The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.

[ErikKaffehr]

Jack,

If you are shooting telephoto, and want best detail, pixel pitch is "all that matters", crop factor only says how large the image will get.

The difference between 3.9 and 4.2 microns is small in my book, anyway something like 7%.

There are many other factors that matter, lenses may be most important but AF-performance and high ISO behaviour also plays a role.

Best regards
Erik

Curious though; on your chart the pixel pitch is 4.9 on the D810, and 4.2 on the old 7D, but only 3.9 on the D7100. Are you saying less is better?


Jack

[John Koerner]

Jack,
If you are shooting telephoto, and want best detail, pixel pitch is "all that matters", crop factor only says how large the image will get.
The difference between 3.9 and 4.2 microns is small in my book, anyway something like 7%.

Thank you for your response Erik, but that didn't really answer my question.  Is smaller better? Reason I ask is the D810 is 4.9 and the old 7D is 4.2, while the new D7100 is 3.9.

There are many other factors that matter, lenses may be most important but AF-performance and high ISO behaviour also plays a role.
Best regards
Erik

That is one of the other key elements I am anxious to see: improved low light performance.

As far as AF (not to mention FPS), it looks like the 7 D II is it.

While the $11,900 200-400 lens seems expensive, how much money in glass would you have to spend with Nikon to get thaf same 320-896 range with a D810? I would simply be impossible with the same convenience. Swapping lenses like a 300, a 600, and an 800 (not to mention carrying them--and not to mention paying for them) would be a drag.

Even if you tried to do something similar with the D7100, a Nikkor 200-400, and a external 1x4 converter, that you have to take on and off, you would still come up short: 1) you still don't have quite the range; 2) you definitely don't have the same level of ease-of-use going from one extreme to another; 3) I highly doubt the combined image quality is the same with the D7100 old the Nikkor lens + external converter ... versus the new Canon 7D II + new 200-400 lens; and 4) in a fast-action nature, or sports, scenario the new 7 D II has double the FPS on top of the smooth convenience of being all-in-one.

Therefore, assuming the technical skill is equal between two wildlife (or sports) photographers, the man with the 7D II and Canon 200-400 is better-equipped to take advantage of every possible opportunity, near and far, than the man with Nikon equipment.

Jack

[ErikKaffehr]

Jack,

Here is a well written article on the issue: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/index.html

Edit: I removed the links as they just showed the text "Copyrighted image…".

Best regards
Erik

Thank you for your response Erik, but that didn't really answer my question.  Is smaller better? Reason I ask is the D810 is 4.9 and the old 7D is 4.2, while the new D7100 is 3.9.

[Keith Reeder]

It's likely the sensor is identical to the 70d which is decent but isn't a big step up over the previous ones

Actually, it is: it's very clean (if you know what you're doing) in the shadows at low ISO, so there's a lot of latitude there that wasn't available from (say) the 7D sensor; pattern noise is effectively absent; and its output is just all-round better than the 7D sensor across the board, right up to five-figure ISOs.

This is speaking from owning and using both cameras.

I would have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a 70D sensor (or more likely a enhanced derivative) being in the "7D Mk II"...

[Keith Reeder]

I hope there is less noise in this new 7D II than the 7D I had.

On that.

This is 10,000 ISO from the 70D - Capture One 7 Pro at default NR, with no additional NR in PP.

And this is a 100% crop from the same camera (mine) at "only" 6400 ISO - again, a Capture One 7 Pro conversion at default NR.

Check the Exif in these files - this is low light - and frankly I consider this level and quality of low noise performance to be amazing from an APS-C camera, and as I suggest, a "70D+" sensor in the new camera would be no bad thing at all.

At the other end of the spectrum: does this - 100% crop - from this look OK for low ISO DR?

Yes, it's a bit flat - I wasn't looking for "art" here - but in terms of the lack of noise in the shadows, point made, I think. I lifted the shadows in DPP, incidentally - it does a brilliant job if opening up the shadows to this extent is a must-have...

[Keith Reeder]

I am saying it is funny because such reactions certainly contribute to slowing down the pace of innovation at Canon, which only really hurts people invested in Canon lenses. Talk about a self defeating approach to purchasing...

It does - and is - no such thing.

Hate to break it to you, Bernard, but there's more to image quality than low ISO DR, and much more to innovation than clean shadows - which in any event is essentially a Sony, not a Nikon, "innovation".

Unless we're now calling the buying-in of another company's hardware "innovation"?

[Paul2660]

"While the $11,900 200-400 lens seems expensive, how much money in glass would you have to spend with Nikon to get thaf same 320-896 range with a D810? I would simply be impossible with the same convenience. Swapping lenses like a 300, a 600, and an 800 (not to mention carrying them--and not to mention paying for them) would be a drag"

While I feel the Canon 200-400 with a built in 1.4 teleconverter is expensive, price is a selective issue.  But I don't agree that a 800 class camera could not get there just as easily.  The D810 in DX mode (something I don't think Canon does not yet offer), allows for the APS-C format. So all I need to add to a say a Nikon 200-400 is a Nikon 1.4 III converter.  I still have 51 AF points and quite good results at 3200 and 6400 when needed.  Personally, the difference from 1.5 to 1.6 to me is close enough I feel I can still get the shot. 

Does the Canon lens have better optical capabilities, I hope so, for the cost.  But I have had no issues with my Nikon 200-400 in regards to resolution and details.

Paul
  

[powerslave12r]

Another reason why Landscape (or Full Frame) Canon users/hopefuls *may* find the 7D2 announcement lackluster is because they (prematurely) project the sensor advancement of the 7D2 to the newer FF bodies. It's illogical to draw an conclusions about what happens with the Full Frame Canon bodies, but it's a (again, premature) impression about the direction of the Company.

That said, I would love for nothing more than Canon to launch a better sensor FF camera.

[BernardLanguillier]

It does - and is - no such thing.

Hate to break it to you, Bernard, but there's more to image quality than low ISO DR, and much more to innovation than clean shadows - which in any event is essentially a Sony, not a Nikon, "innovation".

Unless we're now calling the buying-in of another company's hardware "innovation"?

Keith,

No issues here. I am brand agnostic, I couldn't care less whether it is Nikon's innovation, Sony's or Canon's.

I am currently lucky enough to own lenses in the right mount. I won't hesitate to criticize Nikon if they fall behind and generate an opportunity cost in the process although I'll probably just buy a Canon body.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

While I feel the Canon 200-400 with a built in 1.4 teleconverter is expensive, price is a selective issue.  But I don't agree that a 800 class camera could not get there just as easily.  The D810 in DX mode (something I don't think Canon does not yet offer), allows for the APS-C format.

Are you saying a D810 shoots at a 1.5x crop

So all I need to add to a say a Nikon 200-400 is a Nikon 1.4 III converter.  I still have 51 AF points and quite good results at 3200 and 6400 when needed.  Personally, the difference from 1.5 to 1.6 to me is close enough I feel I can still get the shot.

Well, if you like to put a 1.4x extender on, and take it off, when each is called-for, then more power to you.

But I think there are a lot of shots that would be "lost" by the effort at doing so ... versus having it all bundled into one awesome package.

Also the D810 will never reach 896 mm with a 200-400 mm lens on it, unlike the 7D II with a 200-400mm lens on it, with built-in conversion.

With the 810D, a 200-400mm, and the 1x4 external converter, your range stops at 560 mm and your frame rate is cut in half.
With the Canon equipment, your range stretches out to 896mm (another 330 mm), not only that, but your frame rate doubles.
That is significant to any wildlife of sports shooter.
Hate to break the news to you, but on a safari that means LOST shots with the Nikkor combo, which would be gained with the Canon combo ...

So, while landscape shooters may be migrating to the D810, for good reason, I promise you wildlife/sports shooters will be migrating the the 7D II / 200-400, for equally-good reason.

Oh, and I do agree that 51 vs. 65 AF points is not much to quibble about ... just as any slight edge in resolution with the D810 offers is quibbling over minutia also.

However, the convenience, full range, FPS, and overall wildlife/sports package Canon offers (versus Nikon at this point) most definitely is significant.

Does the Canon lens have better optical capabilities, I hope so, for the cost.  But I have had no issues with my Nikon 200-400 in regards to resolution and details.
Paul

Ultimately, Canon has quite a bit better 200-400 lens.

Actually, if you read the comparisons, Canon's new 24-70 II lens, their 70-200 II lens, and (especially) their 200-400 lens all edge-out Nikkor's equivalents.

So, while Nikon offers a better 14-24 ... the buck stops there ... and from 24-70, from 70-200, and from 200-400 Canon's offerings stretch out across the board after that.

Unlike Erik's article (which compares sucky, off-label zooms), the newer Canon zooms above compare quite favorably (and even surpass) primes in their ranges.

That is a pretty long and significant range of first-rate lens offerings, so it will be interesting to see how they pan out placed over whatever new sensor the upcoming 7D II is going to have.

Jack

[powerslave12r]

Are you saying a D810 shoots at a 1.5x crop

Yes. http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cXYH

Are you saying a D810 shoots at a 1.5x crop



Well, if you like to put a 1.4x extender on, and take it off, when each is called-for, then more power to you.

But I think there are a lot of shots that would be "lost" by the effort at doing so ... versus having it all bundled into one awesome package.

Also the D810 will never reach 896 mm with a 200-400 mm lens on it, unlike the 7D II with a 200-400mm lens on it, with built-in conversion.

With the 810D, a 200-400mm, and the 1x4 external converter, your range stops at 560 mm and your frame rate is cut in half.
With the Canon equipment, your range stretches out to 896mm (another 330 mm), not only that, but your frame rate doubles.
That is significant to any wildlife of sports shooter.
Hate to break the news to you, but on a safari that means LOST shots with the Nikkor combo, which would be gained with the Canon combo ...

So, while landscape shooters may be migrating to the D810, for good reason, I promise you wildlife/sports shooters will be migrating the the 7D II / 200-400, for equally-good reason.

Oh, and I do agree that 51 vs. 65 AF points is not much to quibble about ... just as any slight edge in resolution with the D810 offers is quibbling over minutia also.

However, the convenience, full range, FPS, and overall wildlife/sports package Canon offers (versus Nikon at this point) most definitely is significant.



Ultimately, Canon has quite a bit better 200-400 lens.

Actually, if you read the comparisons, Canon's new 24-70 II lens, their 70-200 II lens, and (especially) their 200-400 lens all edge-out Nikkor's equivalents.

So, while Nikon offers a better 14-24 ... the buck stops there ... and from 24-70, from 70-200, and from 200-400 Canon's offerings stretch out across the board after that.

Unlike Erik's article (which compares sucky, off-label zooms), the newer Canon zooms above compare quite favorably (and even surpass) primes in their ranges.

That is a pretty long and significant range of first-rate lens offerings, so it will be interesting to see how they pan out placed over whatever new sensor the upcoming 7D II is going to have.

Jack

Also, sorry for being lazy and not reading your entire post, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that a 36MP RAW file from a D800 can be cropped plenty to get a APS-C equivalent FOV. Now I haven't done the math, but maybe you won't get a 20MP image at 400*1.6 FOV, but you'll surely get in the ballpark after cropping a 36MP from the D800/810.

I haven't done the calculations so I'll be more than happy to get slapped by math if it corrects my perception.

Edit: DX mode is compatible with DX Lenses, increase the fps, and FX mode can be cropped out as well.

Disclaimer: Not having read most posts in this thread, I have no idea why we are comparing the D810 vs 7D2, for reach, and trashing third party brands. In fact, I'm wondering why I even played along. Need coffee.

[Paul2660]

The Nikon D600, D610, D800, D810,D4, D4s and now the D750 all offer the ability to crop in camera to DX, in effect 1.5 crop called DX mode. It's a great feature.


With the 800 series I can get the focal equivalent of 600mm or 840mm if I take a few seconds and add the 1.4 converter. 

I give that the Canon has this built in. I can afford to loose a few seconds in my shooting to make the change.

As for who has the better glass. Nikon or Canon both have excellent long range glass and can't justify switching brands on that. Nikon has superior DR with the Sony chips. That's been shown in enough reviews over the past 2.5 years. That difference in DR WAS worth the switch for me. Never looked back. 

It's so easy now to rent bodies from lensrentals.com. Take a week rent both and see which works best for your style.   Just a suggestion. 


Paul

[John Koerner]

Yes. http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cXYH

Interesting, but it looks like the image quality drops (though at least your range increases).

Which means any superiority the 810 had in the sensor is therefore lost, and there is no way around the fact your frame rate still remains cut in half.

[John Koerner]

Honestly, I would love to see an image comparison of the D810 (degraded to crop) + old Nikkor 200-400 lens + external 1x4 extender versus the images produced by the new 7D II + new 200-400 with a built-in extender.

Notwithstanding the issue of only 5 fps versus 10 fps, trying to capture in-action footage, I would just like to see an image-by-image comparison of static shots.

[NancyP]

So do the frame rate and buffer capacity increase when you shoot a Nikon FX camera in DX mode?

[powerslave12r]

You get 7fps in DX mode. Not bad really.

[Paul2660]

John.

No doubt if you are after 10 FPS the 7d MKIII may be it. I just don't need it that often.

Also you are not degrading the shot by going to DX. If anything you are improving it as you are only using the center of the sensor, less light fall off etc.   I think the D810 gives a bit faster frame rate in DX mode which was not true with the 800 and 800e.

I love the feature.

Paul

[Torbjörn Tapani]

A crop sensor doesn't magically reach longer. It's still 560 mm but the field of view is different. Much like cropping a full frame image. What can make a difference is the pixel pitch. More resolution on target if you will. Then you can compare sensors of different size with regards to detail they are able to resolve.

[powerslave12r]

Interesting, but it looks like the image quality drops (though at least your range increases).

Which means any superiority the 810 had in the sensor is therefore lost, and there is no way around the fact your frame rate still remains cut in half.

In addition to what Paul said, you're ignoring the quality of that cropped image, it will still have the same DR, ISO characteristics etc that the FX mode offers.(An assumption, but IMHO a reasonable one)

EDIT: I don't understand what the main topic of discussion here is (readin this thread post by post might help ), but is it  that Canon offers the longest FL for a 20MP image compared to a Nikon?

[Paul2660]

A crop sensor doesn't magically reach longer. It's still 560 mm but the field of view is different. Much like cropping a full frame image. What can make a difference is the pixel pitch. More resolution on target if you will. Then you can compare sensors of different size with regards to detail they are able to resolve.

I fully understand this however most people seem to overlook it including magazines and reviewers. So I just play along. It's a cropped field of view.   Still I love the feature of DX. Most subject matter where I am wanting a DX view full frame would be wasted and I would be writing a lot of unnecessary data.

Back to John's point on the 7Dmkii, you will have all 20MP in the 1.6 crop so overall better resolving power and ability to print larger. The D810 in DX mode is 15MP but again for my needs 15MP is enough most of the time. 

It's all about what fits your individual shooting style and needs. I know that a dedicated 1.6 crop would be detrimental for 85% of my shooting needs. So the Nikon-crop is a good compromise  for me.

Paul