Several of you have big problems in separating facts, what we are discussing and your own feelings of what you yourself have both . (what I have is always best)
To hell with what others are using or not, self I want a camerabody equivalent to what Canon could deliver 6-7 years ago, but with today's best sensor technology and high resolution and no dam sports camera with 18-21 Mp .
zlatko wrote:
The point is that those well known photographers are using Canon gear for real work. Moreover, they are *choosing* Canon gear for their work when they could choose any brand. They aren't using it for tests, but rather for work that will represent them to their clients and the public. Their reputations and their careers stand or fall based on the photographs they produce. If that still says nothing to you, then I don't know how to explain the significance any better. You are welcome to find more significance in talk about nanometers, low ISO dynamic range, etc. Those points don't detract from the ability of current and past Canon gear to produce outstanding work under a wide range of conditions. If "leading the field" boils down to just one or two parameters of a sensor, then we are ignoring a lot of other parts of the system....Show more →
I can see your point, and I agree that Canon business-wise seems to go more so after the professionals who are in the event/wedding shooting business or for video. There such high MP camera is more an obstacle than help because of larger image files, lower fps, and longer recording time. As I pointed out in several of my posts, it depends what your need in photography is - myself - as most will know by now - would profit much more from a better sensor than from the other parts of the "system" as you mentioned above. In fact I only bought a digital camera when I saw a worthwhile improvement in sensor technology - the rest was of lower priority for me (saying this, the 1D class camera series is of no use for me either since I don't need the offered features for the price of it). "Leading the field" in my above post was referred to the sensor technology, correct. This is the reason why I am not upgrading to the MkIII since its improvements are mostly pointless for me in comparison to my MkII (this said I still consider some features of the MkIII worthwhile like its in-camera multiexposure capability and the 100% viewfinder and of course its AF - just not enough to justify the purchase for me).
Mikael Risedal wrote:
Several of you have big problems in separating facts, what we are discussing and your own feelings of what you yourself have both . (what I have is always best)
To hell with what others are using or not, self I want a camerabody equivalent to what Canon could deliver 6-7 years ago, but with today's best sensor technology and high resolution and no dam sports camera with 18-21 Mp .
Facts about what gear well-known photographers use for work speak to the ability of the system under diverse & demanding circumstances. Those may be relevant facts for someone choosing between the 5D3 and D800 today. Your personal need for low readout noise, etc. may have changed your feelings about using Canon because it's not "today's best sensor". However, the system performs very well for (and is preferred by) a lot of photographers. You say "to hell with what others are using or not", but seemingly need to tell everyone what you are using or not.
retrofocus wrote:
I can see your point, and I agree that Canon business-wise seems to go more so after the professionals who are in the event/wedding shooting business or for video. There such high MP camera is more an obstacle than help because of larger image files, lower fps, and longer recording time.
Yes, but it's interesting that none of the well known photographers I mentioned are in the event/wedding or video business. Somehow Canon still meets their needs.
zlatko wrote:
Facts about what gear well-known photographers use for work speak to the ability of the system under diverse & demanding circumstances. Those may be relevant facts for someone choosing between the 5D3 and D800 today. Your personal need for low readout noise, etc. may have changed your feelings about using Canon because it's not "today's best sensor". However, the system performs very well for (and is preferred by) a lot of photographers. You say "to hell with what others are using or not", but seemingly need to tell everyone what you are using or not.
well I use many systems daily and have no problems to discover what one or another systems advantage are.
what are trying to tell me? That one system is better? or that there are today different system with different sensors and some may be better than others but have others advantage?
Its time to specify what are we talking about-dont you think
zlatko wrote:
Facts about what gear well-known photographers use for work speak to the ability of the system under diverse & demanding circumstances. Those may be relevant facts for someone choosing between the 5D3 and D800 today. Your personal need for low readout noise, etc. may have changed your feelings about using Canon because it's not "today's best sensor". However, the system performs very well for (and is preferred by) a lot of photographers. You say "to hell with what others are using or not", but seemingly need to tell everyone what you are using or not.
Or maybe they get their gear for free from respective manufactures so that people like you would notice and think highly of said equipment.
chez wrote:
Or maybe they get their gear for free from respective manufactures so that people like you would notice and think highly of said equipment.
The cynic in me says that in the case of Annie Leibovitz that is quite possible given her ongoing financial issues.
chez wrote:
Or maybe they get their gear for free from respective manufactures so that people like you would notice and think highly of said equipment.
I'm sure it happens, it doesn't lessen the value and quality of work they still produce with this equipment though does it? All it may highlight is the ability of photographers to use the equipment they have at hand, rather than be handicapped by it, to still produce the goods.
jj_glos wrote:
I'm sure it happens, it doesn't lessen the value and quality of work they still produce with this equipment though does it? All it may highlight is the ability of photographers to use the equipment they have at hand, rather than be handicapped by it, to still produce the goods.
Or it might just show you the skill of the photographer irrelevant of what bake of camera or lens they happen to have in their hands. Too many people see these high profile photographers with a certain brand and think that is the way to greatness. The truth is far from this however.
chez wrote:
Or it might just show you the skill of the photographer irrelevant of what bake of camera or lens they happen to have in their hands. Too many people see these high profile photographers with a certain brand and think that is the way to greatness. The truth is far from this however.
The D800E has an unbeatable sensor, but soon that may not be the case with some expected releases in February 2014. But despite the D800E having a better sensor, I prefer the 5D III because of the lenses that come with it.
gome1122 wrote:
The D800E has an unbeatable sensor, but soon that may not be the case with some expected releases in February 2014. But despite the D800E having a better sensor, I prefer the 5D III because of the lenses that come with it.
No doubt Canon makes some fine lenses and I have been lucky enough to shoot with many of them.
However, I find in real world shooting the Nikon lenses do an excellent job. I swapped out many of the great lenses Canon make for the D800 and D3s and D700 and I have no regrets. The only lens I miss from Canon is the 85L.
If you cannot capture great pics from either system I trust the issue isn't the equipment.
chez wrote:
Or maybe they get their gear for free from respective manufactures so that people like you would notice and think highly of said equipment.
Or maybe they don't get anything. Or maybe they get some discount. Or maybe they get offers of free gear from several brands and choose the one that works best for them. In any event, they actually *use* the gear for their work. And the laws of physics work the same for them as they do for you or me. So when someone complains about nanometers on some production line, I remind myself that this gear actually works and this is what matters.
chez wrote:
Or it might just show you the skill of the photographer irrelevant of what bake of camera or lens they happen to have in their hands. Too many people see these high profile photographers with a certain brand and think that is the way to greatness. The truth is far from this however.
You are correct in that using a certain brand has nothing to do with achieving success. These photographers would still be talented and produce great work with any brand. So it is interesting that they don't get hung up on readout noise and other complaints that we read here. High profile photographers tend to be very picky about their gear and what it produces. So if they use it, that says something about it, at least that it meets their technical standards. If the OP or someone else is choosing a camera, what high profile photographers use has at least as much bearing on the matter as someone else's complaints about a sensor not being made with the latest fabrication process.
zlatko wrote:
You are correct in that using a certain brand has nothing to do with achieving success. These photographers would still be talented and produce great work with any brand. So it is interesting that they don't get hung up on readout noise and other complaints that we read here. High profile photographers tend to be very picky about their gear and what it produces. So if they use it, that says something about it, at least that it meets their technical standards. If the OP or someone else is choosing a camera, what high profile photographers use has at least as much bearing on the matter as someone else's complaints about a sensor not being made with the latest fabrication process....Show more →
So this is now the latest excuse for Canon's lack of new sensor technology - what kind of gear other well known photographers use and that they get good photos also with current Canon FF cameras. This is the most ridiculous defense so far. The same way I could argue that I make still great photos with my MkII camera and that it doesn't get better technically with a more advanced sensor which would be simply wrong. This reminds me on the reoccurring discussions "we don't need more MP" etc.
retrofocus wrote:
So this is now the latest excuse for Canon's lack of new sensor technology - what kind of gear other well known photographers use and that they get good photos also with current Canon FF cameras. This is the most ridiculous defense so far. The same way I could argue that I make still great photos with my MkII camera and that it doesn't get better technically with a more advanced sensor which would be simply wrong. This reminds me on the reoccurring discussions "we don't need more MP" etc.
Nowhere in the post that you quoted did it say that a new sensor is not required or that Canon should not be working on one. I believe the point being made by the poster is that Canon's sensor technology- however behind the curve one may think it is compared to its competitors'- is not nearly the crippling disadvantage that some make it out to be. In fact, it is clearly sufficient to produce excellent results for a variety of photographers who photograph a variety of subjects.
Either your comprehension of that post was lacking, or you intentionally inferred something that was not there in an attempt to continue to be argumentative. I hope you don't continue to do that because it makes the forum experience less enjoyable.
mitesh wrote:
Nowhere in the post that you quoted did it say that a new sensor is not required or that Canon should not be working on one. I believe the point being made by the poster is that Canon's sensor technology- however behind the curve one may think it is compared to its competitors'- is not nearly the crippling disadvantage that some make it out to be. In fact, it is clearly sufficient to produce excellent results for a variety of photographers who photograph a variety of subjects.
Either your comprehension of that post was lacking, or you intentionally inferred something that was not there in an attempt to continue to be argumentative. I hope you don't continue to do that because it makes the forum experience less enjoyable. ...Show more →
I don't question the fact that you can deliver great photos with any kind of gear today - even with film or other kind of cameras of course. Coming back to the original OP's question, I used myself the 5D MkIII, and I took great photos with it - no question. I agree that it might be sufficient for many regarding the sensor. I also tested the D800E, and as others especially at the beginning of this discussion pointed out, it is simply better in IQ. The camera itself has some other drawbacks (also pointed out above), but the new sensor brings out some detail in the photos which Canon's FF cameras can't deliver currently. To me and others this is a main disadvantage and made me personally not buying the MkIII for example.
So the point simply is not that great photos can be taken by all kind of gear - the question is which camera system (and this was the OP's question!) is actually advantageous in a given aspect - and regarding IQ and dynamic range, this is simply the D800(E).
retrofocus wrote:
I don't question the fact that you can deliver great photos with any kind of gear today - even with film or other kind of cameras of course. Coming back to the original OP's question, I used myself the 5D MkIII, and I took great photos with it - no question. I agree that it might be sufficient for many regarding the sensor. I also tested the D800E, and as others especially at the beginning of this discussion pointed out, it is simply better in IQ. The camera itself has some other drawbacks (also pointed out above), but the new sensor brings out some detail in the photos which Canon's FF cameras can't deliver currently. To me and others this is a main disadvantage and made me personally not buying the MkIII for example.
So the point simply is not that great photos can be taken by all kind of gear - the question is which camera system (and this was the OP's question!) is actually advantageous in a given aspect - and regarding IQ and dynamic range, this is simply the D800(E). ...Show more →
That's a fine opinion to hold. The opposite opinion, that the factors that differentiate the 5D3 make it more suitable- or at least, "good enough"- for others, is also a fine opinion. If one wants to hold the latter opinion, s/he does not automatically become a Canon loyalist/apologist/fanboy. Not everything positive that is stated about Canon and its products is a defense of any business strategy that the respondent (or anybody here) likely has very little actual knowledge of anyway.
I have sadly read through the majority of responses in this thread. I currently own a 5DIII with several L lenses and a Zeiss lens. I have always been tempted by the D800 since I only shoot cityscape and landscape work. I have finally bit the bullet and rented the D800 to test it out alongside my 5DIII. Subconsciously, I'm really hoping that just renting the D800 will be enough for me. It would be a PITA to sell my 5DIII and five lenses. But if the D800 outshines the 5DIII (to me), then so be it.
