Michael, have I missed your 5D3 review?

[MrSmith]

the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do

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

[Hans Kruse]

It seems clear that Nikon should have released a D700x, but I disagree about the D3x being a failure.

It did sell well for many years, was a much superior camera compared to its main competitor, the 1Ds3, and simply redefined our expectations in terms of DR. While expensive it was competing performancewise with MF backs costing twice as much.

How do you know that it sold well? I never saw statistics by camera manufacturer and model of their cameras, but maybe I missed something. When you say it's much superior than the 1Ds mkIII it's really only DR that is better. Since I have a 1Ds mkIII I looked at comparative D3X RAW files from e.g. Imaging Resource. And quite frankly I didn't see much difference in IQ worth speaking of. Certainly not anything of a magnitude one would switch systems for. When you say teh D3X competed against MF backs costing twice as much, which would you compare to? I think the most relevant comparison would be against the Pentax 645D and IQ wise I don't see the D3X in the same league. And the price for the body was about the same.

It's interesting to note that I have not seen any reviews of the 5D mkII when it came out that predicted the success it has had! The 1Ds mkIII from what I sense has sold well too, but the success was the 5D mkII which was better in a few areas compared to the 1Ds mkIII but in most areas a lesser camera. Live view for landscape photographers and architecture was a very strong point of the 5D mkII with nothing else on the market comparable at the time.

In terms of system, the 17mm T/S, a very niche product, is probably the only lens in Canon's line up that delivers something the Nikkor really cannot do. For the rest we are talking about tiny differences with one brand topping the other in one direction or opposite. Nikon is rumored to release a 17mm T/S soon following the publication of a patent. Considering the overall domination they have in wide angle technology, there is no reason to think it will not be best in class.

It's not only the TS-E 17mm but also the 24mm that Nikon does not have a competitor to. Also the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS has no Nikon equivalent. But notice that Canon has upgraded a huge part of the lens base in the recent couple of years. They have got also extremely expensive, but the new lenses are really state of the art in the format. All the long lenses and TC's have been updated. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the best f/2.8 in class and I would be surprised of the new 24-70 f/2.8L II would be similarly good. I think it is fair to say that Canon has the lead here.

So I don't think it is so obvious which system is the best at the moment. Clearly the D800 and D800E is attractive from the pure resolution and DR point of and nothing else. In fact there are several shortcomings compared to the 5D mkIII like memory settings (C1, C2 C3 on the Canon) and live view imprementation. AF might be the same quality. The speed in continuous shooting is clearly better on the Canon.

I know this might sound as coming from a fan boy but really I like to have things put in perspective and I find many post about the D800 to be a bit over the top quite frankly.

[BernardLanguillier]

How do you know that it sold well? I never saw statistics by camera manufacturer and model of their cameras, but maybe I missed something. When you say it's much superior than the 1Ds mkIII it's really only DR that is better. Since I have a 1Ds mkIII I looked at comparative D3X RAW files from e.g. Imaging Resource. And quite frankly I didn't see much difference in IQ worth speaking of. Certainly not anything of a magnitude one would switch systems for.

Not all information is publicly available.

As far as the gap goes, DR is the key thing.

It's interesting to note that I have not seen any reviews of the 5D mkII when it came out that predicted the success it has had! The 1Ds mkIII from what I sense has sold well too, but the success was the 5D mkII which was better in a few areas compared to the 1Ds mkIII but in most areas a lesser camera. Live view for landscape photographers and architecture was a very strong point of the 5D mkII with nothing else on the market comparable at the time.

It was pretty obvious that 22mp at 3000 US$ would be a major hit, wasn't it?

It-s not only the TS-E 17mm but also the 24mm that Nikon does not have a competitor to. Also the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS has no Nikon equivalent. But notice that Canon has upgraded a huge part of the lens base in the recent couple of years. They have got also extremely expensive, but the new lenses are really state of the art in the format. All the long lenses and TC's have been updated. I think it is fair to say that Canon has the lead here.

The 24mm PCE is an excellent lens optically. The Nikkor 70-300 f3.5-5.6 is very close to the Canon between 70 and 200 mm.

The canon equivalents are probably superior, but the margin in absolute terms is very small relative to real world usage.

So I don't think it is so obvious which system is the best at the moment. Clearly the D800 and D800E is attractive from the pure resolution and DR point of and nothing else. In fact there are several shortcomings compared to the 5D mkIII like memory settings (C1, C2 C3 on the Canon) and live view imprementation. AF might be the same quality. The speed in continous shooting is clearly better on the Canon.

I understand the feeling. :-) On my side I am tired about the negative comments about the D800 live view. I have found it far from perfect, but still more than good enough for all the applications I have thrown at it, including some low light landscape.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MrSmith]

but the margin in absolute terms is very small relative to real world usage.

you could apply that sensibility to every camera fanboy statement 

i prefer 'is my client happy, is my equipment choice having an impact on achieving good results , will that investment make me more money'

[Hans Kruse]

Not all information is publicly available.

So you have that kind of information?

As far as the gap goes, DR is the key thing.

Correct, but the DxO figures didn't tranlate in that much difference in the RAW files I looked at. And I did push shadows!

It was pretty obvious that 22mp at 3000 US$ would be a major hit, wasn't it?

My point was that reviewers didn't predict that and especially the success around video. So what do reviews predict now that we can expect to agree on in three years from now? Let's check back at that time and see how it went....

The 24mm PCE is an excellent lens optically. The Nikkor 70-300 f3.5-5.6 is very close to the Canon between 70 and 200 mm.

The canon equivalents are probably superior, but the margin in absolute terms is very small relative to real world usage.

The 24mm PCE cannot be switched in orientation for tilt like the Canon can. You need a screw driver to do it just like the old Canon TS-E 24mm. This is a major draw back and besides that the Nikkor is not the same optical quality as the Canon 24mm TS-E. I think a better comparison for the Nikkon 70-300 might be the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. Do you mean the Nikkor f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED AF-S VR lens? But you can't be serious to compare this lens to the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. Look at reviews and see how soft the Nikkor is a full aperture opening compared to the Canon besides it is one stop less in the long end (just like the Canon 70-300). Is real world usage f/8 in you view?

[BernardLanguillier]

you could apply that sensibility to every camera fanboy statement 

i prefer 'is my client happy, is my equipment choice having an impact on achieving good results , will that investment make me more money'

That is exactly what I mean.

I can sell a larger print for a higher amount and resolution helps here, it reduces the need to stitch and therefore saves me time,... I can save some images shot in tough contrast situation because of additional DR, some of these images will sell some day.

The difference of resolution between the Nikkor 24mm PCE and the Canon equivalent is irrelevant from that standpoint.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

On my side I am tired about the negative comments about the D800 live view. I have found it far from perfect, but still more than good enough for all the applications I have thrown at it, including some low light landscape.

Right and on my side I'm getting tired about all the posts about DR where in fact I have shot landscape intensely for quite some time and now over 4 years with the 1Ds mkIII. And it has not been a problem to handle large DR scenes and in fact most scenes can be done from one RAW file. Live view also works well despite the resolution of the LCD and it allows DOF preview also which does become a little difficult in very low light.

There is no doubt that if you seriously underexpose a picture on the 1Ds mkIII and the D3X, the D3X will look better when adjusted. But for an optimally exposed capture on both cameras the difference is only important in a very small amount of situations where exposure blending would be better on both cameras anyway.

[BernardLanguillier]

So you have that kind of information?

Do I need to be more clear?

Correct, but the DxO figures didn't tranlate in that much difference in the RAW files I looked at. And I did push shadows!

Well, I did see the value again and again. other shooters like Lloyd chambers did also.

My point was that reviewers didn't predict that and especially the success around video. So what do reviews predict now that we can expect to agree on in three years from now? Let's check back at that time and see how it went....

True, we will see in 3 years.

The 24mm PCE cannot be switched in orientation for tilt like the Canon can. You need a screw driver to do it just like the old Canon TS-E 24mm. This is a major draw back and besides that the Nikkor is not the same optical quality as the Canon 24mm TS-E.

Agreed on the mechanical limitation, but I have never found this to be really impacting in my usage of the 24mm PCE. I would prefer to be able to freely change the axis, but I can live without it.

Optically, the Canon is a bit better but the gap is small, the 24 PCE is a pretty recent lens also.

I think a better comparison for the Nikkon 70-300 might be the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. Do you mean the Nikkor f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED AF-S VR lens? But you can't be serious to compare this lens to the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. Look at reviews and see how soft the Nikkor is a full aperture opening compared to the Canon besides it is one stop less in the long end (just like the Canon 70-300). Is real world usage f/8 in you view?

Yes, I use a 70-200 f2.8 when I want to shoot wide open. I have had excellent results with the 70-300 f3.5-5.6 at f8+ and for me that is the whole point of these light lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

[MrSmith]

Do I need to be more clear?

no. it's very apparent. 

[Hans Kruse]

Do I need to be more clear?

In fact yes. You mention what irritates you and it irritates me that people use information in an argument that they can't reveal as it is classified In my book this is a non argument.

Well, I did see the value again and again. other shooters like Lloyd chambers did also.

Well yes, and I have subscribed to his reviews but his style annoyed me so much that I stopped. I saw his examples and it was not even clear if the exposure were optimal. I'm sorry that I can't double check his exact works now since I don't have the subscription any longer. And will not renew it. If my experience as a serious landscape shooter dosn't count then fine, but in my experience his review was not a fair statement. Now with Lightroom 4 the situation is changed again quite a bit.

Agreed on the mechanical limitation, but I have never found this to be really impacting in my usage of the 24mm PCE. I would prefer to be able to freely change the axis, but I can live without it.

Really? You can't switch between landscape and portrait orientation and do the tilt. So don't you use tilt on your PC-E 24?

Yes, I use a 70-200 f2.8 when I want to shoot wide open. I have had excellent results with the 70-300 f3.5-5.6 at f8+ and for me that is the whole point of these light lenses.

So if you only use the 70-300 at f/8 it is better than fully open, but the Canon is sharp at f/4. It's your usage and that'd fine, but to compare lenses only at f/8 is certainly not fair to expensive lenses where you often pay for them being sharp even fully open. One of the things where the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is major improvement over the previous version (among other things). It is as sharp at f/2.8 as stopped down. At 200mm f/2.8 it is dead sharp and a thing I value when shooting shallow DOF scenes. This is e.g. flower shots and sports shooting.

Btw. I took a look at your Flickr pictures and some of them are nice However I did not see a lot of pictures where you would challenge DR. In fact I saw almost none that couldn't have been taken with a 1Ds mkIII from my experience (with optimal exposure, of course).

[dreed]

...
My point was that reviewers didn't predict that and especially the success around video. So what do reviews predict now that we can expect to agree on in three years from now? Let's check back at that time and see how it went....
...

Since when do reviewers ever make predictions about unit sales of a camera?

But I think the fact that the 5D2 would be so popular became evident where 6 months after it was released it was still flying off the shelves of stores. So if we were to check back around March 2013, we should have a better idea about whether the 5D3 is/was a hit or not.

[Hans Kruse]

Since when do reviewers ever make predictions about unit sales of a camera?

I didn't mean unit sales in that way, but more which cameras are predicted to be a success (and of course sales wise) and game changers.

Over the last 6 years or so I have seen 3 cameras that have been game changers. The original Canon 5D, Nikon D3 and 5D mkII. Maybe D800 will be a game changer, we will see, but the 5D mkIII might also be such a camera.

It was not the D3X, which did not even have video. It was basically a D3 with a good higher resolution sensor (and better DR). Canon had killed this category by the 5D mkII a few months before the D3X was launched.

[BernardLanguillier]

Really? You can't switch between landscape and portrait orientation and do the tilt. So don't you use tilt on your PC-E 24?

I do indeed not use tilt and shift on the same axis. I find the usage of shift rare for landscape, already throught this way when I was shooting 4x5 in a scanning workflow.

On the other hand having the ability to tilt on one axis and shift lateraly on the other axis to flat stitch can sometimes be useful.

Btw. I took a look at your Flickr pictures and some of them are nice However I did not see a lot of pictures where you would challenge DR. In fact I saw almost none that couldn't have been taken with a 1Ds mkIII from my experience (with optimal exposure, of course).

These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:





Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

How do you know that it [the Nikon D3X] sold well? I never saw statistics by camera manufacturer and model of their cameras, ...

Hans,
Since Bernard was simply disagreeing with shadowblade's claim that the D3X was a failure, a better question is how do you know that it was a failure? Surely your declared lack of publically available sales statistics makes the claim of "failure" as indefensible as the claim of "not a failure".

That said, it does seem very likely that the arrival of the 5D3 lead to the end of further development of subsequent models of $6000+ DSLR except for rugged professional high frame rate sports/PJ models, but the D3X seems to have done OK as a glorious "Wagnerian" last of its breed. One hint of its not being such a failure is the way that its retail price did not decline nearly as much as that of the 1Ds did in the face of the 5D3. Cannibalism is more common than jumping ship to a diferent lens systems, I suppose.

[Ray]

These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:
Cheers,
Bernard

Interesting image of the tree, Bernard.

I find rainforest scenes are typical of the high-contrast situations that benefit from the high DR capabilities of the latest Nikon DSLRs. I've got many examples taken with my Canon cameras of interesting, moss-covered roots of trees in the shade, that are unacceptably noisy as a result of my attempting to simultaneously capture the blue sky and clouds. In such situations one has to either completely blow out the sky, take multiple shots for merging to HDR, or use a Nikon, if the shade is not too dark.

[Hans Kruse]

These is simply no way you can know this by looking at the end result. I'll just give you a couple of examples before putting and end to this exchange:

And like wise from a single exposure using the 1Ds mkIII:

[MatthewCromer]

And like wise from a single exposure using the 1Ds mkIII:

(image snipped)

An experienced landscape photographer will know that a an image taken in the middle of the day is almost certainly going to have a lot more DR to handle than one taken with the sun bisected by a (hazy) horizon.

Sometimes you can use every bit of dynamic range your sensor gives you:

[BernardLanguillier]

And like wise from a single exposure using the 1Ds mkIII:

Nice image but this is a fairly easy case... Heck, even my Kodak SLRn had no problem handling such scenes just before the sun went down.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

Nice image but this is a fairly easy case... Heck, even my Kodak SLRn had no problem handling such scenes just before the sun went down.

Judge from the RAW file with no adjustments:

[Hans Kruse]

An experienced landscape photographer will know that a an image taken in the middle of the day is almost certainly going to have a lot more DR to handle than one taken with the sun bisected by a (hazy) horizon.

Sometimes you can use every bit of dynamic range your sensor gives you:

Certainly DR can be larger than the one I showed, but don't underestimate the DR you need to not blow out the clouds in this picture. Also morning pictures at sunrise can need a lot of DR. I normally don't shoot in the middle of the day as I almost always don't find the light interesting for landscape shooting. And in fact for these pictures is not problem to exposure blend multiple exposures anyway. It's not something I would have sleepless nights over