jctriguy wrote:
You missed my point. Do pro photographers (people making a living as photographers) lost money due to using 'inferior' Canon sensor cameras? Would they make more money if they used Nikon cameras?
I'm not disputing that higher DR would be nice. I would happily take it in my current camera. But is a lower DR range sensor costing people money due to lost jobs or sales?
If they haven't already they will begin to for sure, time is money and high DR sensors will open up new doors just like high ISO has in recent years.
snooked123 wrote:
I don't think amateurs are in a position to guess what pros like or dislike, what they do or don't. (Hypocrisy warning ): Having said that I feel that they would definitely prefer to shorten their workflow. A high dynamic range picture with a lower dynamic range sensor would require exposing for the highlights, midrange and shadows using 5-7 exposures and then blending them together in PP. We all know or ought to know how much time blending 5-7 images can take. Now compare that to a high DR sensor that would reduce the number of exposures from 5-7 to 2-3 and see how much time you save. Time I believe should be money for a pro, don't you think?
I had to put up with four years of being told how awesome Canon 5d II was because all you needed for awesome photography was an awesome sensor and one AF point right in the center of the frame. Fast forward four years and now it's all about how great 5dIII's AF is and who cares about better IQ. Having used 7d, 1dsII, etc I have no doubt that 5dIII's AF kicks a$$ and it better with a price tag of $3500 but D800 doesn't suck in the AF department. All Nikon sports shooters are using D4 and incidentally D800 and D4 have the same AF. Also, Nikon users don't use pinhole cameras they also have lenses on their side and some are better than Canon's.
artsupreme wrote:
If they haven't already they will begin to for sure, time is money and high DR sensors will open up new doors just like high ISO has in recent years.
That'll be good for Nikon. Every pro photog must now use a Nikon camera. Good for us amateurs as well, I'll pick up the discarded Canon 'crap' when every pro switches.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
In what universe does the 5D III low light performance trail the D800/D600 so badly. I understand and accept the DR inferiority, but 2293 vs 2980 (D600) for low light ISO, which is saying the D600 (D800) all can go to a much higher ISO to maintain a SNR of 30dB. Seems rather like a load of BS.
it got knocked down for having, under natural lightng at least, a noticeable less tightly peaked CFA, i.e. more color blind, it got to the super low luminance SNR partly by becoming more color blind (and higher color noise than the D800)
now whether it matters as much as the score differs, who knows, as I said I never pay attention to their scores, there isn't even a way to ever make them so everyone would agree, just look at the plots and raw data they provide
Todd Klassy wrote:
They also said the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II performed worse than the Mark I version. And with that that was the last time I ever gave any credence to DXO.
their lens tests have nothing to do with their sensor tests
buggz2k wrote:
Actually, Sony is kicking everyone.
one interesting thing is that the D4 does not use Exmor but Nikon managed to improve DR by like a stop anyway, while Canon recently regressed a tiny bit, so even without patents from exmor or any crazy tech it is possible to do at least a stop better, maybe solid 1.5 stops, than Canon is doing, if maybe not the 3+ stops better
chez wrote:
I find it interesting that just a few years ago we use to gloat about our 5d2 sensor with its great image quality and large number of pixels compared to Nikon's measily sensor in their d700...
Even looking using DXOs data at ISO's above around 600 Canon has better DR than Sony unless I'm reading the comparative ISO DR chart totally wrong.
With better Hi ISO performance in noise plus better DR Canon is from where I sit the clear leader now for hi ISO work.
At ISO 100 they trail in DR but I will gladly trade that for the new hi ISO plus DR capabililty that is here..my 1Dx stuff at 6400 through 10000 is superb.
All the talk of poor DR is at base ISO..take a look around who shoots everything at ISO 100. Maybe 1% of us.
The other 99% are enjoying the best hi USO/ DR combo in the game when and where it's really needed at ISO's plus 400 and at 6400 and above where DR's are very narrow.
If you can't get a decent photo with 11.5 stops of DR and the colors Canon create at ISO 100 sorry but I'm not prepared to sacrifice the better DR's at Hi ISO so someone can photograph house interiors and scenery in the same shot.
As for Nikon's glass the new stuff is still inferior to Canons latest zoom and prime offerings in weight and IQ.
Is all we ever shot was ISO 100 then fine we have an issue but we don't..
dehowie wrote:
Even looking using DXOs data at ISO's above around 600 Canon has better DR than Sony unless I'm reading the comparative ISO DR chart totally wrong.
With better Hi ISO performance in noise plus better DR Canon is from where I sit the clear leader now for hi ISO work.
At ISO 100 they trail in DR but I will gladly trade that for the new hi ISO plus DR capabililty that is here..my 1Dx stuff at 6400 through 10000 is superb.
All the talk of poor DR is at base ISO..take a look around who shoots everything at ISO 100. Maybe 1% of us.
The other 99% are enjoying the best hi USO/ DR combo in the game when and where it's really needed at ISO's plus 400 and at 6400 and above where DR's are very narrow.
If you can't get a decent photo with 11.5 stops of DR and the colors Canon create at ISO 100 sorry but I'm not prepared to sacrifice the better DR's at Hi ISO so someone can photograph house interiors and scenery in the same shot.
As for Nikon's glass the new stuff is still inferior to Canons latest zoom and prime offerings in weight and IQ.
Is all we ever shot was ISO 100 then fine we have an issue but we don't.. ...Show more →
You think 1% represents ISO 100 shooters? You are waaay off. Start with Landscape shooters and then add anyone else shooting in good light shooting portraits with fast glass, etc...99% of shooters are shooting uber-high ISO? You must be smoking what the Canon marketing team was when they spec'd the 6D
dehowie wrote:
Even looking using DXOs data at ISO's above around 600 Canon has better DR than Sony unless I'm reading the comparative ISO DR chart totally wrong.
With better Hi ISO performance in noise plus better DR Canon is from where I sit the clear leader now for hi ISO work.
At ISO 100 they trail in DR but I will gladly trade that for the new hi ISO plus DR capabililty that is here..my 1Dx stuff at 6400 through 10000 is superb.
All the talk of poor DR is at base ISO..take a look around who shoots everything at ISO 100. Maybe 1% of us.
The other 99% are enjoying the best hi USO/ DR combo in the game when and where it's really needed at ISO's plus 400 and at 6400 and above where DR's are very narrow.
If you can't get a decent photo with 11.5 stops of DR and the colors Canon create at ISO 100 sorry but I'm not prepared to sacrifice the better DR's at Hi ISO so someone can photograph house interiors and scenery in the same shot.
As for Nikon's glass the new stuff is still inferior to Canons latest zoom and prime offerings in weight and IQ.
Is all we ever shot was ISO 100 then fine we have an issue but we don't.. ...Show more →
d800 sensor has advantage through 1600, pretty even at 3200, canon a bit at 6400. A bit more double that. If I remember correctly. (remember canon gets a slight boost as their iso number is a bit higher per unit in comparison to the nikon tested)
I've looked at lots of night time shots from each... they both do really well at high iso. Canon may be a bit better at the really high stuff. (6400 on up... d800 can suffer from amp glow there)
When I do landscape I shoot chiefly at iso 100. (low as I can go)
I'd be quite a tool in a high dynamic range situation. If you've shoot somewhere like Canyonlands NP you'll know what I mean.
Just depends how you use the camera. I'd go for the d800e. Much better DR, resolution, and high iso pretty much as good as it gets through 6400. (of course I don't care about things like FPS, autofocus points and etc...)
dehowie wrote:
All the talk of poor DR is at base ISO..take a look around who shoots everything at ISO 100. Maybe 1% of us.
Sorry but I'm not prepared to sacrifice the better DR's at Hi ISO so someone can photograph house interiors and scenery in the same shot.
This is where your logic crashes and burns. You (and others) who enjoy using your camera as some kind of glorified night vision device, thinks that you will be forced to "sacrifice" your precious hi ISO performance, in order for Canon to create a sensor with higher DR. Why is that?
You really don't have to sacrifice anything. You have your night vision 5D3 and your night vison 1DX. Now, go out in the dark and play with them. Let the rest of us discuss why it is taking Canon so long to up their low ISO dynamic range.
It is almost as if you feel threatened by people who wants better DR performance. Chill out!
And btw, stop pulling numbers out of your rear. Most people in the landscape / studio / fine art crowd shoot 95 % of their work below ISO 400.
Todd Klassy wrote:
They also said the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II performed worse than the Mark I version. And with that that was the last time I ever gave any credence to DXO.
It's been known for quite some time that their lens testing is far from accurate, but their sensor testing seems to match pretty closely to most photographers observed performance. You'll never see anyone on FM referring to DXO in regards to lens performance.
dehowie wrote:
...but I'm not prepared to sacrifice the better DR's at Hi ISO so someone can photograph house interiors and scenery in the same shot.
The 5DM3's High ISO DR advantage over the D800 is about 0.1EV at ISO 12,800 - I don't consider that much of a sacrifice to gain a 2.5EV DR advantage at base ISO.
snapsy wrote:
The 5DM3's High ISO DR advantage over the D800 is about 0.1EV at ISO 12,800 - I don't consider that much of a sacrifice to gain a 2.5EV DR advantage at base ISO.
They must have some really potent stuff over there in Oz, Dehowie is proof
dehowie wrote:
Even looking using DXOs data at ISO's above around 600 Canon has better DR than Sony unless I'm reading the comparative ISO DR chart totally wrong.
With better Hi ISO performance in noise plus better DR Canon is from where I sit the clear leader now for hi ISO work.
At ISO 100 they trail in DR but I will gladly trade that for the new hi ISO plus DR capabililty that is here..my 1Dx stuff at 6400 through 10000 is superb.
All the talk of poor DR is at base ISO..take a look around who shoots everything at ISO 100. Maybe 1% of us.
The other 99% are enjoying the best hi USO/ DR combo in the game when and where it's really needed at ISO's plus 400 and at 6400 and above where DR's are very narrow.
If you can't get a decent photo with 11.5 stops of DR and the colors Canon create at ISO 100 sorry but I'm not prepared to sacrifice the better DR's at Hi ISO so someone can photograph house interiors and scenery in the same shot.
As for Nikon's glass the new stuff is still inferior to Canons latest zoom and prime offerings in weight and IQ.
Is all we ever shot was ISO 100 then fine we have an issue but we don't.. ...Show more →
OK well the 1DX might have 1/2 to 1 stop more DR at high ISO than the D800 (the 5D3 does not, it has close to the same, just a trace better, at least at around ISO6400 or under) but it has at least 2.5 stops less at ISO100.
The D4, which is more like the 1DX for comparison, appears to have about the same superb high ISO DR as the 1DX but maybe 1ish stop better at ISO100. (going from memory and 1DX hasn't been as carefully tested yet everywhere). So right there you have proof that you can have better ISO100 DR and still get the same top high ISO DR of the 1DX.
The D800 has maybe 3.5 stops more usable DR at ISO100 and almost as good unless you start going above ISO6400 where it may suddenly start to come apart a little more.
I agree that I think Canon has the better lenses overall. Nikon has the 14-24 but I think Canon is as good or better for everything else. So yeah Canon FTW there.
Rickuz wrote:
People who don't care about getting improved dynamic range, probably don't care much about PP either. Or they are just too "old school" to realize what they are missing.
Professional image editors knows that some files hold up better to a beating than others. Having a wide amount of DR in your RAW-files, allow for stunning manipulation in programs like Photoshop and Lightroom, but the data has to be there in the first place.
This is where Canon's sensors has fallen behind, while Nikon (Sony) is leaping forwards, and not just a little.
Lol I'm sorry but this is a crazy assumption. To suggest that people who care about post also push shadows more than 2 stops just doesn't hold up to any rational assessment.
Pushing shadows is one very specific and relatively niche element of post work.
And to make the point I do masses of post but maybe 0.1% of my photos (and there are a lot) would benefit from better shadows.
People hardly talked about shadow quality last generation. I know it's new and exciting but where is all of the work that suddenly pushes shadows massively? I don't see it a lot. Part of this is that people don't like Nikon having something that canon doesn't. I wish people would just admit that. For some they would definitely use it for for others it's simply bragging rights.
): Having said that I feel that they would definitely prefer to shorten their workflow. A high dynamic range picture with a lower dynamic range sensor would require exposing for the highlights, midrange and shadows using 5-7 exposures and then blending them together in PP. We all know or ought to know how much time blending 5-7 images can take. Now compare that to a high DR sensor that would reduce the number of exposures from 5-7 to
Why is that?