kabraxcis wrote:
I swear every time I go out for landscapes, I want an a7r or d810. Even considered the Sigma DP series because of their somewhat infamous reputation
The d810 is a better or equal camera in every way to the 5D3 except for how quickly one can change settings. I would by lying if I said I hadn't looked at the used copies here on the buy/sell forum a few times. That said, canon still makes superior glass and that is what keeps me here. I love my 5D3 and 1D3 but they definitely lack the exposure flexibility my friends can get out of their d800/810s when shooting concerts.
retrofocus wrote:
I believe the 6D was one of the best FF cameras which Canon put out on the market since the 5D MkII. Before Canon was missing an entry level FF camera where the 6D fitted right in. I wouldn't even expect that such entry level FF camera has the latest and best sensor - but the 6D high ISO capability is even better than in the 5D MkIII. Price-wise and quality wise at the time the 6D was a good compromise to get a FF camera. The disappointing part was not the 6D, it was the 5D MkIII which had a sensor performance not better (even worse) than the 6D! ...Show more →
Agreed! The 6D is a superb landscape camera.
It currently has the BEST image quality of ANY Canon body except for the 1DX.
kabraxcis wrote:
I swear every time I go out for landscapes, I want an a7r or d810. Even considered the Sigma DP series because of their somewhat infamous reputation
I have sorta soft spot for underdogs, but Sigma still needs to improve their sensor tech to be able to have at least base ISO noise free. Curable with bit of over-exposure, but they have ultra-slow-super-clumsy software for RAW files and those cameras are really as far from perfect as possible. D810 is what I would consider today too, pretty much probably best landscape camera in "full-frame" land. If you dont mind lack of those nice TS-E lens that Canon has (then I would wait till Sony makes updated version of A7R without those "newborn" issues it has right now).
Or get A99 and pray for rumored TS lens (or adapt some other, not only Canon makes them).
kezeka wrote:
The d810 is a better or equal camera in every way to the 5D3 except for how quickly one can change settings. I would by lying if I said I hadn't looked at the used copies here on the buy/sell forum a few times. That said, canon still makes superior glass and that is what keeps me here. I love my 5D3 and 1D3 but they definitely lack the exposure flexibility my friends can get out of their d800/810s when shooting concerts.
I met one dude shooting for Rolling Stone shooting with an A7 and a7s, THAT was impressive.
That's really strange then as the 5D3/6D have more exposure latitude at those ISOs. The A7s is quite impressive but the A7 has probably the worst high ISO performance out of all the current generation FF cameras.
I have some a7s astro raw's and once I downsample the 6d to the same size and process there isnt much difference.
The a7s files have cleaner shadows by a fair bit BUT lots of white fleck dandruff and looks to me like the camera is doing a fair bit of NR on the raws. That is not good.
With a Sony sensor, the G7X scores better that the RX100 III.
Yes, this is a first: Canon beating Sony in dynamic range (DR).
... by using a Sony sensor, though.
Do you think Canon is manipulating the GX7 RAW files in order to beat Sony ?
Sony does low-level NR, thats for what is there that fancy chip called BIONZ. Also not all their cameras always output 14-bits even when they should. Even when they do, there is only data filling about 11 and something bits (at least in A7/R case, newest A7S might be different).
Nikon doesnt have "clean" RAW either.
Canon, no idea.. never saw anything that would support they cook RAWs. So probably not.. Not sure if some clever low-level NR wouldnt help them.
To sum it up, it all depends if you care only about output or if you also care "how you get that output". In case that second is relevant, Nikon or Canon. Sony is cooked and sometimes it can be an issue.. (not in case of A99 or A7s files as far as I know).
Should it immmidiatly start making bad shots? I am in love with mine, it cost me twice less than my former 5d3 and does same quality shots or better. It is finally something small in my camera bag!
jorkata wrote:
This is a myth. Neither Sony nor Nikon are manipulating their RAW files.
There's no question that all manufacturers are manipulating the RAW files, to say they don't doesn't even really make sense. If you don't think Nikon is doing something different than usual with the D750, then think about how they're getting pretty much zero color noise out of a Bayer sensor when there is still luminance noise.
whumber wrote:
That's really strange then as the 5D3/6D have more exposure latitude at those ISOs. The A7s is quite impressive but the A7 has probably the worst high ISO performance out of all the current generation FF cameras.
Rather, THE PHOTOGRAPHER was impressive - I can't imagine trying to manually focus something or use contrast detect AF with lasers and lights flying around just screwing with everything.
The D810 just doesn't have the inorganic banding noise pattern which gives you a little more latitude than with a 5D3/2 6D from what they were showing me.
I still find my 5D3 fantastic for concert photography though
whumber wrote:
That's really strange then as the 5D3/6D have more exposure latitude at those ISOs. The A7s is quite impressive but the A7 has probably the worst high ISO performance out of all the current generation FF cameras.
I am in love with mine, it cost me twice less than my former 5d3 and does same quality shots or better. It is finally something small in my camera bag!