Nikon has its Mark III

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't believe there is any difference in how Canon and Nikon does it. The EFC works by the sensor doing a reset to start the exposure without the first curtain moving at all. The MUP in live view is not moving the mirror which you can assure yourself about when doing what I suggested some posts above, take off the lens and use a long shutter speed and see what's going on with the shutter. In live view the first click of the shutter does absolutely nothing the second starts the exposure. In fact on the D800(E) what happens in live view with MUP is that the first click on the shutter button closes these first curtain and the second click opens it for exposure. They just kept the same functionality with no reason since the shutter does not move at all with EFC.

On Canon live work works with EFC and you can do continous shooting with only the second curtain moving. That's what I had hoped Nikon would have done with the D810. But not. As I said it's something one can get used to, but ..... it in my view this is a bug in the implementation.

You don't appear to have understood my comments Hans.

My point is that the instructions to reset the sensor and to take the image are implemented as 2 different steps on Nikon and as one single step on the Canon.

I question the possibility to have accurate capture timing on the Canon, but this depends on the implementation in terms of time needed to reset the sensor vs others delays occuring at exposure.

As I wrote, I fully understand that there is no mirror movement and that the decision to use MLU function as a second trigger to be able to use EFC in live view is debatable.

Clear now?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

You don't appear to have understood my comments Hans.

My point is that the instructions to reset the sensor and to take the image are implemented as 2 different steps on Nikon and as one single step on the Canon.

I question the possibility to have accurate capture timing on the Canon, but this depends on the implementation in terms of time needed to reset the sensor vs others delays occuring at exposure.

As I wrote, I fully understand that there is no mirror movement and that the decision to use MLU function as a second trigger to be able to use EFC in live view is debatable.

Clear now?

Cheers,
Bernard

What reason could there be to have to clicks on the shutter to start the exposure in live view with MUP active and EFC active? Well not real good reason except to be consistent with the behavior when EFC is not active!

[BernardLanguillier]

What reason could there be to have to clicks on the shutter to start the exposure in live view with MUP active and EFC active? Well not real good reason except to be consistent with the behavior when EFC is not active!

But on your question. In my view there is value in not having to go to a menu to switch between EFc and non EFC modes in live view. I like that part about the Nikon implementation.

There is also value in the user controlling the exact exposure timing when EFC is engaged. I like this part as well.

Once you know that you need 2 clicks to achieve this, the remaining question is about the best way to implement these 2 clicks. MLU is present in the muscle memory of many photographers as one mode of camera operation that requires double shutter action, but it would be possible to do it other ways too. That's why I write it is debatable.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hans Kruse]

But on your question. In my view there is value in not having to go to a menu to switch between EFc and non EFC modes in live view. I like that part about the Nikon implementation.

There is also value in the user controlling the exact exposure timing when EFC is engaged. I like this part as well.

Once you know that you need 2 clicks to achieve this, the remaining question is about the best way to implement these 2 clicks. MLU is present in the muscle memory of many photographers as one mode of camera operation that requires double shutter action, but it would be possible to do it other ways too. That's why I write it is debatable.

Cheers,
Bernard

On the Canon e.g. 5D mkIII the EFC option is set in the live view menu. In fact you can always shoot with EFC on the Canon in live view. It is not coupled to mirror lock up.

On the Nikon it is fine that EFC is coupled with MUP outside of live view. In live view I had hoped that there was an option for EFC for live view only, but there is not unfortunately.
Having EFC locked to MUP is inelegant as one has to turn the wheel to MUP for shooting in live view with EFC and it is not possible to shoot continous for bracketing. On top of that one has to click twice with the shutter for each picture. My experience is that do not seem to be shutter shake shooting in live view without EFC up to between 100mm and 150mm focal length. So when EFC is deemed necessary one has to turn to MUP and double click the shutter for each picture in the bracket sequence.

As mentioned one can get used to it and every camera has it quirks for sure, but I had hope for a more elegant solution. Everything is debatable....

Clear?

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes

[Theodoros]

I don't think any of these charts talk about image quality as much as market penetration.

Canon had a full frame camera way before Nikon, way before anyone and if you were a professional 8 years ago, it was Canon or medium format or both.

It took Nikon forever to come out with a full frame camera and when they did, it was aimed more at the sports photographer than the general advertising market.

Consequently a lot of people have a lot of legacy Canon glass.

Also Canon jumped on the low cost video bandwagon early with the 5d2, continued on with the Canon mount on the 1dc, the c100 to 500 and most third party cameras like RED have a Canon mount solution.

Nikon is just beginning to start promoting video and now offers a "kit" with the d810, along with a marketing campaign, which in 2014 is kind of like someone at Nikon said, "you know video might be a big market", which kind of makes you wonder what they were thinking in 2009.

Once again, I'm not judging usability, color, detail, image quality, just market density and Canon had a very long head start.

In fact Nikon had a leg up in cinema and video in the adoption of their lenses.  For decades the only still camera lenses used for cinema and video were basically Nikon and older Nikon lenses like the 50mm 1.2 still go for a decent price.

Why Nikon didn't capitalize on this is confusing, especially since they had no ENG camera market to protect.

So bottom line, of the image makers I know that shoot combination projects, few don't leave the door without some kind of Canon product, whether it be cameras and bodies or tilt shift lenses.

Canon covers a lot of territory and once again this isn't meant to start flaming any other brand because I own both and don't sell cameras for a living.

IMO

BC

My impression is, that Nikon has been affected by Sony's FF mirror less cameras much more than Canon... Those that don't care on having an OVF, or those that video is important to them, would prefer a Sony mirror less than a mirror box Nikon... Some still life pros that work tethered in studio and perhaps use their FF camera as a back on a shift/tilt device (like an old view camera) would clearly prefer a mirrorless Sony than Nikon... Also... very few videographers use Nikon... Nikon has to work on that... it's a huge market segment.

[Theodoros]

It seems that DR range is clearly better with the D800E at comparable ISO... D810 scores higher at ISO64 which is sensible since the sensor is less sensitive... This can be important for people (mostly studio pros or those who use tripod often) that can use 64 ISO often, but it may not be good news for other users that are equally important for the camera's sales numbers.  Mind you that the obvious advantage of D800E's DR at comparable ISO was mentioned earlier (it was obvious through the JPEG comparisons) but Bernard thought it could be the other way around when DXO would publish the (obvious) results... well, it's not!

[BernardLanguillier]

My impression is, that Nikon has been affected by Sony's FF mirror less cameras much more than Canon... Those that don't care on having an OVF, or those that video is important to them, would prefer a Sony mirror less than a mirror box Nikon... Some still life pros that work tethered in studio and perhaps use their FF camera as a back on a shift/tilt device (like an old view camera) would clearly prefer a mirrorless Sony than Nikon... Also... very few videographers use Nikon... Nikon has to work on that... it's a huge market segment.

Perhaps, but all the a7x owners I know are migrating from Canon or adding a Sony to use their excellent Canon lenses on a higher DR sensor.

The key factor is sensor to mount distance.

The shorter, the more you sell body, the longer the more the mount sells lenses.

Who is in the middle? Canon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Theodoros]

Perhaps, but all the a7x owners I know are migrating from Canon or adding a Sony to use their excellent Canon lenses on a higher DR sensor.

The key factor is sensor to mount distance.

The shorter, the more you sell body, the longer the more the mount sells lenses.

Who is in the middle? Canon.

Cheers,
Bernard

Most I know (probably we know different people) use Nikon lenses (especially older AI & AI-S) on their mirror less... some are using them on their ...Canon's too! I've many times said that Nikon's biggest marketing mistake is that they abandoned the aperture ring from their lenses... If they bring it back, not only they'll sell much more many lenses (some of them to people with other maker's camera), but they'll create an easier path for people to jump on their boat, or even people that will have different bodies with Nikon lenses and are regular customers of Nikon camera bodies whenever there is something that interests them...

P.S. Thanks for explaining the mount to light sensitive area distance to me... I bet it was "news" to most of us here... ...I always wondered why my 17-35 Nikkor won't fit my C645&back... now "thanks to you" I know...

[BernardLanguillier]

Most I know (probably we know different people) use Nikon lenses (especially older AI & AI-S) on their mirror less... some are using them on their ...Canon's too!

We are saying the exact same thing here...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Theodoros]

We are saying the exact same thing here...

Cheers,
Bernard

No we don't... you say Sony mirrorless affects negatively Canon sales, while I say that it affects Nikon sales more! ...I even suggest a way of Nikon to avoid that happening... To bring the aperture ring back! ...Maybe a large sensor mirrorless of their own would help even more... Clearly the sales of Nikon are affected by Canon's/Sony's tradition with video and a new mirrorless mount (with future hi-end video cameras in mind like the NEX mount) could be very beneficial under the circumstances...

[Theodoros]

A mirrorless mount in combination with a shift/tilt adapter would additionally be very beneficial for studio pros that would then keep their series of lenses for their still life photography... Now they are loosing those customers to Sony...

[bcooter]

My impression is, that Nikon has been affected by Sony's FF mirror less cameras much more than Canon... Those that don't care on having an OVF, or those that video is important to them, would prefer a Sony mirror less than a mirror box Nikon... Some still life pros that work tethered in studio and perhaps use their FF camera as a back on a shift/tilt device (like an old view camera) would clearly prefer a mirrorless Sony than Nikon... Also... very few videographers use Nikon... Nikon has to work on that... it's a huge market segment.

You talk to anyone that sells cameras on the medium to high end for motion and they all scratch their head why Nikon doesn't/didn't make a killer combo stills or motion camera.

Obviously Nikon is smart, sees the advantage in motion imagery, (hence the big advertising push for motion and their "video kit" for the d810).

They could have made a super 70d, with an apsc (super 35mm) 4k crop in camera for motion and full frame 35mpx stills all in the same body, with decent preamps, touch screen the while 9.

Most people assume it has something to do with their contract arrangements, maybe with Sony, or maybe they just fell asleep at the wheel and didn't think they needed it.

All the Japanese companies do some silly things, or protect market share.    

I just bought a 70d for a production that needed touch screen focus and a decent 2k file and the 70d is pretty amazing in that regard and produces a somewhat hefty file, with an all intra 1 minute clip is about 400mb so it grades well, focus tracks well, is sturdy and aps c is the perfect size for motion, which somewhat parallels, super 35mm in crop and mindset, but then there is the things Canon leaves off.  

Like a headphone jack (which isn't a deal breaker with an external recorder), but if you use the hdmi out, the touch screen lcd on camera blanks out (which is really unforgivable).   Also 2.5 K capture and then downsampling to 2k (like the Arri) is about the minimum to cut alaising and moire which the 70d sensor could do, though probably would need some heavy horsepower to process.

If the 70d had the features mentioned, or even 4k they could ask double, triple the price and nobody in the motion world would blink, but I guess Canon, like Sony thinks about protecting market share on their higher end cameras.

In other words, I feel it's either marketing, or some kind of agreements that hobbles innovation as much if not more than available science.

IMO

BC

[Theodoros]

Well... certainly a D810 won't add them extra customers over D800/E sales... but the same technology over a mirrorless would... and if they brought back the aperture ring it would create them a wider range of future customers too... There is nothing in your statement I disagree with, only that I don't believe that Sony prohibits Nikon from bringing a (real) mirrorless into the market... I don't believe they depend on Sony for their sensors, their best sensor (for photography) is their own (the 16.2mp one) and they raised production of it considerably with the DF...

[BernardLanguillier]

No we don't... you say Sony mirrorless affects negatively Canon sales, while I say that it affects Nikon sales more!

I am saying it is clearly affecting both. Without the shadow of a doubt Canon because I know many first hand examples of people using Canon lenses on Sony ax bodies.

So Sony has been able to sell bodies to people pre-owning Canon lenses. This hurting Canon sales directly because Canon was obviously hoping these people would naturally upgrade to a Canon body. It is hurting Nikon sales only as a missed win back opportunity.

I also know examples of people pre-owning Canon bodies with Nikon lenses (the 14-24mm f2.8 is a clear example)s. So Nikon has been able to sell lenses to Canon body owners.

I don't know any example of people having replaced their Nikon bodies by a Sony ax body, but even if there were people would still be continuing to use their Nikon lenses with these just like they are using their Canon lenses on their ax bodies. The reason why few Nikon users have bought ax bodies is that the main advantage they have over Nikon DSLRs is compactness. Some people may prefer EVFs, but their main value of EVFs is ease of focus with manual lenses coming from other makes, which doesn't impact most Nikon owners already benefiting from excellent AF. On all other metrics the Nikon DSLRs are superior or on par to the equivalent Sony ax body, are they not?

There are obviously no examples of Canon/Sony selling any lens to Nikon body owners because they just cannot fit Nikon bodies.

Which is why I am saying that the sensor to lens flange distance is very critical. I was of course not trying to teach you that these distances were different, just why the difference is relevant to the point you were making.

So I fail to see the rationale of Nikon beeing hurt more globally.

What exactly are you disagreeing with here?

...I even suggest a way of Nikon to avoid that happening... To bring the aperture ring back! ...Maybe a large sensor mirrorless of their own would help even more... Clearly the sales of Nikon are affected by Canon's/Sony's tradition with video and a new mirrorless mount (with future hi-end video cameras in mind like the NEX mount) could be very beneficial under the circumstances...

Which supported my proposal that Nikon is well positioned to sell lenses to other shorter flange distance mount owners... but there are adapters enabling the usage of Nikon G lenses on Canon bodies, right?...

I don't disagree that Nikon mirrorless strategy doesn't have big holes, but I disagree that Sony ax is hurting them more than Canon because this is not backed up by facts nor by logic.

The influence of video is tiny in my opinion.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Keith Reeder]

I am saying it is clearly affecting both. Without the shadow of a doubt Canon because I know many first hand examples of people using Canon lenses on Sony ax bodies.

This would only be hurting Canon's sales if people who do this are buying the Sony instead of a Canon. In my experience, and based on what I've seen of online discussion, it's almost invariably that people are buying an AX in addition to their Canon bodies, because Canon doesn't have an "equivalent" horse in the race.

[BernardLanguillier]

This would only be hurting Canon's sales if people who do this are buying the Sony instead of a Canon. In my experience, and based on what I've seen of online discussion, it's almost invariably that people are buying an AX in addition to their Canon bodies, because Canon doesn't have an "equivalent" horse in the race.

Don't you think that the timing of their next Canon body purchase is going to be affected by them having bought a Sony a7r?

I think that, average, if you own a 5DIII and an a7r you will not buy a 5DIV.

Based our world's quarterly paced business, any delay longer than 3 months has an impact.

Cheers,
Bernard

[CptZar]

I don't see why Nikon users should switch to Sony. Beside the fact they are a very loyal user base, the differences in the output of a A7r and a D800 are very little. And I guess this goes for the D810, too, beside the fact, that DXO proves a little advantage for the Nikon.

I switched from a 5DMKIII to a Sony A7r.

[Hans Kruse]

So far I have had 3 on my workshops this year with a Sony A7R, two of them were already D800 users and one Canon and Olympus user (so 3 out of 29 so far this year). Too little to build statistics on, of course. I think it is reasonable to expect that a number of Canon users will add a Sony since it is easy to share Canon lenses. I think only a few will switch but we will see. I also only saw a few switching from Canon to Nikon (or the other way) and I saw almost all the 5D mkII upgrade to 5D mkIII. A number have bought a Olympus OMD and some Fuji. Besides all this serious landscape shooters are a minority among the customer base of both Canon and Nikon. So I don't believe that the A7R will change much, if anything for Canon or Nikon.

[Theodoros]

Clearly this is a discussion between marketing "experts" that ignore the majority of the market (which buys cameras based on their hybrid (photo-video)[/i] specification and abilities) and think like they (and their priorities on choosing products) is the centre of the universe... Well, let me inform you guys that this crucial part of the market that does its filming along with its photography through a camera... They do it in MF ...and they (by far) prefer lenses that have an aperture ring...  ...they also prefer (guess why...) a mirrorless product. Mind you that I (this is personal) find an EVF inadequate for creative photography (other than tethered) ...but this is only to declare the side of the river I prefer... it doesn't make me blind!