p.3 #1 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
BrianO wrote:
I disagree about 36Mp not being a significant increase over 21Mp, but agree that pixel size -- not just pixel count -- is an important factor in IQ.
I said it was not so significant when FL limited since a 5D + FL*1.3 gives same pixels per duck as D800 + FL. Of course if not FL limited I agree it will be quite signifcant, I imagine some awesome feather and fur detail for birding and wildlife if you can make full use of those 36MP.
p.3 #2 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
Peter Le wrote:
I uaually agree with you vero.......but you are way off base this time....maybe even very self centered. Maybe you don`t need more MP for your photography...but you are not everyone. You are actually only you.....and you can really only speak for you......not me. You also obviously don`t shoot landscape. I have been saving for Medium format and am a long way off.....and don`t relish caring that large of a kit. 36 MP in a small body could be more then a dream to me. Landscapers have been forgotten by Canon and Nikon for a long time while they chased the high ISO craze......does nothing for me. With Canons crap ISO 100 and apparently low MP`s.......It seems to be Nikon that is thinking of us landscapers. It is just a tool so I will go with what is best for me....and I.... not you vero know what is best for me....... Peter...Show more →
Yes, I got a little carried away in some respects. And I do shoot landscapes. I have had little to no issues so far with the landscapes I've shot with my cameras and lenses. Some of my most cherished landscapes have been shot with the original 1Ds. And yes, 36MP in a small body is attractive indeed. But I maintain that 36MP is better served up in an MF sensor & body, not a 35mm sensor & body.
What do you mean by "Canon's crap ISO 100?" By the way, I've visited your web site and seen your work. Given what I've seen there, I really can't see why you need gear other than what you already have. The images are simply first rate in every respect. What do you think you'll gain with a D800?
- Steve
p.3 #3 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
I believe a lot of misunderstanding between the pro and con positions on "more megapixels" on one side or "enough is enough just give better megapixels"has to do with how people look at their pictures. I have learned that since we went more and more digital there is an audience that looks and sees photos in a "classic" way. They want a good print, a good processed end product on a screen that they watch from a certain distance and let it work on their eyes and brain while trying to get what the photographer wanted us to show. This is of course also the photographer himself/herself looking at own work. This is the type of static viewer". Second we have the "active kind" of viewer who is looking at an image constantly scanning and looking for details. This is the viewer who zooms and pans over a large file photo mostly nowadays mostly on a screen. Digital display wachting has made this a new habit to many viewers, not just the critical photographer pixelpeeping his/her own work. Typically a landscape photographer, cityskape photographer wedding and event photographer represent more of the latter type of viewing photos. It's obvious that these different types of watching, not per se related to the subjects I mentioned, but more related to the kind of person you are, makes a high megapixel camera more attractive to the latter type of viewer/photographers. This has always been the case and was in the era of film often the discriminating factor between medium format or view camera photographers and the ones shooting 135 or lower formats. It's my conviction that digital has changed the way we look to pictures and that even though there is still a great amount of "static viewers" the amount of "active viewers" has grown, just because the tools made it possible/easy. This is also one of the reasons why, even casual non-critical photographers with their compacts love high megapixel models so much. They just love to scroll over their screens and watch details they would not be able to see when the shot was done in lower resolutions. Pixelpeepers with photographic reading skills love the quality of details and lack of abberations in those kind of files. I believe this is what Canon misunderstood when they heard the "passive viewers" crying to stop the megapixel war and give us better pixels. The truth is we want both. More and better megapixels. The direction the G1X and 1DX go is the wrong direction. Canon made it themselves easy. As good as the pixel quality of those cameras may be, the competition shows that they can deliver the same quality in a higher resolution package. That hurts EOSfun to many, especially many of the active viewers (and croppers)...
p.3 #4 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
skibum5 wrote:
... Actually it does take 36MP to deliver that, even with 36MP you are just only to the 1.3x TC point, not even a full 1.4x TC
Your points are all well taken and seem to come from knowledge and experience. I guess we could go on and on with this for the rest of the week, but that would be pointless, really.
I really don't know anything about the "wiggle room" of the D3x compared to the D3s 'cause I don't shoot Nikon anymore and have no real interest in their gear. I'm happy with Canon. I think Canon has balanced the trade-offs that are necessary for quality digital photography better than any other maker ... and I've tried them all, I assure you. The 5D Classic, for example, is as close to an AA-filter-less camera as I've seen to date. The filter is just thin enough to allow tremendous detail from a shot, but just thick enough to ward off serious moire and other problems. Nice balancing act, there. I've compared results from a stock AA-filtered 5D to a non-AA-filtered 5D, and the differences are minimal to not noticeable. I suspect, given what I know about the filter effects on the D700, that the difference between the D800 and D800E will be more dramatic.
What seems to be conspicuous by absence in your response to my post is any reference to the trade-offs that Nikon would have to make in order to produce a 36MP camera squeezed into a 35mm format. Do you think there are NO trade-offs with this new camera? No noise issues? No JPEG artifact issues? No D/R or color issues as ISO increases? etc., etc., etc.
p.3 #5 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
eosfun wrote:
I believe a lot of misunderstanding between the pro and con positions on "more megapixels" on one side or "enough is enough just give better megapixels"has to do with how people look at their pictures. I have learned that since we went more and more digital there is an audience that looks and sees photos in a "classic" way. They want a good print, a good processed end product on a screen that they watch from a certain distance and let it work on their eyes and brain while trying to get what the photographer wanted us to show. This is of course also the photographer himself/herself looking at own work. This is the type of static viewer". Second we have the "active kind" of viewer who is looking at an image constantly scanning and looking for details. This is the viewer who zooms and pans over a large file photo mostly nowadays mostly on a screen. Digital display wachting has made this a new habit to many viewers, not just the critical photographer pixelpeeping his/her own work. Typically a landscape photographer, cityskape photographer wedding and event photographer represent more of the latter type of viewing photos. It's obvious that these different types of watching, not per se related to the subjects I mentioned, but more related to the kind of person you are, makes a high megapixel camera more attractive to the latter type of viewer/photographers. This has always been the case and was in the era of film often the discriminating factor between medium format or view camera photographers and the ones shooting 135 or lower formats. It's my conviction that digital has changed the way we look to pictures and that even though there is still a great amount of "static viewers" the amount of "active viewers" has grown, just because the tools made it possible/easy. This is also one of the reasons why, even casual non-critical photographers with their compacts love high megapixel models so much. They just love to scroll over their screens and watch details they would not be able to see when the shot was done in lower resolutions. Pixelpeepers with photographic reading skills love the quality of details and lack of abberations in those kind of files. I believe this is what Canon misunderstood when they heard the "passive viewers" crying to stop the megapixel war and give us better pixels. The truth is we want both. More and better megapixels. The direction the G1X and 1DX go is the wrong direction. Canon made it themselves easy. As good as the pixel quality of those cameras may be, the competition shows that they can deliver the same quality in a higher resolution package. That hurts EOSfun to many, especially many of the active viewers (and croppers)......Show more →
Sounds like good fuel for a lengthy and perceptive magazine article. Well put. Interesting perspective. I guess I'm from the old school and still look at my work in a "classic way." I'm much more concerned with the content and whether or not it communicates what I want it to communicate. I'm coming out with a book this Spring that features shots from a wide variety of cameras ... ranging from the old 10D to the 5D II and including some point and shoots and M4/3 cams, too. They all look great printed to the book's spread size (12" X 19"). But if you were to view some of the shots at the pixel level on my monitor, you might say "Ugh!"
I really don't think Canon has gone in the wrong direction with the G1x and 1Dx. It seems that way now, but once the comparisons between their new bodies and Nikon's new bodies have been made and read and discussed and argued, we'll find out otherwise. dpreview today has posted their stock comparison format for the G1x. it's an eye opener. It looks like the G1x is the first really, truly, portable and flexible DSLR in a point and shoot package. RAW ISO 1600 and 3200 look quite good and compare favorably to the t3i as well as any number of other cameras. Beats the pants off of Sony's new A-77.
p.3 #6 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
eosfun wrote:
Pixelpeepers with photographic reading skills love the quality of details and lack of abberations in those kind of files. I believe this is what Canon misunderstood when they heard the "passive viewers" crying to stop the megapixel war and give us better pixels. The truth is we want both. More and better megapixels. The direction the G1X and 1DX go is the wrong direction. Canon made it themselves easy. As good as the pixel quality of those cameras may be, the competition shows that they can deliver the same quality in a higher resolution package. That hurts EOSfun to many, especially many of the active viewers (and croppers)......Show more →
I fundamentally and completely disagree with you. I think the two cameras are exactly bang on. Certainly for the 1DX, pros understand that MP are not the most important thing to the quality of a picture. Nikon agrees as their equivalent is 16MP. In fact, I want 18-22 MP - I don't even WANT any more, never mind NEED any more.
Also, the competition has not shown they can deliver the same quality in a higher resolution package - we have seen, what, about 10 photos from the d800 and certainly nothing processed from RAW and compared with other cameras. The ISO320 shot calls a LOT into question about the shadow quality (look at the water - it's dreadful). I'm also concerned about how many lenses will perform at 36+MP.
The way I see it at the moment is the Nikon have released a 36MP camera and suddenly everyone is ASSUMING it will be good quality. Well, what about physics? You can't have everything - there has to be a compromise.
I also hope most people realise by now that the difference between 18MP and 36MP is not that much anyway - it's nothing like the doubling that most people assume it is.
In my very honest opinion, people who are purely impressed with MP fundamentally don't get it. Firstly, it's the wrong metric to be looking at and it was invented by marketing men to make it seem like their increases in resolution are more than they are. Secondly, noise and DR make a massive difference to image quality too, but people aren't even discussing these. Finally, all that's important is that your camera produces what *you need*. Some people need more MP. The vast majority don't, even though they think they want it. Why do they think they want it? They're told they want it. Who told them? Marketing departments. Who wins? CaNikon, not the users.
p.3 #7 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
skibum5 wrote:
The AF sensors are all more or less the same size, AFAIK, and the lens always projects the exact same sized image no matter what is behind it, so I don't think that is the case.
Well I am still not understanding this. Lets say the lens projects a 3mm image of a BIF on the sensor. This means it will cover just less than 1/10 of the FOV of a 1.3 crop sensor but only 1/12 of a FF sensor. If, as you say all AF sensor points are the same size, more or less, then there is more space between the AF sensor points for the same size projected image on a FF sensor than a 1.3 crop sensor to hide, and thus be OOF.
p.3 #8 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
veroman wrote:
Your points are all well taken and seem to come from knowledge and experience. I guess we could go on and on with this for the rest of the week, but that would be pointless, really.
I really don't know anything about the "wiggle room" of the D3x compared to the D3s 'cause I don't shoot Nikon anymore and have no real interest in their gear. I'm happy with Canon. I think Canon has balanced the trade-offs that are necessary for quality digital photography better than any other maker ... and I've tried them all, I assure you. The 5D Classic, for example, is as close to an AA-filter-less camera as I've seen to date. The filter is just thin enough to allow tremendous detail from a shot, but just thick enough to ward off serious moire and other problems. Nice balancing act, there. I've compared results from a stock AA-filtered 5D to a non-AA-filtered 5D, and the differences are minimal to not noticeable. I suspect, given what I know about the filter effects on the D700, that the difference between the D800 and D800E will be more dramatic.
What seems to be conspicuous by absence in your response to my post is any reference to the trade-offs that Nikon would have to make in order to produce a 36MP camera squeezed into a 35mm format. Do you think there are NO trade-offs with this new camera? No noise issues? No JPEG artifact issues? No D/R or color issues as ISO increases? etc., etc., etc.
I think there is no way they lose more than 1/3 stop compared to if they had gone with say 22MP instead and it's probably more like only 1/6th stop and then when you realize that software NR works better than simple larger photosite scaling does to reduce noise you can surely make all of that up through software anyway I'd think.
Now perhaps they could try to get greedy and not give up the 1/3 or 1/6th stop or whatever and make the color-filters more color-blind like canon has done at times and then maybe you get a bit worse color discrimination and blobbier chroma noise, but they don't HAVE to do that and really should feel no need to.
It's complicated, but those would be my general guesstimates.
p.3 #9 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
veroman wrote:
I really don't think Canon has gone in the wrong direction with the G1x and 1Dx. It seems that way now, but once the comparisons between their new bodies and Nikon's new bodies have been made and read and discussed and argued, we'll find out otherwise.
- Steve
We will see. However the D3s was already so close to the theoretical limit for high iso snr that I wonder how much they can really gain. And unless they have found a way to match the Sony on chip column ADC technology the low MP 1DX might, sadly, still end up getting killed for ISO 100 DR by the high MP new Nikons. If the D800 maintains what the D7000 and D3x did and the 1DX stays as the 5D2/1D4 did when it comes to readout technology, the 36MP D800 could easily end up with nearly 1.3x-1.7x stops better ISO 100 DR and perhaps 2-3 stops better actually usable ISO 100 DR. Hopefully Canon found a way to fix things up with the new cams though. It's hard to tell from the marketing spiel for the 1DX some hints that they tried to fix up DR a bit but none of the claims were very clear at all.
Anyway the technology used has been shown to make a bigger difference than the MP counts.
p.3 #10 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
PhilDWedding wrote:
I fundamentally and completely disagree with you. I think the two cameras are exactly bang on. Certainly for the 1DX, pros understand that MP are not the most important thing to the quality of a picture. Nikon agrees as their equivalent is 16MP. In fact, I want 18-22 MP - I don't even WANT any more, never mind NEED any more.
You may be correct in part. I have sat next to many pros who are like just kill me if the 1 series every hits 18MP (never mind more). Since they want speed of transmission and minimal storage space usage. So quite a few sports/PJ/etc. may be happy. And the 1DX seems to be for them most of all.
That said there is another crowd of 1 series users, studio/landscape/wildlife, some of whom are not so happy. The landscape and studio people probabyl don't need all the 12-14fps stuff though.
The way I see it at the moment is the Nikon have released a 36MP camera and suddenly everyone is ASSUMING it will be good quality. Well, what about physics? You can't have everything - there has to be a compromise.
Not necessarily much of one though.
I also hope most people realise by now that the difference between 18MP and 36MP is not that much anyway - it's nothing like the doubling that most people assume it is.
It is a doubling of total detail and information captured (and of resolution when using the computer display/graphics/video/tv secondary definition of the word), which is not a minor thing, even if it is merely a 50% increase in resolution (using the optical type primary definition of the word). It's definitely noticeable.
In my very honest opinion, people who are purely impressed with MP fundamentally don't get it.
They get it. You may not or may not care but it doesn't mean that those who do don't fundamentally get it.
Secondly, noise and DR make a massive difference to image quality too, but people aren't even discussing these.
every time people tried to mention DR and/or banding they got beaten down and driven out as pathetic pixel-peeping trolls so they have given up posting as much about it
p.3 #11 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
ragebot wrote:
Well I am still not understanding this. Lets say the lens projects a 3mm image of a BIF on the sensor. This means it will cover just less than 1/10 of the FOV of a 1.3 crop sensor but only 1/12 of a FF sensor. If, as you say all AF sensor points are the same size, more or less, then there is more space between the AF sensor points for the same size projected image on a FF sensor than a 1.3 crop sensor to hide, and thus be OOF.
Not getting into the other stuff, but the main point I was making is that the AF sensor is not the imaging sensor. It's located down below at a different angle and it is more or less the same size in all the bodies whether they are APS-C, APS-H or FF.
You forget that the imaging sensor and the AF sensor are not the same thing (unless you are using liveview mode with liveview contrast-based AF).
Feb 16, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
I was shooting with the Canon 1200/5,6 lens a few hours ago, at the Bangkok Foto Fair. What Nikon lens do you mount on the 800D to get that reach even after cropping those 36mp
p.3 #13 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
veroman wrote:
Yes, I got a little carried away in some respects. And I do shoot landscapes. I have had little to no issues so far with the landscapes I've shot with my cameras and lenses. Some of my most cherished landscapes have been shot with the original 1Ds. And yes, 36MP in a small body is attractive indeed. But I maintain that 36MP is better served up in an MF sensor & body, not a 35mm sensor & body.
What do you mean by "Canon's crap ISO 100?" By the way, I've visited your web site and seen your work. Given what I've seen there, I really can't see why you need gear other than what you already have. The images are simply first rate in every respect. What do you think you'll gain with a D800?
- Steve ...Show more →
Yes sorry about that Steve.......I got a little carried away also......and thank you for your kind words of my web site.........I`ve had a bit of a short fuse lately. Brought on by worries that Canon just doesn`t seem to get it anymore. I agree that up till now 36MP would be better on a MF sensor (I`ve been trying to save for one...but it doesn`t look good).......and maybe the D800 just won`t cut it....we just don`t know yet. Time will tell.
A lot of the shots on my web site are from the 5D classic (very good ISO 100) in my opinion an incredible camera to say the least. The 5D just doesn`t have the MP to print the size I desire at the quality I desire. I then moved up to the 5DII (although some tell me I had a bad copy) at ISO 100 it was just crap. A little better at 200 but ? It could be cleaned up.....but that is hard on the file and why should it have to be ? It had wonderful high ISO ability....but I have know need for that and it was at the cost of low ISO`s. I then moved on to a old very used and beat up 1DsIII.....much better low ISO, much better AF....but big and heavy and as I said ..old and beat up. With the end of the 1D`s another one is out of the question as the price has climbed out of site for what they are.
So this is where I am....yes I can get by with what I have. But I have been waiting for years now for Canon to remember the Landscape shooter again. I really don`t want to wait another generation and I am worrying that is what will happen. This is what has my fuse a little short.....this is why I am showing interest in Nikon. It at least appears they might get it......they don`t cripple their non top of the line cameras as much....so you don`t have to carry around a brick just to get top notch quality. They are pushing the envelope like Canon always did in the past.....not just milking the customers for the sake of the stock holder. Like trying to remove the anti-aliasing filter.....pushing the envelope...that`s how things progress. Now we Canon users are making excuses for for what seems to be lack of innovations.
I have been shooting Canon for close to 30 years.....I really don`t want to deal with changing, but I just don`t feel I have a camera I can ride out the next generation of Canon cameras. Maybe just maybe Canon has us all fooled.....mybe my rants are for nothing....maybe they will surprise us all with a truly innovative Canon camera that will just amaze us. I will then be glad to eat crow with a smile on my face. But to be honest I just don`t think they have a clue.....at least not for what a landscaper wants. I really don`t think they care for much more then the bottom dollar for their stock holders like many large companies today. This will ultimately bite them in the ass. If they don`t come out with something truly innovative like Nikon I won`t be around to really care..........Peter
p.3 #14 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
+1, Canon was 5 years FF ahead of everyone in 2005 and look what we have now...best of video they better show their real IQ work in 1dx and 5dx before it's too late.
p.3 #15 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I was shooting with the Canon 1200/5,6 lens a few hours ago, at the Bangkok Foto Fair. What Nikon lens do you mount on the 800D to get that reach even after cropping those 36mp
Yeah well a 800+D800 costs a lot less and is a lot lighter, LOT, than a 1200+22MP FF.
p.3 #17 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
Peter Le wrote:
I have been shooting Canon for close to 30 years.....I really don`t want to deal with changing, but I just don`t feel I have a camera I can ride out the next generation of Canon cameras. Maybe just maybe Canon has us all fooled.....mybe my rants are for nothing....maybe they will surprise us all with a truly innovative Canon camera that will just amaze us. I will then be glad to eat crow with a smile on my face. But to be honest I just don`t think they have a clue.....at least not for what a landscaper wants. I really don`t think they care for much more then the bottom dollar for their stock holders like many large companies today. This will ultimately bite them in the ass. If they don`t come out with something truly innovative like Nikon I won`t be around to really care..........Peter...Show more →
Peter: your experience with the 5D II echos mine. I sold it within a few months and returned to the 5D Classic and, of course, my trusty 1Ds II. I still use both. The 5D Classic remains one of the great cameras even though soooo ancient in soooo many ways. Still, the images are superb.
Having shot Nikon at one point a few years ago, I can say without hesitation that the old saying about Canon vs. Nikon .... "If you want to take pictures, get a Nikon. If you want to PRINT pictures, get a Canon ...." is true. My experiences with the D2x, D700 and D200 bear this out. In the end, the Nikon images left me cold; flat, too ... particularly the images from the D2x, which was otherwise a superb camera. I have little doubt that the D800 will follow this trend. Then again, who knows?
Given the reciprocal "Nikon tops Canon, then Canon tops Nikon," I have to assume that Canon is going to introduce something that will be a match for the D800 in the areas that are important to you and will do it at an attractive price point. It's always been that way. Canon will not ever be left behind. I talked with a highly regarded landscape photographer some two years ago (who has a close tie with Canon) who told me they're working on a 50MP 35mm format camera but will only release it when they can simultaneously release a whole new line of lenses that can make use of the higher, ground-breaking resolution. I think we all have to keep in mind that Canon, unlike Nikon, designs and makes their own sensors. I believe they're quite singular in this regard. No other camera has a Canon sensor, while a whole host of cameras share the same sensors from Sony.
Anyway, keep up the good work. Keep the faith ....
p.3 #20 · 800D crops better than Canon with supetele?
I wasn't particularly impressed in terms of sharpness with the D800/800E images that I have seen in Nikon's site compared to what I have seen from my 5DII. I am sure however that they will have an advantage over 5DII shots in print size. While not being a 100% sure, my logic and my intuition says that somehow, Canon will satisfy both complaining "I want better megapixels / I want more megapixels" type of photographers this year. Maybe with two different camera models. And somehow I feel that Nikon will do precisely the same. Time will tell...
Peter
to many, especially many of the active viewers (and croppers)...
they better show their real IQ work in 1dx and 5dx before it's too late.