Ralph Conway wrote:
I myself never needed or wished to push shadows more than two stops. Banding was a problem with 5D II at ISO 6.400 and above. So far I saw it has gone with 6D, 5D III and 1D X.
But aren't you a Canon user? There's a good reason we don't have a need to push shadows more than 2 stops, we can't. Theses sorts of things are always dismissed by many until the day you get to see the feature in full swing and then there's an epiphany and you wonder how you live without it. I remember people saying they don't need clean high ISO, they don't use more than ISO 400 anyway and then we get cameras that can do clean ISO 1600, then ISO 3200 and now we have cameras like a 1D X that can be used without qualms at ISO 12800-25600 and now rather than say we don't want clean high ISO, it's not enough we want even higher useable ISOs.
When Canon users can push shadows 5-6 stops, it'll be the best thing since sliced bread.
Fred was shocked by the difference in DR and at base iso, I was shocked 5 1/2 years ago when I tested D90 and D90 was skating 8 around my 5dmk2 regarding low level noise and freedom from noise/banding.
I have both Canon and Nikon and raw wise I prefer Nikons 36Mp above everything today and Im waiting for next generation of Sony 56Mp sensor with column wise ADC and low read out noise, Canon has nothing similar going on and they have no modern sensor lines in-house as Toshiba,Sony and others
Today there are volume shipping of sensors made on 65/45nm rules . Lower mask resolutions than 130nm are not enough to land you any sales any more. Canon has one 180nm line. Most cellphone and compact camera sensors are manufactured at those levels now, and have been for the last few years. Also consider the fact that some of the others have very large yearly revenues from logic CMOS processes at 45, 32 and even 22nm levels. All of those markets are areas where Canon totally lack any type of experience.
It will be interesting to se what Canon is doing with their sensor department in near future, invest in new machines or out sourcing also 24x36mm sensors.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
Fred was shocked by the difference in DR and at base iso, I was shocked 5 1/2 years ago when I tested D90 and D90 was skating 8 around my 5dmk2 regarding low level noise and freedom from noise/banding.
I have both Canon and Nikon and raw wise I prefer Nikons 36Mp above everything today and Im waiting for next generation of Sony 56Mp sensor with column wise ADC and low read out noise, Canon has nothing similar going on and they have no modern sensor lines in-house as Toshiba,Sony and others
Today there are volume shipping of sensors made on 65/45nm rules . Lower mask resolutions than 130nm are not enough to land you any sales any more. Canon has one 180nm line. Most cellphone and compact camera sensors are manufactured at those levels now, and have been for the last few years. Also consider the fact that some of the others have very large yearly revenues from logic CMOS processes at 45, 32 and even 22nm levels. All of those markets are areas where Canon totally lack any type of experience.
It will be interesting to se what Canon is doing with their sensor department in near future, invest in new machines or out sourcing also 24x36mm sensors....Show more →
"Modest bump" in resolution would be more than just a disappointment. Too early to say, but if this proves to be right then users need to go with Nikon or buy the Sony A7R.
retrofocus wrote:
"Modest bump" in resolution would be more than just a disappointment. Too early to say, but if this proves to be right then users need to go with Nikon or buy the Sony A7R.
Alas I'd could still would not change if this was true and I don't believe it for a minute BTW. I'm staying with Canon just for the supertele photos lenses alone. The new mk II superteles lenses are the gold standard and a few Nikon users I've talked said they won't buy the Nikon superteles until they can get them as light as the Canon's.
Sony is a joke in the lens department in this segment, so are not even a remote possibility. Given Sony has abandoned DLSR's, I can't ever see them having a competitive product for the likes of the 1D X, D4 or even 5D III if you do action, sports, wildlife, BIF.
Sony will likely not be competitive until they can get their 'live view' focusing up to the standards of DSLRs for speed and tracking- but they're most likely to get there first, particularly considering that the bulk of the work needed to accomplish such a feat is in processing, and that such technology is at least as useful in still cameras as it is in video cameras.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Alas I'd could still would not change if this was true and I don't believe it for a minute BTW. I'm staying with Canon just for the supertele photos lenses alone. The new mk II superteles lenses are the gold standard and a few Nikon users I've talked said they won't buy the Nikon superteles until they can get them as light as the Canon's.
Sony is a joke in the lens department in this segment, so are not even a remote possibility. Given Sony has abandoned DLSR's, I can't ever see them having a competitive product for the likes of the 1D X, D4 or even 5D III if you do action, sports, wildlife, BIF....Show more →
No, but they have one hell of a competitive product for landscape photography.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Alas I'd could still would not change if this was true and I don't believe it for a minute BTW. I'm staying with Canon just for the supertele photos lenses alone. The new mk II superteles lenses are the gold standard and a few Nikon users I've talked said they won't buy the Nikon superteles until they can get them as light as the Canon's.
Sony is a joke in the lens department in this segment, so are not even a remote possibility. Given Sony has abandoned DLSR's, I can't ever see them having a competitive product for the likes of the 1D X, D4 or even 5D III if you do action, sports, wildlife, BIF....Show more →
There is nothing wrong with your argument - in the tele sector Canon is still leading lens-wise. Reason why people move to Sony is not - and I am sure you know this very well - because people want to buy Sony lenses. It is simply that Sony currently offers the only option for Canon users to stick to their purchased glass and use it on the A7(R) cameras with a better sensor. Sony doesn't need to compete with Canon in the 1D or 5D III market - they kicked a$$ big time with the A7 models after the first wakeup call from Nikon with the introduction of the D800(E) still didn't address the issue to have a better resolving sensor with better DR in Canon land.
Personally, I am not a big tele lens user (my longest lens is the 100-400 which I am using sporadically). The majority of my shots is in the 24-150 mm range. But I would definitely profit from higher resolution and DR.
johnctharp wrote:
Sony will likely not be competitive until they can get their 'live view' focusing up to the standards of DSLRs for speed and tracking- but they're most likely to get there first, particularly considering that the bulk of the work needed to accomplish such a feat is in processing, and that such technology is at least as useful in still cameras as it is in video cameras.
I disagree. Sony is maybe not as developed in its features as Canon and Nikon DSLRs are, but they are not stupid. Currently they are very competitive sensor-wise and game-changing with the A7 camera models in the FF market. They simply used a an existing gap to their advantage. They are having a good momentum now and all capabilities to improve in areas where they are behind. Canon has to play catch-up now if they want to stay in this market area, they already lost the leadership in regard to FF sensors. The more time passes by the harder it gets for Canon to compete. Sony (and also Nikon) can and will use the time where Canon has no competitive product in line to their advantage for sure. IMO the A7(R) is just the first camera model/prototype in a very interesting series to come!
That is, competitive in the "action, sports, wildlife, BIF" categories that Pixel Perfect mentioned .
Overall, phase detection alone is too imprecise and obtuse for use in covering action when compared to the potential that a combination of phase and contrast detection is capable of when backed up by well-developed logic. Canon is there with DPAF, but their sensors lag and they show little initiative in improving their processors.
Sony is on the forefront of sensor design and has access to the most modern processor production capabilities outside of Intel's. The only other wildcard is Samsung, who is arguably in a place where they could take the mirrorless world by storm if they threw their full weight behind their cameras, and could easily threaten full-frame and even medium format digital shops if they so chose, given their manufacturing capability.
Yes - and Sony currently IMO did the right decision not even trying to compete in the areas "action, sports, wildlife, BIF". The A7 cameras are simply not made for this kind of photography in mind. Agree what you stated in your second and third paragraph above.
Coming back to the original OP question - I currently see the D800E as the best DSLR on the market to cover pretty much anything. I don't see that the bit better AF of the 5D MkIII makes a huge practical difference in photography if you know how to handle a DSLR correctly. You can use the D800E from action to landscape photography as well as for studio and portraits. The 5D MkIII can of course do everything, too but is limited/levels out when someone really looks for the kick in resolution or better DR which is commonly especially needed in landscape photography. Some of the MkIII's sensor banding issue remains unresolved, too. Admittedly the 5D MkIII's LIveView is better.
retrofocus wrote:
There is nothing wrong with your argument - in the tele sector Canon is still leading lens-wise. Reason why people move to Sony is not - and I am sure you know this very well - because people want to buy Sony lenses. It is simply that Sony currently offers the only option for Canon users to stick to their purchased glass and use it on the A7(R) cameras with a better sensor. Sony doesn't need to compete with Canon in the 1D or 5D III market - they kicked a$$ big time with the A7 models after the first wakeup call from Nikon with the introduction of the D800(E) still didn't address the issue to have a better resolving sensor with better DR in Canon land.
Personally, I am not a big tele lens user (my longest lens is the 100-400 which I am using sporadically). The majority of my shots is in the 24-150 mm range. But I would definitely profit from higher resolution and DR....Show more →
While I admire the Sony A7R, I still see the use of our Canon lenses via an adapter giving glacially slow AF as a stopgap measure. Given this AF penalty won't change you then have to consider a whole new investment in Sony glass, not that's there's much there if you want AF. If it came to that, I would just switch to Nikon and use a rel DSLR with a Sony sensor and get lighting fast AF from Nikon lenses.
Hopefully though Canon gives us a native option and I can avoid Sony, Nikon altogether.
retrofocus wrote:
Coming back to the original OP question - I currently see the D800E as the best DSLR on the market to cover pretty much anything. I don't see that the bit better AF of the 5D MkIII makes a huge practical difference in photography if you know how to handle a DSLR correctly. You can use the D800E from action to landscape photography as well as for studio and portraits. The 5D MkIII can of course do everything, too but is limited/levels out when someone really looks for the kick in resolution or better DR which is commonly especially needed in landscape photography. Some of the MkIII's sensor banding issue remains unresolved, too. Admittedly the 5D MkIII's LIveView is better....Show more →
Neither one are perfect all arounders. While the 5D3 resolution and DR are weaknesses on the landscape side of things the D800 has equivalent weaknesses in the action realm. Having spoken to someone who was doing mid level sports with the D800, it just did not hold up very well. AF tracking and initial AF acquisition was not very good.
For the OP who likes to do landscapes the D800E makes sense though.
johnctharp wrote:
That is, competitive in the "action, sports, wildlife, BIF" categories that Pixel Perfect mentioned .
Overall, phase detection alone is too imprecise and obtuse for use in covering action when compared to the potential that a combination of phase and contrast detection is capable of when backed up by well-developed logic. Canon is there with DPAF, but their sensors lag and they show little initiative in improving their processors.
Sony is on the forefront of sensor design and has access to the most modern processor production capabilities outside of Intel's. The only other wildcard is Samsung, who is arguably in a place where they could take the mirrorless world by storm if they threw their full weight behind their cameras, and could easily threaten full-frame and even medium format digital shops if they so chose, given their manufacturing capability....Show more →
I would hardly hold Sony up a potential poster boy for a brilliant new hybrid AF. The A7 is reportedly worse than the A7R depsite it's hybrid AF and they are clearly miles behind DPAF and are also not even close to the m4/3 cameras, or Nikon V and J series cameras for AF speed.
For action work give me lower res and better AF than high res and poor AF.
I don't see Samsung as a threat at all. They've proven remarkably disappointing in the mirrorless market and you never hear of them mentioned in the same breath as Fuji or Sony as a mirrorless option. They might knock out products to compete, but they never lead the pack other than using their phone smarts for connectivity.
While Canikon have phase AF down, and Canon's DPAF-tech is imminently promising, no one has really approached the point of really tackling a solution- and that is to use a combination of phase detection, contrast detection, and image recognition to provide a solution that can actually follow virtually any type of movement.
Despite the performance of Sony's mirrorless AF, they do know AF just as well as Canon and Nikon. Their advantage is in their sensors; phase detection just gets the lens moving in the right direction, while contrast detection and image processing allow the camera and lens to hit their target with precision. The Exmor's high DR will no doubt help Sony here. While Canon's phase detection sensor can see in the dark, Sony's sensor can actually provide a competent processor and firmware stack with the information needed to critically measure AF and track subjects in ways that most would believe to be impossible today.
Interesting that so many myths are presented here, one is that Canon have so much better AF than Nikon, another is about the big whites when most big whites seems to be jealous of the " big black" .
"sorry I could not resist it"
Going back to OP question, I use 5D MK III on a daily basis and the only camera I want to upgrade to is 1DX. Saying that I have to admit that I’m event shooter and Canon ergonomics and frame rate is important to me. I’m not married to Canon as in the past I used analogue Nikons for a very long time. In the last 3 years I experimented with few Nikons my friends own and for my usage I can’t see reasons to switch.
However recently I was shooting landscapes with my friend's D800E/Nikkor 50 1.4G and I’m mighty impressed with results. If I was landscape photographer I would seriously consider D800E. The DR advantage for most sunset shots was noticeable.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
Interesting that so many myths are presented here, one is that Canon have so much better AF than Nikon, another is about the big whites when most big whites seems to be jealous of the " big black" .
"sorry I could not resist it"
A puzzling comment. Have you actually used either system?
