Michael, have I missed your 5D3 review?

[kers]

no real substance in that statement. i covert the nikon 45 tilt/shift as the canon is very average but the 24 and 90mm t-se's that i use the most i wouldn't swap for nikons inferior offerings, there are other areas like the long zooms where nikon falls short compared to canon, i would like nikons wide zoom too but that's not enough to make we swap.

Tim Parkin found in his testing that the 24nikon PCE was better than the new 24mmTS from Canon... but maybe a bad copy...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60589.0
"... I was mightily impressed with the Nikon D3X and the Nikon 24 tilt shift was substantially better than the Canon 24  TSEmk2 tilt shift that we had (which tallies with the copy I used to own but a colleague seems to have a sharp copy which I look forward to testing)..."
I have not found other face to face testing of these type of lenses

[dreed]

What troubles me about the 5D3, and the as-of-yet unreleased 1D X, comes from a Canon rep commenting on the lack of USB-3.  The claim was made that world-wide USB-3 use and computers that had these ports were far to low to justify adding it.  Most photographers I know immediately started using USB-3 for vastly increased file handling speeds.  It is the wrong measure to say that the installed consumer base for a product should be the basis for decisions for your top of the line products.  The question they should address is how they can make their professional photographers more productive.

Maybe the cameras themselves are not fast enough for USB 3.0 to be of benefit?

[BernardLanguillier]

dear Hans and Bernard,
thank you for the beautiful YES-NO conversation.

Yes!

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Tim Parkin found in his testing that the 24nikon PCE was better than the new 24mmTS from Canon... but maybe a bad copy...

Oh superb bravery! You are not afraid of being called a Canon basher?

Even I didn't dare to question the superiority of its holliness 24mm TS the second.

But the real question is "did he try violently dunking both lenses in a lake filled with boiling acid?".

Cheers,
Bernard

[MrSmith]

the Nikon appears very good in the center if not superior to the canon, however if you take a non emotional fanboy look at the interactive lens tests on the-digital-picture.com at f5.6 shifted 12mm and 11mm the differences are obvious.

[nsnowlin]

Maybe the cameras themselves are not fast enough for USB 3.0 to be of benefit?

The USB-2 / USB-3 is just a port with an associated driver.  The USB-3 chip is just a plug in on the board.  It is able to read and send files faster.  If you have ever waited on your computer loading a file from a shoot using USB-2 you will know the lack of speed with USB-2.  Canon is giving their latest and greatest (5D3 & 1D X) old technology.  Even Intel is burning USB-3 on motherboards now.  Anyone with a Nikon 800/800E that has used their USB-3 in a studio environment writing files to a computer that would like to comment on write speeds?

Again, I must agree with Michael's assessment.  The 5D3 is just a refresh with an ability to finally focus and not much more (the HDR function is fun).  I no longer have to slap on my 24-70/2.8 when the light gets low since the 5D3 now nails focus in low light with the 24-105/4, an attribute that I greatly appreciate.  For a Canon owner with a pile of L lenses (all of my lenses are awesome) it is better than the older models and, for me, worth the upgrade.

Stu

[BernardLanguillier]

the Nikon appears very good in the center if not superior to the canon, however if you take a non emotional fanboy look at the interactive lens tests on the-digital-picture.com at f5.6 shifted 12mm and 11mm the differences are obvious.

So it would seem that blunt statments about one lens being superior accross the board aren't that meaningful?  

I don't use the 24 T/S that much, but for landscape work, 95+% of the time I tilt less than 2 degrees and don't shift. Do these tests provide visibility about the relative performance in the case of moderate tilts?

My guess is that both lenses will end up being hard to distinguish in such applications based on the results above.

The Canon is obviously superior when large shift are needed, so it looks like it was optimized for architects.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MrSmith]

i rarely tilt, if i do it's only by 1-2° max. i do often shift left/right for a widescreen FoV with a corresponding shift of the camera in the opposite direction if there is anything in the foreground. i see a fall of in quality towards the extreme edges of this expanded frame but it's acceptable and not that noticeable in print or on screen. i can't see the shifted corners of the nikon being acceptable (to me), no amount of fall-off sharpening is going to pull the detail in from what i can see in the bottom image.

Do these tests provide visibility about the relative performance in the case of moderate tilts?

no obviously not as they are not tilted, you could suppose the nikon is a stellar performer in this respect or you could do your own tests and come to the same conclusion.

[BernardLanguillier]

i rarely tilt, if i do it's only by 1-2° max. i do often shift left/right for a widescreen FoV with a corresponding shift of the camera in the opposite direction if there is anything in the foreground. i see a fall of in quality towards the extreme edges of this expanded frame but it's acceptable and not that noticeable in print or on screen. i can't see the shifted corners of the nikon being acceptable (to me), no amount of fall-off sharpening is going to pull the detail in from what i can see in the bottom image.

Yep, you cannot really shift the Nikon more than 8mm. That's the key area where the Canon is clearly ahead.

no obviously not as they are not tilted, you could suppose the nikon is a stellar performer in this respect or you could do your own tests and come to the same conclusion.

I was wondering whether they had another set of data with the lenses tilted, but it seems it is not the case.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MrSmith]

so it looks like it was optimized for architects.

very apt, i know of an architect who is now a 'photographer' the equipment is cheap and easy to master it's just the photographers eye that appears to have little value 

[Josh-H]

So it would seem that blunt statments about one lens being superior accross the board aren't that meaningful

Same applies to cameras.

[BernardLanguillier]

Same applies to cameras.

I couldn't have put it better.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dreed]

The USB-2 / USB-3 is just a port with an associated driver.  The USB-3 chip is just a plug in on the board.  It is able to read and send files faster.  If you have ever waited on your computer loading a file from a shoot using USB-2 you will know the lack of speed with USB-2.  Canon is giving their latest and greatest (5D3 & 1D X) old technology.  Even Intel is burning USB-3 on motherboards now.  Anyone with a Nikon 800/800E that has used their USB-3 in a studio environment writing files to a computer that would like to comment on write speeds?

Again, I must agree with Michael's assessment.  The 5D3 is just a refresh with an ability to finally focus and not much more (the HDR function is fun).  I no longer have to slap on my 24-70/2.8 when the light gets low since the 5D3 now nails focus in low light with the 24-105/4, an attribute that I greatly appreciate.  For a Canon owner with a pile of L lenses (all of my lenses are awesome) it is better than the older models and, for me, worth the upgrade.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that Canon is under-delivering in terms of the Camera, I'm not sure that this applies to USB 3.0.

USB 2.0 should deliver about 1.5 fps when shooting raw and if you're in a studio and shooting jpeg, you'll easily get 6fps.

I suspect that the decision to go USB 2.0/3.0 was made a long time ago, before USB 3.0 was available. I suspect that it was a calculated decision.

I also disagree with the 1DX being "old technology". In terms of interfaces, the 1DX brings with it a gigabit networking interface whereas the D4 only has 100Mbps. That plus the 1DX has a CPU dedicated to autofocus. I think judgement on the 1DX is best reserved until after it is available.

[nsnowlin]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that Canon is under-delivering in terms of the Camera, I'm not sure that this applies to USB 3.0.
USB 2.0 should deliver about 1.5 fps when shooting raw and if you're in a studio and shooting jpeg, you'll easily get 6fps.
I suspect that the decision to go USB 2.0/3.0 was made a long time ago, before USB 3.0 was available. I suspect that it was a calculated decision.
I also disagree with the 1DX being "old technology". In terms of interfaces, the 1DX brings with it a gigabit networking interface whereas the D4 only has 100Mbps. That plus the 1DX has a CPU dedicated to autofocus. I think judgement on the 1DX is best reserved until after it is available.

I shoot RAW, in and out of the studio.  My 1D4 and my 5D3 give underwhelming performance for writing files via USB-2.  I "suspect" we will never know the reason for the choice of USB-2 over USB-3.  All I know is that Nikon offers it.  USB-3 is a technology that was available over a year before the announcement of the 1D X back in November.  It is a reliable method of delivering increased productivity.  Gigabit networking requires packet switching and data verification.  By the time you calculate this in Gigabit pass-through will be about the same as USB-3 which just dumps the file.  However, USB-3 is much easier to set up and control, especially in a busy studio environment, than Gigabit networking is.

Please note that I did not condemn the 1D X as "old technology".  I referred only to restricting it to USB-2.  The 1D X may well appeal to sports shooters but event shooters will probably avoid it and stay with the 5D3.  It is a lot of money for a camera that has been positioned by the manufacturer as a unification of the 1Ds3 and 1D4 that comes with less resolution than the 1Ds3.  We will find out shortly what the files from the 1D X are like.  That will be a major purchasing factor rather than USB-2 or 3.

[achrisproduction]

In which way was the D3 a game changer? That Nikon decided to enter the full frame market?

I think that you need to include one of the EVIL cameras, such as the NEX-7, in the above list.

Hi I am a Canon user but not any brands' fanboy.  The D3 is a game changer because it gave Canon a push in all sort of ways.  Its superb high ISO performance and its price as a FF high speed pro body.

[achrisproduction]

C'mon you have to be kidding. Firstly the 1DX is positioned above the D4 (both in terms of price, pixels and quality) and the D800 is nothing more than Nikons answer to the 5D MK2 with more pixels. Its a prosumer camera at best. Nikon took a great (brilliant) sensor and slammed it in a horrible body IMO. The body is flimsy and an abomination in terms of ergonomics compared to a D4 so please don't try and sell me that its posited in the higher end segment. A D4X would be the case - a D800 isn't. (FYI - I have had and been using a D800E for the last week. I won't be keeping it as I personally can't live with the ergonomics, lack of real weather sealing etc. It just doesn't suit my needs and work. Although I do like the files it produces.)

I admire Nikon greatly for one-upping Canon's 5D MK2; which clearly dominated the market in terms of sheer volume of sales. Nikon needed to respond with something to compete and they very clearly have. Canon went the dot release for the MK3 and made a lot of people very happy and a lot more unhappy because there was no significant increase in resolution. They were different approaches. The net result is that Nikon will capture a large portion of Canons potential customers with the D800 and that is excellent work by them.

Yes I do  - because its complete and utter BS. I have done my own extensive testing of the D3X (and I've owned a 1DS MK3 since release). There is no appreciable difference between hthe files in prints up to and including 40 x 60. Both are properly weather sealed and both are full Pro bodies - End of Story.

You misquote me. I was reffering to the MKII which is superior to the Nikon.
There is nothing 'super niche' about a 17mm lens that provides you with movements. Its a wonderful tool for landscape and architectural. Neither are super niche.

To quote you - Perhaps Nikon is unable/unwilling to react.

Thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to review my portfolio and I have no desire to continue a debate on the merits of C v. N since its quite clear we agree to disagree on fundamentals.

Hi Josh.  great reply.  I am also a 1Ds Mark III user and now I have the 5D Mark III.  somehow I think the 5D Mark III is not answering to landscape and architecture shooters and hopefully Canon is working on something which will go head to head with D800E.   

[nsnowlin]

Hi Josh.  great reply.  I am also a 1Ds Mark III user and now I have the 5D Mark III.  somehow I think the 5D Mark III is not answering to landscape and architecture shooters and hopefully Canon is working on something which will go head to head with D800E.   

I agree.  My experience with the 5D3 after shooting the 1Ds3 extensively for years is that the 5D3 is a better camera for general purpose photography with better color & files that seems to me to be easier to work with in LR.  High ISO is pretty good as well up to 6400.  Speed is good enough for high school sports.  Beyond that the 1D X will clearly excel.  I've used the 5D3 for landscape work with great results, certainly as good as I ever got with the 1Ds3.  The 5D3 probably, as Michael noted, cannot be touted as a game changer but the overall improvements are more than incremental.  I would hesitate to say that it will lose sales to the D800/E since it will satisfy so many photographer's quite varied needs.

I hope for a larger resolution, pro body camera to actually replace the 1Ds3.  It seems to me that the pro Canon division is spread pretty thin with the upcoming 1D C.  Others have speculated that there might be a late 4th quarter camera that might be a leading edge, pro body 1Ds3 "replacement".  I would pick one up if that was produced.

Stu

[BernardLanguillier]

Great collective logic...

(1Ds3 = D3x) < 5DIII < D800E = D3x.

Assuming that owners of a given brand are honnest about the successive generatios of cameras, we can assume that the 2 statments are pretty accurate:
1Ds3 < 5DIII
D800E = D3x

What does that tell us about the relationship btwn 1Ds3 and D3x?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Keith Reeder]

somehow I think the 5D Mark III is not answering to landscape and architecture shooters

Precisely - I said something along the same lines right at the start of the thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=66497.msg525071#msg525071

Oh - and as an aside, I'm really sick of this recent "all that matters is low ISO DR, without which any sensor is 'mediocre'" nonsense. Has everyone suddenly become a "difficult light" landscape shooter?

As a camera, the D800 leaves me absolutely clay cold - it's an utterly predictable and uninspired evolution of what's gone before - whereas the 5D Mk III is the first FF camera I've ever been actually interested in enough to want one.

My standards and expectations are as high in the genres I shoot as anyone else's in their genre of choice, and the D800 is a very poor second place to the 5D Mk III in the great scheme of things for me.

[Keith Reeder]

When it comes to the DR/shadow recovery "Holy Grail"...

I can do this quite easily with my crappy Canon 7D:



to



And



(Deliberately underexplosed by three stops)

to


(Recovered to four stops from the original).

It's not as miraculously hard as some people make it out to be, even with these heinously underperforming Canon sensors...

And yes, they look fine viewed big/would look fine printed (not that I would), too, and they've been resized by the forum software here too.