haha... Canon's samples have always been epically mediocre. They must be straight out of camera JPEGs with no processing at all. If the past is any indication, these samples are not representative of the full potential of the camera.
deepbluejh wrote:
haha... Canon's samples have always been epically mediocre. They must be straight out of camera JPEGs with no processing at all. If the past is any indication, these samples are not representative of the full potential of the camera.
I am seeing the lenses fail on a lot of these Nikon shots. The corners are terrible and you can see every flaw the lens has in terms of distortion, pincussioning etc.
The canon shots look pretty crappo too.
Even though they claim the lenses can handle 36mp I think they are wrong. My 4x5 shots at the same resolution are 10x sharper and "hold up" much better. Much clearer.
Cannot wait to see them in the real world and not shooting some crappy 2nd rate Japanese landscapes just to appease the masses.
Perhaps I'm retarded and don't know WHAT sort of sample images they should put out,but why the hell have both Canon and Nikon posted photos shot at f5.6, f8, f10 (with flashes), at ISO 200/400/640?
WTF ?
Where are the ISO 6400/12.800 samples....which all of us are dying to see...
This Nikon / Canon debate is too much fuss over nothing...
Who has been shooting nice pictures...up until now...will be shooting nice pictures and from now on, without the 1Dx/D4/D800/5DIII/whatever...
LE: since the topic is nikon vs. canon, can somebody explain to me why all nikon photos are significantly sharper than canon's? I know 14-24 is renowned for its sharpness....but overall (especially jpegs straight out of camera) ,Canon produces much softer images than Nikon?
Is it the lens? Is it the body? is it the AA filter in the bodies? Is it some in-camera-over-sharpening-process?
I'm not a 'sharp freak' (used to be,but luckily i realized that photography is about much more important things), although sharpness holds its ground when it comes to commercial photography....
deepbluejh wrote:
haha... Canon's samples have always been epically mediocre. They must be straight out of camera JPEGs with no processing at all. If the past is any indication, these samples are not representative of the full potential of the camera.
In my opinion the Nikon samples blow the doors off the Canon samples.
What do you think?
nikon samples are certainly more impressive, but as others have said, canon has not had a single good sample image provided for any body or lens released post the 1Ds2
RobDickinson wrote:
1Dx is a 'low resolution' sports camera optimised for fps and high ISO.
D800 is a low FPS high resolution studio/landscape camera.
Comparing a bunch of studio and still shots vs sports shots isnt exactly a fair comparison of use.
Plus the Canon files are small, and probably in-camera processed, and shot at only 1 stop down from wide open.
You need to start with a RAW. Then apply the type of aggressive PS sharpening called for by the AA filter. Per Canon's White Paper on their cameras, for example, where they recommend specific sharpening for a specific camera/sensor.
Now, I actually preordered the 800E. But not because Canon sucks in any way. They have always delivered excellent products with state of the art image qualit,. I have faith that they did that here too.
But I am looking for a HQ, low-ISO camera to use in studio, not a high speed high ISO sports beast.
If the 5D3 is announced as that type of camera, I'll stay. I love my Canon lenses. And every Canon camera I have owned has been excellent for it's time.
Something I've noticed is that it seems like Nikon are more willing to let people use their new cameras in "real world conditions." I've monitored the last several releases by both canon and Nikon and it seems like Nikon has multiple photographers using the cameras that can provide info on what they thought about the camera as soon as it's released. Canon, on the other hand, seems to wait to do this until after releasing the camera body. This has been especially true with the 1Dx vs. the D4.
My suspicion is that Canon knew that Nikon were developing the D4 and felt obligated to rush the 1Dx announcement in order to ensure their users that something was coming. I find it a little bit disappointing that a company so plagued by horrible flooding was able to release two camera bodies earlier than Canon (D4 and D800).
You're comparing apples with ... pineapples or something. How can you judge camera bodies by looking at completely different pictures? If I wanted to compare bodies head to head, I would need
-same scene
-same lens (you could use a tamron or sigma for example)
-same photographer
-same conditions (taking the pictures one after the other)
that would pretty much be the basic guideline for a credible faceoff
