying that the reasons you use to eliminate the Nikon don't quite add up on scrutiny.
-
Part of the advantage to a FF system is I would say is that you need to ETTR less for fast moving scenes with bright highlights since your noise threshold is lower.
It seems carved deep in many people's beliefs that FF has better IQ than any smaller sensor, no matter what technology is involved. Let's make things clear: in the 6D you need to ETTR more to avoid shadows noise than in the E-M1. The D750 beats both the 6D and the E-M1 by a good amount (in the case of the E-M1 this was expected according to the difference in sensor size):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/dr_em1_6d_d750.png)
This means that if in your application ISOs over ISO800 are not involved, you don't need to ETTR more on the Olympus than on the Canon, despite the Canon sensor being 4 times larger.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/satlevel/ffapsc43.gif)
It also means Canon sensors today have lost the dynamic range battle. Tomorrow, who knows?. A FF sensor is better than a smaller one only comparing equivalent technologies, but technologies vary from one brand to another and from one year to another.
My personal opinion is that with today's top sensor technologies, the only two strong reasons to prefer FF over smaller formats are the ability to achieve shallow DOF and the possibility to use legacy 35mm lenses in their native focal length. Image IQ is now secondary for most applications vs size, weight, price, lens availability, second hand market,...
Regards
-
1) I think you're being very hard on Walt. It's his choices, now at least three of you have had your say. Some great deal.to say in fact
2) you can show mw all kinds of spec sheet and DxO stuff. My personal experience is that only of size does your Oly win between the Canon and it.
3) Cameras are a tool. Some inspire one photographer, some another
4) Amazing that this forum has soooooo many anti-Canon folks. It's a great line of cameras and glass. Where the power button is puts you off on the 6D...? Really...? Well first, I never accidentally hit a remote power button. In fact, many cameras have "outboard" power buttons. Talk about tenting at relevance... Is this what you think about when you entertain a system purchase?
5) Sadly Walt, you might consider locking this thread again. You were right it's come back to a shoving match by the Nikonistas.
You Nikon guys are right. Nikon makes a fine system. But so do others. Including Canon. You're entitled to your bias of course... as he is to his. New features and 127000 cross-focus points are not deal makers for me. I shoot action just fine with limited focal points over several systems. Count your pixels, multiply by focal points and raise to a power of the fps and that's how to rate a camera system..., right?
Glad I got something out of the early posts
-
4) Amazing that this forum has soooooo many anti-Canon folks.
I am a Canon user, both APS and FF. I am simply not so blind biased towards any brand as you are. And I don't have an E-M1, nor ever had any Nikon.
-
I am a Canon user, both APS and FF. I am simply not so blind biased towards my camera as you are.
and what exactly is my "blind bias"?
-
and what exactly is my "blind bias"?
When someone talks about anti-Canon guys when he is just shown objective measurements, you are clearly biased.
-
When someone talks about anti-Canon guys when he is just shown objective measurements, you are clearly biased.
well ya know... I had a cup of coffee and considered your point.
the nicest thing I can say is that we both appear biased if that's how you define "bias".
- According to you, I'm affected since you can show me bench-data that you feel you also see in the pictures that bothers you, and so you bring out your broad brush and paint Canon and by association users as myself as biased and likely at least "wrong" if not intellectually suspect.
- According to me, photography is far more than a spec sheet. having worked in Consumer and Professional Electronics years ago. I've seen many a spec sheet. However good a Marketing tool, in many cases, especially in something as interpretive as Photography, the spec sheet, whether put out by the Company or derived by "Independent Sources" does not tell the story.
You really think your POV is the only valid one I guess.
I think different
Bias? Well only if you'll admit to yours too.
BTW, why don't you switch brands?
-
I don't consider myself to be a hater of anything. I just use what works for me. This is why I have a (much hated on this forum) phamiyaleaf system and a Nikon kit in addition to that. I might add a sigma DP to the arsenal soon. Or maybe a Sony. Whoever that makes what I need. I also regularly process canon files for other folk. I know how they behave in post.
Trust me, I would much rather recommend (and did) a Sony mirror less to the OP than a Nikon, but it seems that he only wants to choose between two brands. All we are saying is, if he sold his oly kit to get a monumental rise in IQ from a full frame setup, he will be a tad disappointed with a 6D. Would he have more creative possibilities due to the extensive lens lineup? Absolutely. More than any other brand can offer. But the files themselves will be lacking. This is not an opinion, but a fact.
All that said, the best camera is the one you forgot at home. Shot this with a 5D2. Could have been better, but client is happy. Who am I to complain ?
http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p332193870/h521f3888#h521f3888
-
Woah, dudes! I leave the room for half an hour and everyone is fighting!
synn, I agree that I really need to spend more time with the cameras. I have handled then in store for a few solid hours and this is based on those perceptions.
I had the opportunity to configure the easy exposure setting on the D750 and it worked as advertised in aperture priority mode. However, the display isn't as sophisticated as the E-M1, which shows the scale and a +- value, as well as the camera's suggested exposure.
I also thought the Canon's display was clearer than on the Nikon, too.
I am aware that the Canon has a lower dynamic range than the Olympus, but I've seen the noise from m43 and it just cannot hold a candle to the full-frame in the 6D, unfortunately. I took images from the D750 and 6D to compare noise characteristics. It's not just the noise difference I see but overall tonality and acuity at higher ISOs.
The little Oly sensor just gets stressed quickly, long before the 6D's.
-
Ah, okay. I also found the display of the metrics in the viewfinder of the 6D to be better, with more clarity. When I spun the rear wheel (on the outside of the 8-way controller) there seemed to be more precision as it interacted with the two displays. Easier to adjust exposure compensation and other things. I thought it would be the opposite. I really like the joystick on the D610 and D750.
Surprisingly, I found the 8-way controller to be easy to use and I preferred the design of the menu system in the 6D. Again, the combination felt more precise and easier to manipulate. Not something I expected from just looking at it. I like the fact that the D610 has the joystick up near the top, next to the thumb.
The dials on the D750 were disapointing when compared to those on the E-M1. I preferred the dials on the D810, and the rear wheel on the 6D after using the side of my thumb instead of the tip. The haptics of the wheel is surprisingly good when used this way.
I found the rear display on the 6D to be a bit clearer than the D750, and when I looked at the highlight warning on both cameras the 6D was easier to spot them. Although, both had flashing black over the highlights and the Olympus was orange and easier to see.
Compared to the E-M1, the tilting rear display seems cheap and plasticy, adding to the sense of imprecision to the camera body. Although, the grip created a similar balance that I experienced with the E-M1. The similarity between the two was immediately apparent despite the difference in size. In contrast I didn't like the 6D as much and it pulled more on my wrist. But I was prepared to hold it more with my left hand to compensate.
I found the top display on the 6D to be a bit easier to isolate information. Although this kind of thing can be overcome by familiarity it can still be distracting if you never get used to the layout. It's like muscle memory, if you have it one way it can be hard to feel comfortable another way. When I ride a motorbike I am instinctively more comfortable taking fast left corners than I am taking fast right corners - I'm a lefty in this way.
I am wondering if those that really like the way Nikon designs the control systems on its cameras would like the Olympus or the Canon, or even the Ricoh GR (which I liked and found quite remarkably intuitive after just spending five minutes with it). There were features that made themselves apparent just through exploring without thinking to deliberately get a result. It's one of those devices where you just go wow, that is just so cool. You marvel at the ingenuity in the design.
The E-M1 is like that. This is also how I found the 6D, although to a much lesser degree. Yet, significantly more so than the Nikon, which is why I reacted to it so strongly. I wanted to like the design ethos because the grip was awesome and the technologies are kick ass. But it just got in my way too much and wasn't fun when compared to the others. I kept saying that if I am serious about photography all this wouldn't matter. But what if the next Nikon was the same and I just became more weary?
So, I'm okay about getting something good enough, perhaps second hand, with the perception that the system will evolve in the way I like. Following on this line I would buy a full-frame E-M1 even if the lense range was not well developed. I trust Olympus' design choices enough that I would commit. Alas, no full-frame now or in the foreseeable future.
Understood.
Apologies, but I don't see a single point in your list that affects significantly actual image capturing abilities.
The only conclusion I can draw from your decision to focus on these points is that your interest is not in capturing images but in handling cameras in a way not related to the the capture of photographs.
That is of course fine, but we would have saved time had you told use from the onset that photographic outcome isn't a priority of yours. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
All we are saying is, if he sold his oly kit to get a monumental rise in IQ from a full frame setup, he will be a tad disappointed with a 6D. Would he have more creative possibilities due to the extensive lens lineup? Absolutely. More than any other brand can offer. But the files themselves will be lacking. This is not an opinion, but a fact.
No, it's not FACT. It's your considered preference or opinion. I have likely been shooting as long as you. No, I'm not a pro, but I do seem to be able to discriminate between images. I pay spec sheets no mind and see photos as I see them. Then judge based on what I see, not a diode. In fact, I'm "sighted bias' it is our spec sheet that is "blind" in truth.
To my eye the 6D is a more pleasing image at Base ISO with better toning on both LR and C1 than many cameras out there. once you push gain it is clearly superior to most, if not all smaller sensors in terms of noise, color acuity and detail.
You may see it differently and I have no call for any disagreement. But to wave a sheet of paper in front of me and tell me "forget your lyin' eyes..."?
Wont happen. I like my outcomes. Hope you like yours, that's all. We just don't agree on endpoint. If you look at pictures and like what you see it's all good. these are pointless arguments
-
On another forum, at my request a Canon 6D and Nikon D750 holder performed a test over the same scene in order to compare high noise ISO. Both cameras were set at f/5 and 1/400, ISO51200, so received the same amount of photons (fair comparision). In this situacion the Nikon won by a narrow margin. Pure RAW data interpolated with DCRAW without white balance nor colour profiling conversion. To compare noise all that is irrelevant.
These were the two JPEG embedded in the RAW files:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/canonvsnikon.jpg)
These were the RAW histograms (the 6D showed lower RAW levels):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/canonvsnikon_hist.png)
Noise comparision (100% crops):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/canonvsnikon.png)
-
I'll assume you meant to settle the discussion but you see
- I don't have access to the original here, so cannot judge balance. So "real" isn't in play here. Both images are nice
- Noise is slightly greater in the 6D, but seems similar and clean up should be no problem with either. No?
- Last I checked 750 was FF, no?
- Is the Canon not as "pushed" in gain in that graph? Or are you showing me a stop more DR? Either way... not sure what that means to me. If I push that cr2 on exposure and take down the luminance/saturation I bet they would be very close indeed. But can't know for sure.
What is it about using what you like that seems so alien? I happen to like both images. Either will do for the setting chosen. With skin tones I'm afraid I do not like the Nikon/Sony weighing. Far too red/maroon/org for me it seems. I think Canon much more pleasing. You could show me all the graphs you want. BTDT.
Didn't use one brand of guitar either. Different sounds for different ... well, sounds
-
Bernard, I appreciate your sentiment and clearly if anyone really desires to take photographs they'll use whatever they can get their hands on. I agree with that sentiment, to a point.
Guillermo, those images are interesting. Are there any comparisons at 800/1600/3200/6400?
-
Nick,
If I were starting fresh I would look at the Sony A7r and the Zeiss lenses designed for that mount.
Michael Reichman, in his article about the Pentax 645z, makes the point that how a camera feels and operates will often trump technical specs in his decision making. That works for me as well.
Best of luck,
Bob
-
Guillermo, those images are interesting. Are there any comparisons at 800/1600/3200/6400?
Yes he made shot at all high ISOs. Since SNR doesn't change above ISO1600-ISO3200 for a given exposure I just picked the highest ISO in the set to compare SNR.
If the links still work here you are:
Nikon D750
https://mega.co.nz/#!yJo3jKqR!0ugrN_...u49UIlarJ1YF7A (http://"https://mega.co.nz/#%21yJo3jKqR%210ugrN_jXPz7EBOEfPOyk7plLroA8Qu49UIlarJ1YF7A")
Canon 6D
https://mega.co.nz/#!iJg2hKKQ!3YGUVp...0AN0dHOUJhUOjU (http://"https://mega.co.nz/#%21iJg2hKKQ%213YGUVpH2q8MrYuf9wcUIna7_vX3Lf0AN0dHOUJhUOjU")
-
I'll assume you meant to settle the discussion but you see
- I don't have access to the original here, so cannot judge balance. So "real" isn't in play here. Both images are nice
- Noise is slightly greater in the 6D, but seems similar and clean up should be no problem with either. No?
- Last I checked 750 was FF, no?
- Is the Canon not as "pushed" in gain in that graph? Or are you showing me a stop more DR? Either way... not sure what that means to me. If I push that cr2 on exposure and take down the luminance/saturation I bet they would be very close indeed. But can't know for sure.
What is it about using what you like that seems so alien? I happen to like both images. Either will do for the setting chosen. With skin tones I'm afraid I do not like the Nikon/Sony weighing. Far too red/maroon/org for me it seems. I think Canon much more pleasing. You could show me all the graphs you want. BTDT.
Didn't use one brand of guitar either. Different sounds for different ... well, sounds
You were upset from the very beginning everytime someone gave some info that didn't put your beloved camera at the top. This is not new, forums are full of fanboys. I am not wasting my time in those discussions, sorry.
-
Guys, guys, guys..... Please!
We are talking cameras here - it's not rocket science. I cannot seriously believe anyone thinks there is more than a smidgen difference in image quality between Nikon and Canon - or even Sony or Pentax for that matter. Even the Oly or Panansonic are good enough most of the time. Unless you have a very specific requirement - perhaps a tilt-shift lens or a particular need for 36 megapixels.
Nick - I said it before - you are over thinking all this. You're only buying a camera not the company. Don't try to speculate the future intentions of any of the companies. Whatever body you buy, within three years you will be changing it because it will be soooo dated. They all take good pictures - if you have the skill. Just see which one fits your hand and eye the best - you will not go wrong.
Jim
-
Or buy a used cockpit so you have more dials.
-
You were upset from the very beginning everytime someone gave some info that didn't put your beloved camera at the top. This is not new, forums are full of fanboys. I am not wasting my time in those discussions, sorry.
I'm not a bit upset. I'm not a fanboi. Have Canon, Leica and Sony right now, use them all frequently.. had Nikon up until about a year ago with a great body, the D4. Have Oly on the shelf but rare/almost never use it anymore.
Considering a GH4 for video, but don't think I want to go deep into smaller sensors
You're the one who is itching to prove others "wrong". Should a buy a car like yours? Drink a beverage like yours? Wear clothes your style because you do?
I want everyone to like their equipment and have fun, be creative. You're the rigid one. Just re-read what we each wrote... no upset at all, I like what I like, and hope you do too. My message hasn't changed, you keep escalating. and now you're calling me names. not compelling stuff I'm afraid.
-
I cannot seriously believe anyone thinks there is more than a smidgen difference in image quality between Nikon and Canon - or even Sony or Pentax for that matter. Even the Oly or Panansonic are good enough most of the time. Unless you have a very specific requirement - perhaps a tilt-shift lens or a particular need for 36 megapixels.
Nick - I said it before - you are over thinking all this. You're only buying a camera not the company.
The voice of reason! Seriously.
-
IMO it's time for Nick to ignore all of us and make his decision on his own. ;)
-Dave-
-
Michael Reichman, in his article about the Pentax 645z, makes the point that how a camera feels and operates will often trump technical specs in his decision making. That works for me as well.
That's certainly true. The way a camera feels in the hand, the viewfinder, live view, the quality of the auto-iso implementation, the damping of the mirror,... are essential for some types of photography.
On the other hand, aspects such as how plasticy a non touch screen feels (and the D750 screen feels very robust to me), .00x % differences in the contrast of the top LCD display, the degree of resistance of the rotative dials in a newly manufacturered camera (we all know those change after a few days usage),... are secundary for anyone intending to use his camera to take photographs.
As far as all cameras offering identical image quality, until the current generation of Sony sensors I was never able to capture comfortably daily scenes such as this one,... always ending up with noisy shadows, un-natural transitions in highlights,... So I don't share the marxist view that everything is the same. ;) I didn't have to look very far, this image was shot last night.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7487/15683555792_2fcdcd961c_o.jpg)
IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm accepting about 75% of what you say. If you see at most a smidgen, then go with that... no problem.
But to my eye there are definite differences between the rendering of different bodies. Quite a big one some cases and then there are "ergonomic issues" as well
All will take good pictures, you're right, but they are not equivalent
An artist should be able to use the palette and gamut they like. Then sweeten to suit their taste as well. it's all part of the fun of this democratic hobby.
One needn't like or emulate anyone else to appreciate and accept their preferences. That's silly
Guys, guys, guys..... Please!
We are talking cameras here - it's not rocket science. I cannot seriously believe anyone thinks there is more than a smidgen difference in image quality between Nikon and Canon - or even Sony or Pentax for that matter. Even the Oly or Panansonic are good enough most of the time. Unless you have a very specific requirement - perhaps a tilt-shift lens or a particular need for 36 megapixels.
Nick - I said it before - you are over thinking all this. You're only buying a camera not the company. Don't try to speculate the future intentions of any of the companies. Whatever body you buy, within three years you will be changing it because it will be soooo dated. They all take good pictures - if you have the skill. Just see which one fits your hand and eye the best - you will not go wrong.
Jim
-
Sure.
Everyone should use what they like, but that choice is going to be different for everyone. Some weighted more to ergonomics, some weighted more to IQ and every stop inbetween.
This is why in the end you can't make someone's mind up for them.
In my experience as a musician I see people agonising over minor details and spec sheets, when in reality they should just get on and start making music (pictures in this case).
A professional photojournalist is going to achieve better results out of a box brownie than I ever will.
So sure, try and choose the best tool for the job, but there is a great danger of over thinking it, and getting lost down a rabbit hole of spec sheets and conflicting advice.
-
At this point, everyone is basically saying the same thing. ;D
-
Exactly - and the point being that they all can make good pictures - you just have to find the one that works for you - and the only way to do that is to get one and use it extensively.
My Canon 1Ds3 is a superb picture making tool - I cannot fault it and after six years it's like an extension to my eye. That's not to say it's better than anything else - it works for me.
Jim
-
Well, gentlemen, I just got back from the camera store where I spent the last three hours playing with the D750 and 6D. Along with the Fuji X-T1 and X-E1 (for about five minutes).
Both the Canon and Nikon continued to grow on me and I was soon chimping like a champ. Then something surprising started to happen. The D750 started to grow on me more than the 6D.
Now I just need to work out if the price premium for the Nikon is worth it for me. It's about $1300 more than the Canon equivalent of the Nikon body and the 70-200 f4 VR3. Which is an additional lens for the 6D.
Bernard, I think you hit the nail on the head in your post about getting clean shadows in your night street shot. It is one of the key reasons why I decided to go full-frame. That's a great night shot. Lovely colours and tonality. Is that the D750? What lens did you use?
-
If price is a concern, the 610 might also figure into the equation.
-
Thanks, Synn. I looked at the D610 and I agree it would be a good option.
The only negative I have about the Nikon zooms that I looked at, the 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f4, is that they aren't weathersealed. I also wish Nikon did a weathersealed, VR, f4 version of the 14-24 f2.8. Unfortunately, Photozone.de only gives the 16-35 f4 a 2.5 star rating.
EDIT: Photozone.de may have reviewed the VRI version and not the VRII of the 16-35 f4.
I did find that the D750 hunted a bit in the shop with the 70-200 f4. I was wondering if that might have been an earlier version of the lens. But the camera was configured to use a single AF point and I didn't know how to set the group AF. The 6D kept up with the D750 when using the cross-type single AF point.
I was reading about the Samsung NX1 AF today. It has over 100 cross-type PDAF points covering about 90% of the sensor. Over 200 sensors in total. Samsung is aiming at introducing disruptive technology into the mix and if the camera and lenses perform they may just succeed.
-
Nikon has produced only one version of the 16-35. I have it and having used it literally on the edge of some serious waves (camera was on a gorilla pod on a rock getting full brunt of the waves) as well as in a decent drizzle, I can assure you that unless you plan to dunk it completely in water, it will do fine. Follow the link in my signature and you will see images taken with it in several conditions.
I also have the 70-200 f/4 and it is actually one of the fastest lenses to acquire focus on my D800. Perhaps, you had it in AF-C and/ or focus priority modes? Press the little button on the left side of the lens mount, turn the two control wheels until you get "AF S and 51 point" or "AF C and 3D tracking" and see how fast it snaps on to target.
I would suggest this article to learn more about Nikon AF features and how to use them: http://photographylife.com/dslr-autofocus-modes-explained
It is also a very good site to look for real world Nikon gear reviews. Both those lenses have been reviewed by them.
-
Like I said before, I'd get canons for the lenses, but this thread is the first one where I have seen someone praise canon's ergonomics over nikons.
Never used a Nikon that I didn't find clunky. And I've seen plenty of others prefer Canon handling. Nikon always feel like they do things differently from others, just to be different and not for any real reason. But if you use only Nikon stuff that's not an issue.
To this date, I can't understand why canon puts the power button in the worst areas possible and not around the shutter release, which makes switching on and shooting such a natural thing to do.
Or easier to knock accidentally.....
Or the incredibly weird angle of the front control dial. Or the amazingly useful direct print button. Their fidgety joystick never lets one select the right focus point as precisely as the nikon multi controller and I don't think they wrap back when reaching the edge of af point coverage either. They won't let you swap the functions of the two dials. Up until recently, spot metering was not tied to currently selected AF point in canons. The speedlight system is unnecessarily complex. And so on. In fact, canon's iterative improvements scream "design by commitee".
I have my fair share of beef with nikon, which I have mentioned in this forum many times, but ergonomics and usability is definitely not amongst them.
But if you used Canons all the time, you'd probably find Nikons a bit odd and I've never noticed any odd angle re the dial near button, but the dials certainly could be improved. Though the speedlight's complexity would definitely still be pants no matter how often you used them. I never use the AF controller, as the only AF system I ever liked was the eye control on the EOS 3. It worked perfectly and frustratingly never been used on any camera again.
The main difference I find between the two systems is that I need an instruction manual for one and not the other. Whenever I used Nikons I've had to ask other people including Nikon staff how to do something quite basic and every time they've been stumped. Any camera that I can't work basics out after a few minutes playing with it has not exactly been designed well.
All manufacturers should allow you to customize every button/dial on their bodies, that way everyone would be happy.
-
Thanks, synn. It looks like the 16-35 f4 ED VR started off with VR II.
I'll check out the AF on the 70-200 next chance I get. Good to hear that it is resistant to water spray. I'll be walking around India with it and the dust can come up there, too. Apparently it does have a seal on the lens mount.
I think I can see the two lenses in my shopping basket. The other option is that I just buy a single ultra wide angle 20mm f1.8 prime. But honestly, it is nice to have a whole bunch wrapped up in a zoom. Not sure how good the lens is compared to primes, though. Apparently the zoom doesn't have great micro-contrast.
-
Apologies, but I don't see a single point in your list that affects significantly actual image capturing abilities.
Is that because his preference wasn't for the Nikon? he gave plenty of reasons that make sense for himself. I realise the fact he preferred the non-Nikon must cause you pain, but you must learn to accept not everyone wants a Nikon. :P
The only conclusion I can draw from your decision to focus on these points is that your interest is not in capturing images but in handling cameras in a way not related to the the capture of photographs.
That is of course fine, but we would have saved time had you told use from the onset that photographic outcome isn't a priority of yours. ;)
Well Nick wouldn't be upgrading if that wasn't the case.
Good handling of a camera is probably more important than absolute image quality for most people, unless one is an anal pixel peeper. Most modern cameras produce cracking results and if a camera has crappy ergonomics I don't care if it's image quality is slightly better if it has handling that I do not like or worse gets in the way of getting the shot. The Fuji XT1 does that for me with its annoying retro shutter dial, I'd consider buying one otherwise.
-
Is that because his preference wasn't for the Nikon? he gave plenty of reasons that make sense for himself. I realise the fact he preferred the non-Nikon must cause you pain, but you must learn to accept not everyone wants a Nikon. :P
Instead of your usual personal attacks and aggressive tone, how about reacting on the content for a change? Nick has himself stated that he prefers the way the D750 feels in his hands, so this isn't about camera handling.
I just don't understand his rationale, that disturbs the engineer in me.
I guess you do since you seem to share his point of view. Are you able to explain better than him?
Well Nick wouldn't be upgrading if that wasn't the case.
How so? I see tens of people around me who keep buying new cameras but hardly produce any images with them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
@jjj: Fair enough, maybe the Canonfolk see Nikon just as weird. ;D
I started my film journey with a dinky ol' Vivitar SLR and when I was about to make the digital switch, I looked at a Canon 350D (I think?) first. I remember being infuriated by the extreme plastickyness, the tiny size and so many buttons sharing functions. Tried a D70s which felt man-sized, was built well, had a dedicated button for pretty much everything etc. Never looked back.
I have also worked extensively with the 5D Mk II since then and found many of the design choices still questionable. Anyway, different strokes for different folks.
@Nick: Do remember that to complete the weather sealing for Canon and Nikon lenses (Even the pro lenses, as advised by both companies), you need to add a clear filter in the front. I don't do this as I do not want to add another optical element in the imaging pathway if I can help it. So far, so good.
The Canikon lenses are weather resistant, not fully weather SEALED, like some Olympus and Pentax lenses are.
-
Nick has himself stated that he prefers the way the D750 feels in his hands, so this isn't about camera handling.
I just don't understand his rationale, that disturbs the engineer in me.
He said:
Both the Canon and Nikon continued to grow on me and I was soon chimping like a champ. Then something surprising started to happen. The D750 started to grow on me more than the 6D.
No mention of 'handling'. Who knows why something grows on you more than another product. Does everything have to be rational....have a rationale?
-
Ah, good to know, synn.
Regarding the weather sealing, it would be good if the manufacturers would introduce a proper IPX rating.
Guys, I can understand that my comments might not make sense. Part of that probably comes from me trying to articulate something with which I just don't yet have enough of an understanding. I guess that is why most people who have a lot of experience and skill, in any field, don't interact so much with beginners unless they are specifically instructing or helping them. It can be just too frustrating haha.
Beginners and intermediate learners come to understand their own needs and wants over time and through experience and I'm trying to bypass this process and anticipate what gear will keep me satisfied for the next few years. Which is what Jim is seeing, I think, and why he is suggesting I take a step back from so much analysis. I have to agree.
Cheers,
Nick
-
They might, but imagine trying to sell your Samsung body while in Thailand or getting a new lens while on the way to india. Won't be anywhere as easy as with canikon or your old Olympus. At least for the near future.
Everything has its own pluses and minuses. It's all about correlating with our own priorities.
-
Btw, one thing to be aware of with the D750 is that metering seems pretty inconsistent with non Nikon and/or non chipped lenses (probably non chipped lenses) such as the Zeiss CFi 150mm f4 I was shooting with yesterday.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3938/15070096234_8c8e56d107_o.jpg)
Great lens btw, don't know why I didn't try these Hassy V Zeiss wonders earlier! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Instead of your usual personal attacks and aggressive tone, how about reacting on the content for a change? Nick has himself stated that he prefers the way the D750 feels in his hands, so this isn't about camera handling.
You need to lighten up as I wasn't being aggressive, though I was certainly joking about your usual Nikon worshiping. BTW Nick only later stated that he had warmed to the Nikon, after your post where bizarrely you had a go at him for not caring about image because he prefered a non- Nikon.
I just don't understand his rationale, that disturbs the engineer in me.
You were disturbed because Nick marginally prefered the handling ergonomics [which is is very much a personal thing] of a non-Nikon camera!?!
Lots of people prefer Canons to Nikons. :o Others prefer Olympus to Canon and so on....
I guess you do since you seem to share his point of view. Are you able to explain better than him?
Really? You want me to explain someone else's personal preferences re two cameras, which were explained particularly well by Nick anyway. Besides I don't care which camera is bought as long as the owner likes it.
How so? I see tens of people around me who keep buying new cameras but hardly produce any images with them.
Well Nick stated the whole point in upgrading was to increase image quality ....for me it is only the result that matters and full-frame still produces a noticeable improvement in tonality and acuity, especially at high ISO.
and it was Nick that I was talking about, not the people around you. Plus why is the number of photos they produce relevant? Some people take loads of photos, none of which are of any interest to anyone bar themselves. But they enjoy it so that's fine, as is it with those who buy new cameras and take very few images. As long as they are happy no-one else should be bothered.
-
Beginners and intermediate learners come to understand their own needs and wants over time and through experience and I'm trying to bypass this process and anticipate what gear will keep me satisfied for the next few years. Which is what Jim is seeing, I think, and why he is suggesting I take a step back from so much analysis. I have to agree.
Cheers,
Nick
Nick - Yes that is right - you cannot shortcut experience. As you can see from the Canon/Nikon divide, or even full-frame/APSC/M34 choice, there is no one answer even for very experienced photographers.
Then to cap it all you are asking a very diverse bunch of people advice on buying a new system. There are some here who can tell you every spec about a camera and lens and even which one produces the sharpest pictures under any set of circumstances. But they may not actually shoot that much, or may even not be able to make good pictures because they are too obsessed with the gear. If you use any system extensively and concentrate on making pictures you will get good results - with any system.
Your comment to Bernard above about his nighttime picture was a classic "I love your picture, what gear did you use?". It's almost irrelevant to the picture making - especially when viewing on the web. That picture as viewed on my screen could have been taken with almost any camera. If you love Bernard's pictures - its not the camera that's responsible.
As this is a photography forum I like posting pictures. Here are two that I like - can anyone tell what camera they were taken with (not looking at the EXIF)!
Jim
-
Nick - Yes that is right - you cannot shortcut experience. As you can see from the Canon/Nikon divide, or even full-frame/APSC/M34 choice, there is no one answer even for very experienced photographers.
And they can be even more biased/set in their ways than anyone else. ;)
Then to cap it all you are asking a very diverse bunch of people advice on buying a new system. There are some here who can tell you every spec about a camera and lens and even which one produces the sharpest pictures under any set of circumstances. But they may not actually shoot that much, or may even not be able to make good pictures because they are too obsessed with the gear.
Or is it the other way around? They obsess over gear as they cannot take interesting photos.
If you use any system extensively and concentrate on making pictures you will get good results - with any system.
Absolutely. Though for specialist work, you may need specific equipment. T/S lenses for architecture not all systems have such kit.
Your comment to Bernard above about his nighttime picture was a classic "I love your picture, what gear did you use?". It's almost irrelevant to the picture making - especially when viewing on the web. That picture as viewed on my screen could have been taken with almost any camera. If you love Bernard's pictures - its not the camera that's responsible.
It would be Bernard I hope. ;D
As this is a photography forum I like posting pictures. Here are two that I like - can anyone tell what camera they were taken with (not looking at the EXIF)!
Oddly I prefer the top one despite having a strong bias to low imagery, was it taken on a Kodak Instamatic?
-
And they can be even more biased/set in their ways than anyone else. ;)
Or is it the other way around? They obsess over gear as they cannot take interesting photos.
Absolutely. Though for specialist work, you may need specific equipment. T/S lenses for architecture not all systems have such kit.
It would be Bernard I hope. ;D
Oddly I prefer the top one despite having a strong bias to low imagery, was it taken on a Kodak Instamatic?
I would add that I am not directly having a go at anyone in this particular thread! I will wait till a few more people have seen the pictures before revealing the cameras used. They are current-ish quality cameras though. I only included the market-place picture because it is a similar low-light image to Bernard's. And no it was not taken on a Kodak Instamatic you rude man - do you take me for the sort of guy would use such rubbish? ;D
-
I would add that I am not directly having a go at anyone in this particular thread! I will wait till a few more people have seen the pictures before revealing the cameras used. They are current-ish quality cameras though. I only included the market-place picture because it is a similar low-light image to Bernard's.
Jim,
Those are 2 night pictures, but the key difference is that there are no highlights where you attempted to keep details. If you have ever been in Japan, you'll know that retaining detail in the lanterns in front of the store is the key challenge here. If takes a very important under-exposure of the whole scene to get the rending shown in my image.
Back the main topic, here are some images captured with the D750 today. You may want to try opening the original files in PS as they are downsized significantly for display here.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7472/15676919546_d8c53b7fc5_o.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3947/15080690384_407dd28622_o.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3949/15514771459_1fd048be77_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5600/15514772179_1ffbcac56f_o.jpg)
Lenses used are 70-200 f4 VR and 400mm f2.8 E FL.
More after the link (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/) (some captured with the D810).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jim,
Those are 2 night pictures, but the key difference is that there are no highlights where you attempted to keep details. If you have ever been in Japan, you'll know that retaining detail in the lanterns in front of the store is the key challenge here. If takes a very important under-exposure of the whole scene to get the rending shown in my image.
Back the main topic, here are some images captured with the D750 today. You may want to try opening the original files in PS as they are downsized significantly for display here.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7472/15676919546_d8c53b7fc5_o.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3947/15080690384_407dd28622_o.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3949/15514771459_1fd048be77_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5600/15514772179_1ffbcac56f_o.jpg)[/url]
Lenses used are 70-200 f4 VR and 400mm f2.8 E FL.
More after the link (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/) (some captured with the D810).
Cheers,
Bernard
Ah - that's what we like to see - pictures! Great stuff Bernard! Now those are the sort I would say a DSLR would have the edge over M43 in my experience.
Jim
-
Ah - that's what we like to see - pictures! Great stuff Bernard! Now those are the sort I would say a DSLR would have the edge over M43 in my experience.
Why is that?
-
Why is that?
I was generalising and mainly referring to the top picture where the rider appears to be moving. My GH2's were fairly poor at tracking moving subjects approaching quite quickly, and the E-M1 is a bit better. But if I was going to shoot horses galloping then I would probably grab either the 1Ds3 or my wife's 5D3 and the 70-200mm. The focus tracking on those is excellent. But I did say in 'my experience' - could be down to poor technique of course!
Jim
-
Those are beautiful images, Bernard.
With the right light, ETTR and a good lens (Olympus 75/1.8) it might be possible to get images looking closer to those on the E-M5, E-M10 or E-M1. But it is not the norm. As soon as the sensor gets stressed you can kiss that beautiful depth of colour, tonality and crisp acuity goodbye.
Sohail Karmani gets great results out of his E-M5. However, I don't think he shoots low light much:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sohailkarmani/15516011268/
He uses mostly primes and I think primes make a much bigger difference to quality on less capable sensors. Not so much on fantastic sensors like that in the D750. Anyone agree?
-
I was generalising and mainly referring to the top picture where the rider appears to be moving. My GH2's were fairly poor at tracking moving subjects approaching quite quickly, and the E-M1 is a bit better. But if I was going to shoot horses galloping then I would probably grab either the 1Ds3 or my wife's 5D3 and the 70-200mm. The focus tracking on those is excellent. But I did say in 'my experience' - could be down to poor technique of course!
Plenty of DSLRs with iffy autofocus. :-\
-
I think we have been over this before
the better that sensor the more delta from better glass.
most high quality lenses out-resolve most sensors, so better sensors get more out of any given lens
Those are beautiful images, Bernard.
With the right light, ETTR and a good lens (Olympus 75/1.8) it might be possible to get images looking closer to those on the E-M5, E-M10 or E-M1. But it is not the norm. As soon as the sensor gets stressed you can kiss that beautiful depth of colour, tonality and crisp acuity goodbye.
Sohail Karmani gets great results out of his E-M5. However, I don't think he shoots low light much:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sohailkarmani/15516011268/
He uses mostly primes and I think primes make a much bigger difference to quality on less capable sensors. Not so much on fantastic sensors like that in the D750. Anyone agree?
-
..........looking closer to those on the E-M5, E-M10 or E-M1. But it is not the norm. ........
I don't have every camera, not a D650 but just about every format.
I do know that the 4/3 cameras don't focus well with tracking except the gh4 (for stills not video) the gh3 (for video not stills), the olympus is part time tracking.
In other words the oly focuses so fast you can shoot single exposures by focus click as long as you do it quickly.
In regards to dr I don't measure them on a chart but I did one series with an 1dx and em-5 (just to see what would happen) and the em-5 held more range than the 1dx, which shocked me.
Also the em-5 picks up more colors than the em1 though they have different sensors. The em-5 a sony sensor, the em-1 panasonic.
M43 is good until you get to 800 iso but then again I have a different view of how well most cameras work well in advertised high iso.
The ones that go higher seem to loose the ability to pick up specific colors, but I'd bet my opinion on this is pretty rare on an equipment forum that measures most things by high iso and low noise.
IMO
BC
-
Not here, I look at the image first. If you want equipment for Photo-Reproduction then your interests are really somewhere else. This is what causes me to sometimes be mis-understood by guys who choose cameras "by the numbers'
What surprises me is you statement about the DR of Oly vs. 1Dx
What were your parameters?
I don't have every camera, not a D650 but just about every format.
I do know that the 4/3 cameras don't focus well with tracking except the gh4 (for stills not video) the gh3 (for video not stills), the olympus is part time tracking.
In other words the oly focuses so fast you can shoot single exposures by focus click as long as you do it quickly.
In regards to dr I don't measure them on a chart but I did one series with an 1dx and em-5 (just to see what would happen) and the em-5 held more range than the 1dx, which shocked me.
Also the em-5 picks up more colors than the em1 though they have different sensors. The em-5 a sony sensor, the em-1 panasonic.
M43 is good until you get to 800 iso but then again I have a different view of how well most cameras work well in advertised high iso.
The ones that go higher seem to loose the ability to pick up specific colors, but I'd bet my opinion on this is pretty rare on an equipment forum that measures most things by high iso and low noise.
IMO
BC
-
I was generalising and mainly referring to the top picture where the rider appears to be moving. My GH2's were fairly poor at tracking moving subjects approaching quite quickly, and the E-M1 is a bit better. But if I was going to shoot horses galloping then I would probably grab either the 1Ds3 or my wife's 5D3 and the 70-200mm. The focus tracking on those is excellent. But I did say in 'my experience' - could be down to poor technique of course!
The first one (and many others on Flickr) was challenging technically for 3 reasons:
- focus: these horses move as fast as they can (meaning about 15-20 m/sec), and the horse itself can interfere with the rider. The field of view was obstucted in parts to the left (these events get incredibly crowded) which prevented me from adding TC to the 400mm f2.8 to increase the distance,
- timing: there was only a 5-6m space with good light through trees, through which the running horses went in about 0.25-0.3 sec, you need 6 img/sec to be sure to get it right,
- Exposure: there was about 2.5 stop difference btwn the location with good light and what was there 5m left, and light was fluctuating because of the play of clouds.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What surprises me is you statement about the DR of Oly vs. 1Dx
What were your parameters?
DxO seems to agree: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___909_753
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've wondered if the E-M5 has a better sensor than the E-M1 because of the need for the E-M1 to generate a dark frame exposure (long exposure noise reduction) to mask out the excessive hot noise from its sensor. Whereas the E-M5 doesn't have that need.
-
So glad you can find some data. but that's at base ISO. I don't know why really smart engineering types post non-contextual data unless it's agenda driven. For me at least the camera is a very dynamic tool. One data point.... really? Reduce as complex a system as a modern sensor and chip-set to a single number...? Does that make you comfortable? That's Consumer's Reports kind of gibberish
No one says the 1Dx is a good base ISO camera. Much more bang and fewer bucks (and kg) in other cameras if the lights are up. Like your fine Nikon 750's and 800's or several others
But if DR is really your thing, and you don't shoot everything at 200-400 ISO, perhaps you should consider a more nuanced test, as here;
http://sensorgen.info
Now the range comes into view and it's easy to see that in low light the A7s, D4s, D4 and 1Dx have a distinct advantage. Which is where they will get used for many of us.
Actually I look at more than DR but it seems a place where the Nikon folks like to dwell. As you can see the A7s is among the best of the best as well in this regard... the 1Dx being rather good too...!
I don't understand why the bashing goes on. There is no "Perfect" camera. Just different tools depending upon the job at hand and the artist's desires.
DxO seems to agree: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___909_753
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So glad you can find some data. but that's at base ISO. I don't know why really smart engineering types post non-contextual data unless it's agenda driven. For me at least the camera is a very dynamic tool. One data point.... really? Reduce as complex a system as a modern sensor and chip-set to a single number...? Does that make you comfortable. That's Consumer's Reports kind of gibberish
No one says the 1Dx is a good base ISO camera. Much more bang and fewer bucks (and kg) in other cameras if the lights are up. Like your fine Nikon 750's and 800's or several others
Allegretto,
DxO has DR curves showing DR as a function of ISO. I don't see what is lacking nuance about their results.
The 1Dx clearly leaves the Olympus in the dust at higher ISOs.
Actually I look at more than DR but it seems a place where the Nikon folks like to dwell. As you can see the A7s is among the best of the best as well in this regard... the 1Dx being rather good too...!
Certainly. This isn't a Canon vs Nikon discussion as far as I am concerned.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, those are very interesting images of the archers on horseback. I had not thought that Japan might have an active "war re-enacter" hobbyist or sporting community. Now there's a challenge, shooting accurately from horseback.
-
Bernard, those are very interesting images of the archers on horseback. I had not thought that Japan might have an active "war re-enacter" hobbyist or sporting community.
Nancy,
Thanks.
Yabusame is tradition dating backing back the 8th century... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
BTW:
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/02/nikon-d750-camera-review-and-comparison-with-the-d810.aspx/#more-82726
http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
This matches my view after having now shot around 1,000 frames with the D750 vs the D810. I end up carrying the D750 a lot more for "generic" shooting. I must confess that I was not really a believer in tilted screens till now, but they are very useful and a tremendous contributor to creative shooting with wider lenses! Olympus was right all along.
The main issue with the D750 right now is that it isn't supported by C1 Pro 8 yet. ;)
It would probably be good for Nick to look for similar reviews written by Canon wedding shooters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
sorry Bernard all good by me. I just looked at the first page of DxO and didn't drill too deep, my bad. I really like Sensorgen because I like the methodology and the actual data. I guess I just reflexively recoil at things like DxO or (gulp) dpreview who try to reduce something as rich and complex as a cameras dynamic characteristics to a couple of simplistic indexes.
Don't know how many feel but I'm sure I could use any brand and get comparable results from similarly designed models. It's the nuances that sometimes don't lend them selves to quantitative analysis that make real differences to me as well as the numbers.
Allegretto,
DxO has DR curves showing DR as a function of ISO. I don't see what is lacking nuance about their results.
The 1Dx clearly leaves the Olympus in the dust at higher ISOs.
Certainly. This isn't a Canon vs Nikon discussion as far as I am concerned.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Happily the A7s is and this is an amazing walk-around all-court player... and is covered by C1
It's really great when a product just makes your mind race with the possibilities that simply were not open before.
-
Don't know how many feel but I'm sure I could use any brand and get comparable results from similarly designed models. It's the nuances that sometimes don't lend them selves to quantitative analysis that make real differences to me as well as the numbers.
Well, talented photographer can clearly produce winning images with basically any camera. Besides, the more "creative" your work is, the less relevant the technical aspects.
I certainly agree that there is no universally superior camera, but I do think that there are differences and that some bodies are superior for some applications.
Among all rounders, the 5DIII and D750 stand out in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
wait... what...???
5DIII...???!!! surely you mean.... "...for wedding photographers..."... no?
Well, talented photographer can clearly produce winning images with basically any camera. Besides, the more "creative" your work is, the less relevant the technical aspects.
I certainly agree that there is no universally superior camera, but I do think that there are differences and that some bodies are superior for some applications.
Among all rounders, the 5DIII and D750 stand out in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
wait... what...???
5DIII...???!!! surely you mean.... "...for wedding photographers..."... no?
Yes, I mean cameras doing everything pretty well. Indeed, wedding is a very good measure of that (including flash photography).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What surprises me is you statement about the DR of Oly vs. 1Dx
What were your parameters?
I rarely have done this, and don't judge this image for artistic merit, as the scene is from a motion shoot where we shot tight on different cutaways.
Anyway, we intentionally let the windows blow, because the bg was under construction and working tight looked good, but since I had a break after this shot I did about 10 frames with the 1dx and 10 with the em-5.
Working out of lightroom, I couldn't pull any detail from the windows of the 1dx and the em-5 not much more . . . but some.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/em5_1dx.jpg)
It surprised me also.
Now the em-5 is not a workhorse camera and I bought it just because I like it, bought the em-1 thinking it would be better.
The em-1 is a better camera, but not a better sensor or whatever causes the look and not just dr or numbers (know very little about dxo or any of those sites because I don't care) but the look of the em-5 when shot properly is quite pretty, the em-1 is very dslr looking.
But the em-1 is really one nicely put together camera. If you hold a Sony A series next to an em-1 you'd think the Sony was the unfinished prototype in build quality.
That's not an indichtment against the Sony, or for the olympus, just MY observation and all of this is quite personal.
In fact I loved the thought of the A7 series, having high iso for motion, high rez for stills, but for the life of me just can't warm up to the cameras, as they are missing some functions I need.
Actually in regards to NIkon, or any brand fixation, until the d800 I've always owned Nikon equipment, but got so turned off by the fan boys, I wouldn't buy one.
I know that's not rational, but who said rational was right?
IMO
BC
-
I just looked at the first page of DxO and didn't drill too deep, my bad. I really like Sensorgen because I like the methodology and the actual data. I guess I just reflexively recoil at things like DxO or (gulp) dpreview who try to reduce something as rich and complex as a cameras dynamic characteristics to a couple of simplistic indexes.
This only happens if the observer doesn't care of looking at all the information DxO provides. In other words it's your fault not DxO's.
In fact they used to provide the complete SNR curves, see here:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/digitalp02/snr_d200.gif)
That predict SNR for any ISO and any RAW level (the DR figure could be calculated from those curves with any threshold SNR desired criteria, for instance a much more practical for photographers SNR=12dB than the currently used SNR=0dB engineering value).
They probably stopped publishing these graphs when other sites like Sensorgen started to used these detailed data to obtain extra sensor parameters.
Regards
-
Actually in regards to NIkon, or any brand fixation, until the d800 I've always owned Nikon equipment, but got so turned off by the fan boys, I wouldn't buy one.
I know that's not rational, but who said rational was right?
That's the beautiful thing about art, it isn't about reason!
It is hard to be stop being influenced by emotions when thinking equipment while emotions are a key driving force of the creative process relying on those pieces of equipment.
What's the problem with that?
You are the perfect example proving that a talented photographer can shoot with pretty much any camera and still get first class results.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You want to see sheer emotion - go to the build-it-yourself board on the Large Format forum.
-
…until the d800 I've always owned Nikon equipment, but got so turned off by the fan boys, I wouldn't buy one.
I know that's not rational, but who said rational was right?
When it comes to photo gear I almost always go by impulse, both in the buying and the day-to-day using. In much of the rest of my life this would lead to disaster, but for photography and travel it works out great. :)
-Dave-
-
+1
I generally watch user feedback, and maybe read the odd revue. I've never bought anything based on a spec sheet or mathematical analysis on a website like DxO.
Each to their own though (absolutely).
-
The first one (and many others on Flickr) was challenging technically for 3 reasons:
- focus: these horses move as fast as they can (meaning about 15-20 m/sec), and the horse itself can interfere with the rider. The field of view was obstucted in parts to the left (these events get incredibly crowded) which prevented me from adding TC to the 400mm f2.8 to increase the distance,
- timing: there was only a 5-6m space with good light through trees, through which the running horses went in about 0.25-0.3 sec, you need 6 img/sec to be sure to get it right,
- Exposure: there was about 2.5 stop difference btwn the location with good light and what was there 5m left, and light was fluctuating because of the play of clouds.
Cheers,
Bernard
Which just goes to prove it's what's behind the camera that is the key ingredient.
Jim
-
You want to see sheer emotion - go to the build-it-yourself board on the Large Format forum.
Nancy, do you have a specific discussion in mind?
-
Which just goes to prove it's what's behind the camera that is the key ingredient.
Jim
Thank you, but I think that the camera's AF played a key role here.
I don't believe that D610/6D class cameras would have allowed me to capture the scene the way I wanted too. A 5DIII/1DX/D4s certainly would have.
Back to Nick's question, this isn't the Canon vs Nikon discussion that a few posters have attempted to turn this into, but it doesn't mean that the 6D and D750 belong to the same category. Just like the 6D and 5DIII aren't in the same category either.
That has been the point all along and I would have made the same comments had Nick told us that he prefers the sound of the zoom button on the 6D compared to that of the 5DIII and identified that as a sign that the guys at Canon designing the low end FF bodies are the brightest bunch within Canon. I would have answered him the same way... which is that the AF of the 5DIII is an order of magnitude more important than the sound of a button.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They [DXO Mark] probably stopped publishing these graphs when other sites like Sensorgen started to used these detailed data to obtain extra sensor parameters.
Regards
I don't know what you mean, I can see these graphs in the DXO Mark site, even for recent cameras such as the Nikon D810 and D750. (sometimes they take forever to load)
-
No, it is just evident that there is no pride in using a camera like the pride of a photographer who built his own camera. Labors of love!
-
No, it is just evident that there is no pride in using a camera like the pride of a photographer who built his own camera. Labors of love!
I would argue that having built a camera oneself is the only case when ownership should generate pride.
How could just having spent money to buy a good manufactured by somebody else generate pride is something I can't quite understand. ;)
I can understand being proud in one's ability to make a good living in our tough world, but the material symbols deriving from this are not legitimate objects of pride in my view.
Being proud of images generated with a camera does make sense, but to me that's the sole and only role a camera plays and the selection of a camera should only be based on its ability to generate optimally the images one intends to capture (and yes, that includes of course the usability of the camera body).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How could having spent money to buy a good manufactured by somebody else generate pride is something I can't quite understand.
Well don't say that too loudly, Bernard, if people listen to you, you'll destroy one of the motivating forces of the free economy. It's called 'pride-of-ownership' and that's what so many advertisers play on when they try and persuade us to buy their (luxury) products.
It extends from iPhones to pens, handbags, cars, yachts, private jets - anything that could be considered a 'status symbol'. Sad but true.
Indulging in semantics, I'd suggest that, with the exception of jpegs, images are not 'generated' in camera, they're 'captured' in camera. More often than not, the images are generated by skill and technical competence, whether that was development and hand-made prints in the old analogue days or post-processing and printing in the digital domain today.
-
Well don't say that too loudly, Bernard, if people listen to you, you'll destroy one of the motivating forces of the free economy. It's called 'pride-of-ownership' and that's what so many advertisers play on when they try and persuade us to buy their (luxury) products.
It extends from iPhones to pens, handbags, cars, yachts, private jets - anything that could be considered a 'status symbol'. Sad but true.
Exactly! But I would hope photographers to be smart enough to understand that this is merely ego flattering consumerist crap. ;)
I guess that I still go by this romantic image of photographers being a superior bunch able to cast an objective look at the world surrounding them. Able to see not just through their viewfinder, but also through and beyond the things that they see.
BMW came up 15-20 years ago with an add campaign in the French speaking parts of Europe that said "L'echo de votre ego", which would translate into "echoeing your ego". That was so touchingly genuine and transparent in its messaging that it made me lough to no end! ;)
Indulging in semantics, I'd suggest that, with the exception of jpegs, images are not 'generated' in camera, they're 'captured' in camera. More often than not, the images are generated by skill and technical competence, whether that was development and hand-made prints in the old analogue days or post-processing and printing in the digital domain today.
Indeed!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it.
Nothing wrong with having even more pride in being able to create noteworthy images with it.
This whole "Everyone's a winner" stuff belongs in little league. The real world doesn't work that way.
-
I've never been able to build anything.
I understand how it would build a sense of achievement and pride.
I'm very happy to own the gear I own, and enjoy using it immensely.
-
Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it.
In a world where most people have anyway a large debt related to real estate/cars/..., the decision to buy a camera is really little more than asset mgt, or put it otherwise, how much you are willing to enslave yourself to a banking corporation.
I see zero legitimate reason to be proud of that. The only skills it takes is optimism and/or blindness (and, yes, a bit of financial credibility at some point of time in the past). ;)
Even if you bought your camera cash and have no other debt, well placed pride should IMHO be about the skills that helped you generate the money, not about the goods you bought with the money. And that is leaving aside the luck part that is de facto a major contributor to the relative success many of us enjoy.
Then there is of course those people's whose ego needs support in the form of the superficial respect coming from other consumers who value people by what they own instead of valuating them by what they are. Is it legitimate to be proud of such respect deriving from flawed priorities? I don't think it is either.
This whole "Everyone's a winner" stuff belongs in little league. The real world doesn't work that way.
Agreed, but winners in photography should be the good photographers, not those who have bought good cameras. ;)
I personally don't feel any pride in owning the gear I own, more a fuzzy sense of responsibility in terms of leveraging the best possible way the equipment I have been lucky to have the opportunity to purchase from the talented engineers who designed and manufactured it. Would it make more sense to donate it to more talented photographers who would put it to better use? This is IMHO a more relevant feeling that pride.
Anyway, apologies for the digression, let's get back to our let's-help-Nick-select-the-camera-that-will-help-him-take-more-great-images projet. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Even if you bought your camera cash and have no other debt, well placed pride should IMHO be about the skills that helped you generate the money, not about the goods you bought with the money.
Which is why i said "Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it."
Emphasis on the being able to afford part, not the something part.
Agreed, but winners in photography should be the good photographers, not those who have bought good cameras. ;)
Which is why I said "Nothing wrong with having even more pride in being able to create noteworthy images with it."
Emphasis on the even more part, i.e. the ability to make good images deserves more pride than the ability to be able to afford the image making equipment.
Please read carefully before going on a verbal rampage.
-
Which is why i said "Nothing wrong with having pride in being able to afford something after working hard for it."
Emphasis on the being able to afford part, not the something part.
Which is why I said "Nothing wrong with having even more pride in being able to create noteworthy images with it."
Emphasis on the even more part, i.e. the ability to make good images deserves more pride than the ability to be able to afford the image making equipment.
Please read carefully before going on a verbal rampage.
Or, put it otherwise, you agree with what I wrote? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Or, put it otherwise, you agree with what I wrote? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Rather, I wrote my take on this whole pride and you jumped on it and over explained the wrong parts. I don't need to agree to anything as you were responding to my post, not the other way around.
**edited to remove some vitriol**
-
...The em-1 is a better camera, but not a better sensor or whatever causes the look and not just dr or numbers (know very little about dxo or any of those sites because I don't care) but the look of the em-5 when shot properly is quite pretty, the em-1 is very dslr looking.
Hi bcooter,
What characteristics appeal to you about the sensor in the E-M5 (I guess that would also include the sensor in the E-M10, is that correct)? What do you mean by the expression "DSLR looking"?
Cheers
-
What characteristics appeal to you about the sensor in the E-M5
Е-М5 (and GH3) has sensor from Sony
E-M1 (and GH4) has sensor from Panasonic
CFA are different (Adobe for example initially used the same dcp profile for E-M1 as for E-M5 in RC version of ACR, then changed to a noticeably different profile in final release that supported E-M1... or was is RC2 ? ... in any case you cas see that youself if you modify manually dcp profiles for E-M5 and E-M1 to use them crosswise)
E-M1 does not have AA filter, E-M5 does have it
E-M1 has EFCS, E-M5 does not have it - makes a big difference for some shots resultion wise
-
Hi bcooter,
What characteristics appeal to you about the sensor in the E-M5 (I guess that would also include the sensor in the E-M10, is that correct)? What do you mean by the expression "DSLR looking"?
Cheers
Nick,
This is just personal observation, no charts, no brick walls.
To me some cameras, usually cameras that go to higher iso, seem to see more global colors, less specific.
Those are the ones that give me fits.
Other cameras like a digital back or even the little em-5 seem to see every color, good and bad. If there is a blemish on a face it sees it in all it's glory where other cameras just kind of let it blend in.
It's interesting, I can (and have) set up a Canon 1ds3 next to a digital back, shot two frames of each, showed a client and asked which one did they like. To a person they picked the Canon, though working in post and wanting the ability to see as much color difference as possible offered more choices.
I just found the em-1 file to be a little thin, a little global and much harder to work in post, where the em-5 was kind of like a little digital back in color, but PLEASE remember this is how I work, other people will get different results.
I don't use either olympus for heavy production, but if I did I would love the em-5 sensor in an em-1 body.
I've never seen any blur or vibration from either cameras, though before buying the em-1 I went to the Sony store twice to test them (before they closed most of the Sony stores), and I personally couldn't get a really tight shot with the A7 and A7r though a lot of people love those cameras, so maybe it was just me.
This is a snap from the em-1 in mixed light, some slight oversharpening to enhance the grain and I love the look, though don't judge this photo on artistic merits.
BTW: this was a vertical so it's about 1/2 the frame.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/sony_store_large.jpg)
Bottom line is they're both fun cameras and the em-1 is built like a rolex, though the menu for both had to be designed by a martian.
IMO
BC
-
Wow Bernard baby,
You take a jealously pill today?
Why would you care what anyone spends their money on, or what they use and how do you know if it's worth it to them?
No offense man, but you seem to have the view that no matter what anyone says, you interject the words Nikon or Sony sensor into most of your responses, which is kind of a downer for the people that use something else, like they screwed up or something.
Who cares? Your not them, you probably don't compete with them, but regardless I think it's cool that you have two nikon bodies and one german lens that cost 11 grand total, especially since you don't earn your living with a camera.
That's great, hopefully fun and unless you mugged a granny to afford it you should be proud.
It's not the device that is cool, it's the work and commitment it takes to buy something that's cool, something you want.
I have a friend that buys nice stuff. Really nice stuff like $35,000 chairs.
I've heard people make a lot of comments usually negative, but this guy came from below nothing, has worked professionally 18 hour days since he was 16, so buying what he wants he not only deserves but it's not anyone's business what he does with his money.
btw: the chairs are pretty.
IMO
BC
-
It's not the device that is cool, it's the work and commitment it takes to buy something that's cool, something you want.
That's (part) of your post.
This is (part) of what Bernard said:
well placed pride should IMHO be about the skills that helped you generate the money, not about the goods you bought with the money.
Now, if you can explain the philosophical difference between those two statements, I'd be grateful.
-
I actually have some pride in lovingly used equipment, even if it is ordinary mass market equipment. I would like to have even more pride in images created :D , but I am slowly learning more skills, and take some pride in the learning process and in the tools used for learning. Not surprisingly, I will never sell my first SLR and its first lens even though it is a quite ordinary manual/mechanical-everything SLR (Mamiya Sekor DTL 1000, one of the few 135 format Mamiyas, and its M-S 55mm f/1.4 M42-mount lens).
-
Wow Bernard baby,
You take a jealously pill today?
James,
What makes you think so when the very purpose of my post is to stress how irrelevant the possession of expensive equipment is to me?
Besides, you have frankly no idea about what I can afford nor about the value of my photography equipment and I don't tntend to boast about that here. As written above, anyone reasonnably successful has access to credit and could buy any of the pieces of equipment you frequently report about. I could probably afford some of them cash if I thought it would help me take better images. I happen to think that working with what I have/expand on top of what I have is more relevant for my planned needs and a better use of my financial assets.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3956/15515440737_e45f43b652_o.jpg)
No offense man, but you seem to have the view that no matter what anyone says, you interject the words Nikon or Sony sensor into most of your responses, which is kind of a downer for the people that use something else, like they screwed up or something.
It would appear that you only read a tiny subset of my posts if that's how you feel. Not that you should read more of them, but then it may be better to avoid such mistaken generalizations?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3955/15081295543_e679603aef_o.jpg)
It goes without saying that everybody has different needs and that I do understand that. Having my own little studio, I have a first hand understanding of the value of flash synch speeds faster than 1/320 sec and what lens shutter can bring to the table. So I do understand, to give you one example, why you and others shoot with MF cameras. For what it is worth I now own a Lovely Hassy 503cw and a few excellent lenses. That's 10+ years after I sold my buggy H1.
I only comment about Nikon in threads where somebody like Nick asks explicit advice.
Back on the point, in this case, is your view that Nick would be better off with a 6D compared to a D750?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, these shots of the traditional martial arts / traditional cavalry are quite interesting. Talking about pride in ownership being greatest when one has made the tool (or trained the horse) or when one has lovingly used the tool for a long period of time - the re-enacters must have such pride in their weapons and well-trained horses. (Yes, one does have to train a horse to put up with a rider moving off balance or waving some implement around in the horse's generous visual field).
At any rate, there are many good systems out there, and the "best" systems are the ones that best suit the individuals using the systems. For a student, that might be a starter DSLR of any brand and its kit lens - or, an old TLR or view camera - or, a fixed lens bridge camera - or, G-d forbid, a phone - something that might get overlooked as "not worthy" by someone with more money to spend and more specialized interests.
-
What makes you think so when the very purpose of my post is to stress how irrelevant the possession of expensive equipment is to me?
Besides, you have frankly no idea about what I can afford nor about the value of my photography equipment and I don't tntend to boast about that here.
(...)
I only comment about Nikon in threads where somebody like Nick asks explicit advice.
You have always been one of my best references in this forum in all matters: technical knowledge, common sense and talent. I find surprising to find people here making you appear as a Nikon fanboy or requiring any further explanations about your comments. I wouldn't bother Bernard.
-
You have always been one of my best references in this forum in all matters: technical knowledge, common sense and talent.
Thanks Guillermo, very kind of you. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wow Bernard baby,
You take a jealously pill today?
Why would you care what anyone spends their money on, or what they use and how do you know if it's worth it to them?
In defence of Bernards post - not that he needs defending by me, I don't think he was having a go at people buying or owning expensive gear. What Bernard seemed to be saying to me is that he finds it odd that anyone would be 'proud' of their camera. And I happen to feel the same. It's what you do with it that counts. I remember buying a pair of Ray Ban sunglasses about 20 years ago. The first thing I did was carefully scrape away the logo that was painted onto one of the lenses. I wanted the quality that I perceived they offered without feeling the need to say to everyone "hey - I can afford a pair of Ray Bans". Nothing irritates more than it being assumed that the reason I can make good photo's is that I have an expensive camera.
If anyone wants to feel proud of their camera that's fine by me. Perhaps it why I prefer cycling to having a flash car. The bicycle speaks of what I personally can do - it is propelled by me. The flash car just needs a hefty boot on the accelerator!
Jim
-
In defence of Bernards post - not that he needs defending by me, I don't think he was having a go at people buying or owning expensive gear. What Bernard seemed to be saying to me is that he finds it odd that anyone would be 'proud' of their camera. And I happen to feel the same. It's what you do with it that counts.
...
Jim
That was my read of it as well. I agree.
-
That was indeed the point. :)
There are many photographers needing some unique features only provided by pieces of gear with a high price tag, producing accordingly amazing work with those. As a result they are, and should be, proud.
James is one of them.
Btw, another one captured with the D750 yesterday. It isn't that great technically, but I somehow like it.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3950/15553200168_c81a710d2e_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That was indeed the point. :)
There are many photographers needing some unique features only provided by pieces of gear with a high price tag, producing accordingly amazing work with those. As a result they are, and should be, proud.
James is one of them.
Btw, another one captured with the D750 yesterday. It isn't that great technically, but I somehow like it.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3950/15553200168_c81a710d2e_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
I love it! So much to get out of this one.
Do you use any walk around zoom with the D750?
-
I love it! So much to get out of this one.
Do you use any walk around zoom with the D750?
Thanks, it was a fun moment.
Most of the time I pair it with a bright prime, typically Sigma 35mm f1.4 or, lile yesterday, 85mm f1.4. The f1.8 zooms would be a more logical match size wise though.
No, the only 2 zooms I still own are the 14-24 and 70-200 f4.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, talented photographer can clearly produce winning images with basically any camera. Besides, the more "creative" your work is, the less relevant the technical aspects.
Not necessarily true if your 'vision' requires technical precision and even creatives need to master technique.
-
In defence of Bernards post - not that he needs defending by me, I don't think he was having a go at people buying or owning expensive gear. What Bernard seemed to be saying to me is that he finds it odd that anyone would be 'proud' of their camera. And I happen to feel the same. It's what you do with it that counts. I remember buying a pair of Ray Ban sunglasses about 20 years ago. The first thing I did was carefully scrape away the logo that was painted onto one of the lenses. I wanted the quality that I perceived they offered without feeling the need to say to everyone "hey - I can afford a pair of Ray Bans". Nothing irritates more than it being assumed that the reason I can make good photo's is that I have an expensive camera.
Similarly I used to cut labels off clothing and I avoid clothing that displays it's brand up front and centre. Clothing should look good for itself, not the logo on it. My view is that if companies want me to advertise their name, they should pay me for it and certainly not the other way around.
If anyone wants to feel proud of their camera that's fine by me. Perhaps it why I prefer cycling to having a flash car. The bicycle speaks of what I personally can do - it is propelled by me. The flash car just needs a hefty boot on the accelerator!
Indeed, though car drivers also can get really annoyed as bikes are much faster than cars around town and it makes a mockery of the large sums of money they spent on that fast car. Not that people don't spend large sums on their bikes too.
-
Btw, another one captured with the D750 yesterday. It isn't that great technically, but I somehow like it.
And yet it is your most interesting image. :)
Though I think a bit more tweaking of image would elevate it further.
-
And yet is your most interesting image. :)
Though I think a bit more tweaking of image would elevate it further.
Glad to read that this image matches your preferences.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Glad to read that this image matches your preferences.
What are my preferences then?
-
What are my preferences then?
Those of an educated and humble man who deeply believes in the value of civility in human dealings?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those of an educated and humble man who deeply believes in the value of civility in human dealings?
Almost, you forgot to mention biscuits. ;D