chez wrote:
From my perspective, the sensor is the largest piece of the pie. Was it not just a few years ago everyone bragged about Canon's lead in sensor technologies, their clean ISO, their megapixels. All of a sudden this does not matter much anymore? What has changed other than Nikon taking the lead in sensor technologies?
Well yeah... something is only important if your brand is leading that segment. Soon as its beat, then said item no longer matters...
End of the day, they are so close in everything short of dynamic range, its a pointless argument. Canon has a slight better lens selection quantity wise, but IQ wise whats available is basically the same. Wouldn't be able to tell a difference. The AF is too close to call short of the new nikons can do it at F8. Its all just nit-picky crap and anyone that thinks their system is truly superior is just insecure about their gear.
andyjaggy82 wrote:
I have absolutely no brand loyalty. I can say is that if I wasn't invested in Canon gear I would go Nikon without a doubt. They are kicking a$$ and taking names right now.
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Where is their wedding and event camera?
The D600 seems to be their wedding/event camera. Easy to handle, better AF than the 5D2 (which many wedding photographers use) and lower priced than the 5D3.
The D800 seems to be the landscape/studio camera.
The D4 seems to be the sports/PJ camera.
I'm not going to switch because the sensor isn't everything, but the 5D3 with an EXMOR sensor and visible AF points would be perfect for me. As it is, it's plenty good, it's just not as good as it could be.
What they have on their side is a sensor. That's kind of it... And I totally agree - low ISO their sensors are fantastic! I think I just have a totally different view of what's important in a camera system... In that ONE way they are kicking a$$ and for some people that's important and for others not.
A sensor is VERY important. For events, I would go so far to argue that the sensor is more important than lens sharpness.
For me, for events, the most important thing is AF accuracy/speed, shutter lag, and shot-to-shot follow up time (kind of related to FPS).
Then second is the sensor. I've taken many, many pictures with poorer sensors in wide-dynamic range situations, and tried to push shadows, and was disgusted at the results. Every camera I use, I get a feel for shadow noise at each ISO setting, and each camera as a "practical limit" and an "go to this ISO only at last resort". All this is governed by the sensor.
Lenses? They almost don't matter for events, as long as the AF is fast. Central sharpness? Every lens has central sharpness. What distinguishes an excellent lens from a ok lens is even sharpness, corner to corner, and for events, that just doesn't matter. An extra 5 or 10% lpmm isn't going to make or break a good image. Shadow/color noise and banding? That will RUIN a shot.
What they have on their side is a sensor. That's kind of it... And I totally agree - low ISO their sensors are fantastic! I think I just have a totally different view of what's important in a camera system... In that ONE way they are kicking a$$ and for some people that's important and for others not.
krickett wrote:
The D4
A sensor is VERY important. For events, I would go so far to argue that the sensor is more important than lens sharpness.
For me, for events, the most important thing is AF accuracy/speed, shutter lag, and shot-to-shot follow up time (kind of related to FPS).
While I agree that the D4 seems ideal for wedding/event photography there aren't as many photogs willing to give up there hard earned money for one as there are photogs trying to get by with the equipment they have.
I've seen plenty of Canon 5D & 5D2 in use still, and their AF speed and shutter lag are not great. I've even seen xxD models occasionally as well. Some of the best wedding albums I've witnessed are from photogs with very humble gear.
That's why I see the D600 geared more toward the typical wedding/event photogs, not the D4. If you can afford the best, way not get one, but for the rest of the money-strapped out there, it looks like a good alternative. Although, I'm not sure that the venerable D700 could be bested by the D600 in a head-to-head competition where MP doesn't matter.
Canon fanboys pre D800/5DIII - "who cares about Nikon's FF AF systems, the 5DII AF is perfectly adequate and 5DII is the best wedding camera out there. If you can't make images with the 5DII AF don't blame the tool. It's all about IQ, the 5DII sensor/MP is way more important....AF systems are over rated"
Canon fanboys post D800/5DIII - "Who cares about Nikon's better sensors and MP, the 5DIII has the best AF out there. AF is everything, IQ is over rated, and 5DIII is the best wedding camera".
which one is it?
According to the 5DII era the D600 and D800 would be considered better wedding cameras than the 5DIII because they have a better sensors correct?
artsupreme wrote:
Canon fanboys pre D800/5DIII - "who cares about Nikon's FF AF systems, the 5DII AF is perfectly adequate and 5DII is the best wedding camera out there. If you can't make images with the 5DII AF don't blame the tool. It's all about IQ, the 5DII sensor/MP is way more important....AF systems are over rated"
Canon fanboys post D800/5DIII - "Who cares about Nikon's better sensors and MP, the 5DIII has the best AF out there. AF is everything, IQ is over rated, and 5DIII is the best wedding camera".
artsupreme wrote:
Canon fanboys pre D800/5DIII - "who cares about Nikon's FF AF systems, the 5DII AF is perfectly adequate and 5DII is the best wedding camera out there. If you can't make images with the 5DII AF don't blame the tool. It's all about IQ, the 5DII sensor/MP is way more important....AF systems are over rated"
Canon fanboys post D800/5DIII - "Who cares about Nikon's better sensors and MP, the 5DIII has the best AF out there. AF is everything, IQ is over rated, and 5DIII is the best wedding camera".
which one is it?
According to the 5DII era the D600 and D800 would be considered better wedding cameras than the 5DIII because they have a better sensors correct?
I think the people that said the 5D2 had adequate AF are the same people that would praise the D800 for it's IQ.
I think the people that say the 5D3 is great because of the new AF are the same people that praised the D700's AF and hated the 5D2's AF.
These are different people.
surf monkey wrote:
I think the people that said the 5D2 had adequate AF are the same people that would praise the D800 for it's IQ.
I think the people that say the 5D3 is great because of the new AF are the same people that praised the D700's AF and hated the 5D2's AF.
These are different people.
I think no one really knows...so all we are all doing is speculating. Bottom line...does anyone really care?
We can say whatever we want but don't forget the facts. In 2005, Canon was two or three generation in sensor tech ahead of everyone and what we have now in 2012, Canon was two generation in sensor tech behind of everyone and no sign of improvement.
Ok, if not milking process then what is iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
mttran wrote:
We can say whatever we want but don't forget the facts. In 2005, Canon was two or three generation in sensor tech ahead of everyone and what we have now in 2012, Canon was two generation in sensor tech behind of everyone and no sign of improvement.
Ok, if not milking process then what is iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
Sony owns the shadows, but 1D X is high ISO king, that's got to count for progress.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sony owns the shadows, but 1D X is high ISO king, that's got to count for progress.
true but the high iso kingness of the 1DX is by a much smaller and less significant margin (And it still remains to be seen from careful DxO testing)
and don't forget when canon was bragging about being many years if not decades ahead of the competition for FF sensor so no they didn't have to do anything for now but sit on the top of the hill and rest on their laurels and had no need to introduce faster FF bodies or small fast FF bodies or anything much at all (yes they really did pretty much say that in response to a reporter's question at a big European trade show a few years back, not all the long before Nikon came out with FF cameras)
surf monkey wrote:
I think the people that said the 5D2 had adequate AF are the same people that would praise the D800 for it's IQ.
I think the people that say the 5D3 is great because of the new AF are the same people that praised the D700's AF and hated the 5D2's AF.
These are different people.
skibum5 wrote:
true but the high iso kingness of the 1DX is by a much smaller and less significant margin (And it still remains to be seen from careful DxO testing)
and don't forget when canon was bragging about being many years if not decades ahead of the competition for FF sensor so no they didn't have to do anything for now but sit on the top of the hill and rest on their laurels and had no need to introduce faster FF bodies or small fast FF bodies or anything much at all (yes they really did pretty much say that in response to a reporter's question at a big European trade show a few years back, not all the long before Nikon came out with FF cameras) ...Show more →
But point was it was only last generation D3s was miles ahead at high ISO, so Canon has done well on that front even if it doesn't lead by much over D4.
skibum5 wrote:
and don't forget when canon was bragging about being many years if not decades ahead of the competition for FF sensor so no they didn't have to do anything for now but sit on the top of the hill and rest on their laurels and had no need to introduce faster FF bodies or small fast FF bodies or anything much at all (yes they really did pretty much say that in response to a reporter's question at a big European trade show a few years back, not all the long before Nikon came out with FF cameras)
But don't forget, the nature of this market is reactive. Until Canon feels the pressure, they will always sit on their laurel. For example, D300 forced Canon to come up with the 7D. D700 forced Canon to focus on the AF (no pun intended). Vice versa, Canon's high MP forced Nikon to increase theirs.
Now Nikon is lowering the cost of entry to their FF camera and Canon will have to respond because the D600 can really be the nudge needed for those who had already been considering a system switch. The ones with not enough lenses to really tie them to Canon.
Not only that, if someone managed to sell a 5D2+kit lens AND a 50L to a friend of mine who at the time didn't know jack about DSLR, I'd imagine that this camera would be very easy to sell to the well off beginners.
If not this Photokina, I think Canon will come up with something early next year.
As to what Canon might come up with, looking at the current Canon trend, it could be lower MP but with better AF than Nikon. Maybe 18MP sensor from 1DX with 19 cross type from 7D, and maybe 5FPS burst rate. Or it could be the 5D 22MP combined with the 60D 9 cross type AF. As a hobbyist, I'd be very happy with either of these specs.
Not sure what all the excitement is... the D600 seems to be priced about right for the feature set. The 5D3 and D800 are far more camera hence far more money.
Maybe Canon will bring out a 6D to compete. Who knows.
which one is it?
