The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.

[melchiorpavone]

I've been a Nikon shooter since Canon obsoleted my FD mount equipment with the EOS mount eons ago.  I was actually concerned that with their bigger size Canon might just outpace Nikon and in pure number of lenses they have.  However, in really thinking it over, it is better that Nikon can source key components that are not really core to "photography", but technology used in Photography.

And while MP isn't everything, it depends what you are using the MP for.  Remember that the 36MP of the D800 isn't even double the resolution of the 12MP D300 which would be 48MP.  Resolution is a square function.

If I had to list my priorities it would be low noise at all ISO, smooth tonal gradiations (MF film advantage over 35mm), true color rendition (lessen post processing demands), exposure depth.

It was the perfectly rational thing for Canon to do. For pros, the investment lost in their old equipment was chump change, and the new capabilities were far beyond anything Nikon could come up with, and Nikon still hasn't caught up. Digital was not even thought of at that time, of course. The larger EOS mount allowed for faster lenses and improved optical designs. The fastest lenses were dropped by Canon when digital sensors began eclipsing the sensitivity of fast films.

[BernardLanguillier]

Let's hope that Canon decides to invest on low ISO image quality.

Now, the funny thing is that, at least on internet forums, many Canon shooters are claiming they don't see the current level of DR of their sensor as limiting for their art.

Some surely mean it and that's great, they won't need to buy the 16 stop DR Canon body, some apparently don't want to acknowledge the fact that they are creating their art with equipment that isn't cutting edge (some don't create any art at all and are not really photographers but more money spenders, let's ignore them here).

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...

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

Canon will have to do something soon or I suspect their loyal customers will simply die of boredom. 

I made the decision to switch to Nikon because there was no true successor to the 1DsIII and the D800e was just to tempting.

I am extremely close to making that decision myself.

I shoot macro, and Canon has some key lenses there (i.e., MP-E65), and (at the time of my purchases in 2009) the EOS 7D was "it" is far as crop sensor cameras go ... but that was quite a few years ago.

The 7D was a game-changer for Canon, it stood out amongst the crowd ... and it has remained unchanged for years ... while the 5D went from II to III, the off-brand Crops caught up and passed it, as well as Nikon, and hell, even the Canon Rebels passed it.

The new 7D needs to re-define Canon and be a prelude of things to come. If the 7D isn't a game-changer again, a truly significant upgrade to give me something to buy myself for Christmas (lol), then I am going to go with the D800 as you did.

I am hoping Canon doesn't disappoint, because they have sat on their @$$ for too long IMO.

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

The new 7D needs to re-define Canon and be a prelude of things to come. If the 7D isn't a game-changer again, a truly significant upgrade to give me something to buy myself for Christmas (lol), then I am going to go with the D800 as you did.

Jack,

If you go the Nikon route, by all means get a D810.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

I would try the new Nikon 400mm f2.8 E FL / 800mm f5.6 E FL if I were you.
Expensive but even better optically than the previous version that was already the best lens available in Nikon mount IMHO (and arguably the best overall already). The previous one was too heavy and poorly balanced, the new fixes all that.
Cheers,
Bernard

Long lens-wise, I am wanting to buy the Canon 200-400/1.4x, and have been saving for it for awhile.

On a 1.6x crop sensor, and with a 1.4x built-in converter, it is essentially a 320-896 lens, so basically there is no Nikon equivalent that can touch that.

The closest to this kind of versatility would be a D300 on the Nikon's 200-400, which (at the D300's 1.5x crop) would be 300-600, which isn't really close.
And if I get the D800, then it is just a straight 200-400

Is the extender really good? Fair question.
I think extenders suck for rigorous demands of macro, but on long lenses they work pretty good, and by all accounts on this lens especially.

If the 7D Mark II has a really great sensor, I would much prefer to have it + the Canon 200-400/1.4x than any other manufacturer's offering, which really can't compare.

The Canon 200-400/1.4x is the most versatile field lens available, and if Canon brings its next crop sensor Camera up to the level that lens deserves, I will be much happier than if I have to get the D800 (or D300) + an older 200-400.

Jack

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Good reasoning for long lenses. The impression I have that the 200-400 is an excellent lens. Personally, I often use a small pixels APS-C body instead of full frame and 1.4X extender.

Best regards
Erik

Long lens-wise, I am wanting to buy the Canon 200-400/1.4x, and have been saving for it for awhile.

On a 1.6x crop sensor, and with a 1.4x built-in converter, it is essentially a 320-896 lens, so basically there is no Nikon equivalent that can touch that.

The closest to this kind of versatility would be a D300 on the Nikon's 200-400, which (at the D300's 1.5x crop) would be 300-600, which isn't really close.
And if I get the D800, then it is just a straight 200-400

Is the extender really good? Fair question.
I think extenders suck for rigorous demands of macro, but on long lenses they work pretty good, and by all accounts on this lens especially.

If the 7D Mark II has a really great sensor, I would much prefer to have it + the Canon 200-400/1.4x than any other manufacturer's offering, which really can't compare.

The Canon 200-400/1.4x is the most versatile field lens available, and if Canon brings its next crop sensor Camera up to the level that lens deserves, I will be much happier than if I have to get the D800 (or D300) + an older 200-400.

Jack

[MrSmith]

Let's hope that Canon decides to invest on low ISO image quality.

Now, the funny thing is that, at least on internet forums, many Canon shooters are claiming they don't see the current level of DR of their sensor as limiting for their art.

Some surely mean it and that's great, they won't need to buy the 16 stop DR Canon body, some apparently don't want to acknowledge the fact that they are creating their art with equipment that isn't cutting edge (some don't create any art at all and are not really photographers but more money spenders, let's ignore them here).

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...

Cheers,
Bernard

if you shoot in the studio and control the lighting then there is no issue with the dynamic range (or on some location shoots where you control the lighting) if you come from shooting E6 which i did for all my jobs then managing exposure/dynamic range was just part of the process.

i dont get the self defeating approach to purchasing? many photographers stuck with their ‘inferior’ d2x instead of switching to canon and carried on shooting/earning money, technology changes but that doesn't make things obsolete overnight (plenty of people still using old 22mp backs and dslr’s).
me, i just took a side step to an A7r body and adapter which gave me the best of both worlds and meant i didn’t have to use some of Nikons mediocre lens offerings and body idiosyncrasies or take a financial hit swapping systems.

everyone has their shooting requirements, it’s not actually that difficult to find a solution that works in the age of the internet. if you are a measurebator money spender the little gaps between camera releases must be hard to bear  

[BernardLanguillier]

There are of course many other constraints coming into play.

I was shooting with a D2x myself when the forums were all over the 1Ds II. I couldn't afford to change.

This being said, DxO mark now tells us that the difference of DR at base ISO with the Canon was much smaller than what we have today.

My point was not about those cases though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwswager]

It was the perfectly rational thing for Canon to do. For pros, the investment lost in their old equipment was chump change, and the new capabilities were far beyond anything Nikon could come up with, and Nikon still hasn't caught up. Digital was not even thought of at that time, of course. The larger EOS mount allowed for faster lenses and improved optical designs. The fastest lenses were dropped by Canon when digital sensors began eclipsing the sensitivity of fast films.

It was the right decision for Canon at the time.  They were on the outside looking in and the EOS mount led to the innovations that put them in the same class as Nikon.  My point was just that since my equipment got obsolete, it was the opportune time to jump to Nikon.  I happened to like the rendition on Nikon lenses better and they are functionally much easier for me to operate.  I still struggle when people come up to me with Canon gear and ask me how to set various functions on their cameras.  I bought a S95 point and shoot because it was a great inexpensive camera with manual capability, but it is so ass backwards to operate, I will waive off Canon stuff from now on.

[John Koerner]

Hi,
Good reasoning for long lenses. The impression I have that the 200-400 is an excellent lens. Personally, I often use a small pixels APS-C body instead of full frame and 1.4X extender.
Best regards
Erik

The 200-400 is almost universally considered a game-changing lens, both in regards to inter-corporation long lens comparisons, as well as within each individual nature photographer's flexibility and ability to get the shot they want. Pretty much everyone who's used it has been floored by both its image quality as well as the versatility. Haven't seen a single bad review yet, but dozens of stellar reviews.

I have a few pro nature friends in Alaska and other regions, who's work is constantly on FB, who say this lens has opened up new worlds for them, and created opportunities that lens-switching would have lost for them.

For years, the Nikkor 200-400 has made Canon look bad compared to Canon's dinosaur 100-400. Now, compared to the Nikkor equivalent, Canon's answer with its own 200-400 is now considered superior on every level to the Nikkor offering ... from image quality, to range of potential use, as well as by not allowing dust inside (which one Nikon shooter said made him ultimately leave his Nikkor 200-400 home). So, in the lens department, Canon answered Nikkor's once-superiority with an epic rout, eclipsing the Nikkor on all levels.

In fact, the 200-400 is considered by many to Canon's most epic piece of glass, ever, and has pioneered the built-in extender technology, which no one else has added to a zoom. So I am sure we will watch the others play monkey-see, monkey-do in the future.

Therefore, if Canon brings their sensors up to par in the 7D, as well as the next generation full-frames ... in the same game-changing fashion they recently achieved with this remarkable lens ... it will make the wait worthwhile. Even if they just catch-up to what's out there, sensor-wise, they still offer a better deal "whole package"-wise. If not, then I can't see why they would bother upgrading their lenses like they've been doing ... if they're just going to put them overtop of inferior sensors. Would make no sense, so let's wait and see.

Jack

[uaiomex]

I've been an EOS shooter since 1992. I certainly don't feel limited by the resolution and DR of my 6D but I would truly be delighted to have an EOS with a Sony 36mp Exmor-like sensor.
I do a lot of exposure blending for my interior photography. I also do some for my landscapes and so on. Sometimes I get too tired of so much blending. I like to print big also but kind of heavily invested in EF and TSE lenses. Considering a switch is not an option yet but I think Canon pushed their luck too much already.
Eduardo

Let's hope that Canon decides to invest on low ISO image quality.

Now, the funny thing is that, at least on internet forums, many Canon shooters are claiming they don't see the current level of DR of their sensor as limiting for their art.

Some surely mean it and that's great, they won't need to buy the 16 stop DR Canon body, some apparently don't want to acknowledge the fact that they are creating their art with equipment that isn't cutting edge (some don't create any art at all and are not really photographers but more money spenders, let's ignore them here).

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...

Cheers,
Bernard

[peterottaway]

The weather around here hasn't been that good for the last couple of days - so thank you to the Fantasy Island Canon crew for keeping me entertained.

Myself, I kept on using my Canon T90 until it like my Olympus OM2n it finally died of old age well into the digital age. And have never had the urge to buy any Canon EOS whether film or digital even with all those statistics coming out about how dominant Canon was in the market place. I guess some of us have a pack mentality and others of us don't.

[robdickinson]

I've just been on a road trip with 7 other great photographers. I shoot canon.

6 shot nikon, all had D810's already. Most had a backup sony a7r.

TBH seeing the results they were getting , and not even needing filters long after I am using 3stops+ was sickening as a canon user.

I know I can work around the limitations here, stitch more, blend, filters. They ALL have downsides and risks, take time and effort - time and effort I could be putting in to composition and other framing options at peak light.

I have a D810 coming ( on loan for a test) and am eyeing up an a7r. I know it wont make me a better photographer. But it will make my files better and easier to work with, reduce time and risk.

[powerslave12r]

I've just been on a road trip with 7 other great photographers. I shoot canon.

6 shot nikon, all had D810's already. Most had a backup sony a7r.

TBH seeing the results they were getting , and not even needing filters long after I am using 3stops+ was sickening as a canon user.

I know I can work around the limitations here, stitch more, blend, filters. They ALL have downsides and risks, take time and effort - time and effort I could be putting in to composition and other framing options at peak light.

I have a D810 coming ( on loan for a test) and am eyeing up an a7r. I know it wont make me a better photographer. But it will make my files better and easier to work with, reduce time and risk.

As someone who has been tempted both by the d800e and the a7r, and who is aware of the advantages offered, I was especially piqued by your comment. I know the nikon and sony raw files have tons of info hidden in them to manipulate, but I would love it if you could share some galleries.

I would absolutely love to see some of your photos and some of your companions' taken with the D810 just put some concrete pictures to your comment. Not trying to question your experience or comment, I'm genuinely just curious. I want to see what kind of a real world difference was seen here.

Also, if you wouldn't mind answering, what location was this?

Thanks!

[lelouarn]

I got a Sony A7R to use with my Canon lenses, using a Metabones adapter. I'm really happy with the results. Yes, the AF is sloooooooow, but very accurate and consistent (I have the impression that more so than native Canon AF). No need for no stinkin' AF micro-adjustments and other fiddling, as focus is done directly on the sensor.
For my style of landscape / no moving objects shooting, it's a great combo. When I do wildlife or people, I still have my trusty 1DsmkIII, which gets the job done when fast AF is needed.

So, frustrated fellow Canon shooters, consider the Sony, at least as a temporary solution, until Canon gets it's act together (if it ever does)...

[melchiorpavone]

It was the right decision for Canon at the time.  They were on the outside looking in and the EOS mount led to the innovations that put them in the same class as Nikon.  My point was just that since my equipment got obsolete, it was the opportune time to jump to Nikon.  I happened to like the rendition on Nikon lenses better and they are functionally much easier for me to operate.  I still struggle when people come up to me with Canon gear and ask me how to set various functions on their cameras.  I bought a S95 point and shoot because it was a great inexpensive camera with manual capability, but it is so ass backwards to operate, I will waive off Canon stuff from now on.

I don't understand. Why jump to Nikon when the EOS system was far superior, built from the ground up as an autofocus system? Nikkor and Canon lenses of the late 1980s were roughly equivalent, and typical Japanese optics. If you really wanted superior optics, you should have jumped to Leica reflex cameras and lenses.

All of the new cameras (to the extent that I have looked at them) are way too complicated. I am used to an all-manual film camera (Leicaflex SL2) and all of these new-fangled digital cameras are worthless as far as I am concerned. My lenses are as good as or better than any of them, so why should I even consider switching?

[powerslave12r]

As someone who has been tempted both by the d800e and the a7r, and who is aware of the advantages offered, I was especially piqued by your comment. I know the nikon and sony raw files have tons of info hidden in them to manipulate, but I would love it if you could share some galleries.

I would absolutely love to see some of your photos and some of your companions' taken with the D810 just put some concrete pictures to your comment. Not trying to question your experience or comment, I'm genuinely just curious. I want to see what kind of a real world difference was seen here.

Also, if you wouldn't mind answering, what location was this?

Thanks!

Talk about coming a full circle.

1. I notice this photo on flickr explore: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce-hood/15181925415/ and exclaim to myself, damn that's really quite the shot (D810) and I wonder if the 6D can manage something like that.

2. I see RobDickinson's post in this thread about the D810s and connect to that shot I had seen (along with the general impression of d800/e/810) and wonder more.

3. I make this quoted post.

4. I see RobDickinson's post in the Landscape forum https://www.flickr.com/photos/zarphag/15135937235/.

Both excellent shots. And I think I have a good answer on my hands. I wonder how much background work in both these shots.

BTW RobDickinson, I didn't realize you were in my flickr contacts, your photos are insane, the Milford Sound one blew my mind (and so did this one).

[dwswager]

I don't understand. Why jump to Nikon when the EOS system was far superior, built from the ground up as an autofocus system? Nikkor and Canon lenses of the late 1980s were roughly equivalent, and typical Japanese optics. If you really wanted superior optics, you should have jumped to Leica reflex cameras and lenses.

All of the new cameras (to the extent that I have looked at them) are way too complicated. I am used to an all-manual film camera (Leicaflex SL2) and all of these new-fangled digital cameras are worthless as far as I am concerned. My lenses are as good as or better than any of them, so why should I even consider switching?

I was gifted a Canon body and lens at 16 years old and that is what I went with.  At the time of the EOS mount appeared, I thought long and hard about which brand to go to.  Since back then the bodies were relatively inexpensive it came down to lenses and operation.  I love the old all manual Nikon FM body.  I also like the rendition of Nikon lenses.  I thought both about the advantages of the new mount, Canon's financial were with all and what would be a better long term investment.  Having played with both and having friends with Canon gear, I am glad I chose to go Nikon.

I agree with the complication of modern cameras.  My main bitch is that there is not a setting on a modern camera that is mechanical.  Everything is set electronically.  Hence, Why in the hell do we not have the ability to make all those settings and save them?  I'm talking like 10 different banks setting absolutely everything (around some base factory settings) that can be named and commented and selected on the massive screens on these things.  I don't have D4, but maybe they can do that now at the upper end.  I shoot everything from night sports to macro and I have to discipline myself after I shoot to reset the camera to some base configuration so I don't screw myself up.  I actually went back to shooting Shutter Priority for sports because every time I used Aperture priority and the dynamic ISO with a minimum shutter speed set, I would forget to turn that off and be shooting a candid at ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/500th.

[melchiorpavone]

I was gifted a Canon body and lens at 16 years old and that is what I went with.  At the time of the EOS mount appeared, I thought long and hard about which brand to go to.  Since back then the bodies were relatively inexpensive it came down to lenses and operation.  I love the old all manual Nikon FM body.  I also like the rendition of Nikon lenses.  I thought both about the advantages of the new mount, Canon's financial were with all and what would be a better long term investment.  Having played with both and having friends with Canon gear, I am glad I chose to go Nikon.

I agree with the complication of modern cameras.  My main bitch is that there is not a setting on a modern camera that is mechanical.  Everything is set electronically.  Hence, Why in the hell do we not have the ability to make all those settings and save them?  I'm talking like 10 different banks setting absolutely everything (around some base factory settings) that can be named and commented and selected on the massive screens on these things.  I don't have D4, but maybe they can do that now at the upper end.  I shoot everything from night sports to macro and I have to discipline myself after I shoot to reset the camera to some base configuration so I don't screw myself up.  I actually went back to shooting Shutter Priority for sports because every time I used Aperture priority and the dynamic ISO with a minimum shutter speed set, I would forget to turn that off and be shooting a candid at ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/500th.

Why? Because that's the way Japanese camera industry operates. They think in terms of bells and whistles. Spend a day with a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and see what I mean.

[ErikKaffehr]

Ah, you mean Kodak and Agfa silver halide sensor with grain and dangerous chemicals?!

Best regards
Erik

Why? Because that's the way Japanese camera industry operates. They think in terms of bells and whistles. Spend a day with a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and see what I mean.