Paul Mo wrote:
I know what you are saying but split second exposure changes due to lighting (techs) are hard to keep up with. We do our best, but sometimes a potentially great shot is unrecoverable in post because of blown highlights - that's the lottery though.
ISOless shooting is ideal for such situations - you just dial in your necessary shutter speed and aperture, fix the ISO to 100, and then just snap away without any regard for lighting changes or exposure, provided the brightest anticipated exposure is within the bounds of your ISO 100 parameters. I predict this technique will become the norm for concert shooters once the technology and workflow aids to facilitate it become more available.
chez wrote:
The OP just wants a discussion of when Canon will release their next generation of sensor
Apparently the OP hasn't read the dozens of other discussion on the topic in this forum or the hundreds and thousands that can be found by searching on the web. Nor read the rumour sites and speculation blogs that have lots of discussion.
The Original Poster asked: Re: Will Canon answer the D800e?
The short and obvious answer is Yes.
chez wrote:
The OP just wants a discussion of when Canon will release their next generation of sensor
If the OP truly wants to know when, the answer is: Those who know aren't saying and those who are saying don't know.
That is why this kind of thread is a generally useless thread. However a couple of posters (Dave EP and Roger Cicala) have tried valiantly to rescue it.
If you chase the technology rainbow you are going to change equipment every time someone sets a new bar. I promise you Canon and Nikon will change leads every few years. Its just the way it works in technology. I guess I would ask if Canon is leaving a need you have unmet? Aside from the academic discussion of more megapixels, is there something that you just cannot do with Canon that Nikon would allow you to do. If you can answer yes to this then you have a pretty compelling case for changing systems, and you really don't need convincing here. If you just have 'latest and greatest' disease it may be worth hanging tight for a bit. I'm quite sure Canon has heard the battle cry from Nikon and they will respond. They may not respond tomorrow, but they will respond. And I suspect they will respond with a well thought out system that offers megapixels, features and ergonomics. Good luck in your quest.
I don't feel I need more megapixels for my work, but I can see the need if you print large. From what I understand you really need the best lenses and technique to take advantage of this. I see this as shooting the best Zeiss lenses on a tripod. With the poor implementation of live view, I just don't see myself doing this. As to the shadow recovery, Nikon wins. The thing is, I expose to the right with my 5DIII and have not found many situations where I need to push the shadows.
I'm currently working out a gear swap for a 5D3, even though I know the sensor tech is behind.
Why? Because there' is a hell of a lot more to a camera than just the sensor (weird, I know).
Believe it or not, occasionally you're required to attach lenses to these cameras and use them.
1) Canon's 100-400L, though crusty, is still worlds better than Nikon's craptacular 80-400
2) Canon has a 17 TS-E, which I plan to eventually use for work, and Nikon doesn't. Canon's 24mm TS-E II is also better than Nikon's.
3) Canon's 135L is awesome.
4) They both lose to Sigma 35
5) Nikon's 14-24 is unmatchable -- yet also usable on Canon. Win!
6) Nikon's shorter primes seem to come with free micro-motor USM, or at least slower variants. Very annoying.
(note - I'm only talking about lenses I plan on using on the 5D3 - not going through their whole roster)
Furthermore, if only dealing with bodies ---
1) Nikon can kiss my hairy posterior when it comes to their insanely idiotic implementation of custom modes on their D800. Ridiculous.
2) Silent mode, yay. Shutter sounding like a robot clapping, boo.
3) A clearer live view (yay) and a much better method of bracketing with electronic shutter (triple-yay).
4) Much easier way to change ISO.
5) I enjoy my people shots not appearing to have jaundice or shock. (skin tones - even after Xrite profiling, I don't know why so don't ask).
I won't bring up the left AF or dirt/oil issues because they'll eventually be fixed in the line or at the service factory, so my assumptions are always a working body.
I would certainly love to have a Canon 36MP beast, which I would probably dial down to an mRAW most of the time and break out the megapickles on insane landscapes.
I'd also love to be able to lift shadows 10 stops and eliminate darkness from the world forever.
But I think there are enough annoyances at Nikon (for me) to make me not care so much about these two factors to ignore all the other negatives, and I think a lot of other people feel this way.
Apparently, though, there are lots of people needing this high MP and DR - why not just get an 800 and a lens and be done with it? Who says you can't play with two systems ;D
Dave_EP wrote:
I'll start this with the caveat that I'm more interested in the low light video capabilities today than I am photos, but I currently have both D800 + 5D3 bodies and mixed glass from both sides. I'll be selling one of them. I'll let you decide which
I posted a D800 vs 5D3 high ISO low light comparison video to YouTube. It's video, not photo, but it's also not pixel peeping. See what you think. Don't get bored at ISO1600, wait until 4000+. It's kinda eye opening! (play full screen!!!!) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">D800 vs 5D3 Low Ligh High ISO Video
I must be blind, but I found the 5D3 video better even at the lower ISOs - better contrast which led to at least perceptually equal sharpness - sorta hard to tell though - maybe it's my viewing device (27" iMac).
Also, are you sure you even adjusted the ISO on the 5D3? That's insane.
saneproduction wrote:
Please do not label people as fanboys. It does nothing to help our forum.
No one was called a fanboy, troll was mentioned and the original post has some troll like overtones intended or not. And one person in a humorous way implied that he was a fanboy. Other than that you are the one using the term. As far as I can tell "fanboy" can be used in both a positive and negative manor and should not be censored to placate the masses. Are you a fanboy and taken the term as a insult in the past?
I'm guessing they'll come out with a similar megapixel camera in another year or two and price it between 4 to 5K. I wish it would be sooner and cheaper, but I doubt that it will be.
Sarsfield wrote:
Yeah, Ansel Adam's large format cameras were useless for landscapes. He made nothing but crap.
Yes, but he used mules to carry his gear. You have experience lugging gear with elevation gains of 2000 meters and distances of 15-20km. If you do, you know what I am talking about. IF not, you have no idea.
chez wrote:
Yes, but he used mules to carry his gear.
and later, sometimes, a station wagon with a shooting platform built on top.
A generation or two before Ansel Adams, with wet plate processes that needed to be prepared immediately before shooting, there were some impressive feats of masochistic photo hiking (requiring an entire darkroom tent to be set up in the field). But, as soon as photographers had access to more portable means of photography (and/or means of transportation), they typically were quick to adopt them.
WAYCOOL wrote:
No one was called a fanboy, troll was mentioned and the original post has some troll like overtones intended or not. And one person in a humorous way implied that he was a fanboy. Other than that you are the one using the term. As far as I can tell "fanboy" can be used in both a positive and negative manor and should not be censored to placate the masses. Are you a fanboy and taken the term as a insult in the past?
Look at page 4.
I have decided to call out people putting labels on others because if I don't it seems not many others will. That kind of thing is a personal attack vs. a helpful exchange of experience and opinion.
We do our best, but sometimes a potentially great shot is unrecoverable in post because of blown highlights - that's the lottery though.
