arbitrage wrote:
As a current dual system shooter, I can say that Canon still has a lot of things going for it which don't necessarily show up in a spec sheet.
There is no Canon spec sheet that can hold a candle to the D850 for FF or the D500 for APS-C BUT there are a bunch of usability features buried in the Canon cameras that actually put them ahead of the newest Nikon's in actual use in the field.
And for my type of bird and wildlife shooting there are still some lenses available that Nikon hasn't matched yet. The ones I own are the 400DOII and the 200-400/TC. Then the previous discussion about Nikon TC performance adds another wrinkle to the whole picture BUT I can't confirm or deny that myself as I haven't tried a big prime with 2xTCIII in Nikon yet. I can say that the 1.4TCIII on the 200-500 does a good job and the D500 can still focus it reasonably well but not as good as the Canon 1.4TCIII on a 100-400II (but those aren't directly comparable lenses and in different price categories)....Show more →
Which features do canon have over Sony and Nikon for usability? Genuine question as I'm looking at the other options at the moment, but want to know what the pros and cons are in the broad picture. Haven't had very clear answers elsewhere when I've asked before.
Isaacheus wrote:
Which features do canon have over Sony and Nikon for usability? Genuine question as I'm looking at the other options at the moment, but want to know what the pros and cons are in the broad picture. Haven't had very clear answers elsewhere when I've asked before.
The things I was thinking of are back button focus customizability and having 2 BBF buttons. There are two different ways to assign an entire different set of settings to each button. Not just AF settings but exposure settings also. On the 1DX/1DX2 it is taken up another notch with assigning M-Fn button to C modes and being able to switch between up to 4 different feature sets (each set can have their own 2 BBF buttons set up) with just a push of a button beside the shutter.
The other huge difference for me is that with Nikon I can't quickly change the AF mode without using my left hand. With Canon they have the nice button to the right of the Back focus buttons and then you just spin the wheel. The 7D2 and 5D4 even have a little switch to make it even easier.
These things won't be important to everyone but for my shooting I've come to rely on them when in changing and challenging conditions.
arbitrage wrote:
The things I was thinking of are back button focus customizability and having 2 BBF buttons. There are two different ways to assign an entire different set of settings to each button. Not just AF settings but exposure settings also. On the 1DX/1DX2 it is taken up another notch with assigning M-Fn button to C modes and being able to switch between up to 4 different feature sets (each set can have their own 2 BBF buttons set up) with just a push of a button beside the shutter.
The other huge difference for me is that with Nikon I can't quickly change the AF mode without using my left hand. With Canon they have the nice button to the right of the Back focus buttons and then you just spin the wheel. The 7D2 and 5D4 even have a little switch to make it even easier.
These things won't be important to everyone but for my shooting I've come to rely on them when in changing and challenging conditions....Show more →
Thanks for that, good to know. I'm coming from a 6d currently, so not things I'm likely to miss at this stage. I have tried a d750 on occasion and do find the buttons on the left side somewhat annoying to use with the left hand, so I can very much see where this would be useful
If those DR values hold up, then IMO BSI has been a waste of time and effort from Nikon. Sony A7RII benefits by about 1 stop in DR at ISO 800+ compared to D810. I can't believe Nikon would go to the trouble of adding BSI and not show any worthwhile increase in DR, even if noise is a bit better. This would actually deter me quite a bit from D850.
That doesn't make sense to me. You CAN get closer with the closer MFD (even if you choose not to) than the 300 PF, and 400mm DOES provide more magnification than 300mm. The magnification of the Canon 300/4 is only .24X, while the 100-400 II achieves .31X.
Am I missing something (with regard to magnification)?
The size difference of the lens, though ... is notable.
It's a combination of focus breathing and lens size: I'm measuring distance from subject to front lens, not to camera (sensor plane). The front lens (or lens cap ...) is what my subjects will notice most of all. The first time I really checked I was amazed myself at the huge disadvantage the 100-400II had compared to the 300mm prime for the same magnification (using a credit card size subject).
Ultimately the 100-400II can get higher magnification than the bare 4/300IS (or Nikon 300PF, probably) but then you are so close to the subject that the 100L macro would work as well, and provide MUCH better IQ for anything below f/11. The 100-400II at 400mm also wins theoretically from a 300mm prime if the subject is relatively far away, say a few meters, because then focus breathing isn't yet a serious factor. For me this would be useful for flying dragonflies if only the image quality of the 100-400II would be good enough at f /5.6-6.3, but it isn't (for closeups). For most dragonflies I need 1/3000-1/4000s at least to stop motion and stopping down to f/8 or more means plenty of noise on a 80D.
Because of this, my 100-400II has been an expensive paperweight for the past two months :-(
molson wrote:
I think the Sony A99 II was the final salvo of the Alpha system - a small batch run of a very good camera, to help clear out the remaining slow-moving inventory of A-mount lenses. Problem was, by the time it was released, most shops I know of had already stopped carrying A-mount stuff.
It also showed that you can have high MP and a respectable fps in one body.
Which leads me to believe that the specs of the 850 will not hold up for very long.
Within the year, Sony will release a better spec'ed FF mirrorless camera, higher mp and higher fps than the 850. The only thing that remains to be seen is if they go all out and do something like a 50-60mp + 12-14 fps but at 4,500 or do they tone it down and keep it within 45-50mp and around 10-12fps at say 3,500? They could do both just because.
Sony made a serious go at the high-end market with both the A7rii and then the A9. Both cameras really shocked a lot of people. They have shown that they are the innovators right now and are really pushing to convert people over to their system and mirrorless in general. The 850 gives existing Nikon owners something to look up to but it's not a 'game-changer' like either of Sony's recent releases.
Brian you sound like a little kid in a candy shop, as do some others.
Brand does not make the photographer. Like I have said to others, I never look at an image and wonder what camera lens combo took the image.
All the bickering over cameras is a joke, as the best investment is in glass when it comes to photography.
Now, if a new piano makes you a better musician or a new car makes you drive better, then go for it.
I shoot with a lot of Nikon shooters that have the best gear that Nikon has and no one says that Nikon is better than Canon as that is kids shit... just saying!
thenoilif wrote:
It also showed that you can have high MP and a respectable fps in one body.
Which leads me to believe that the specs of the 850 will not hold up for very long.
Within the year, Sony will release a better spec'ed FF mirrorless camera, higher mp and higher fps than the 850. The only thing that remains to be seen is if they go all out and do something like a 50-60mp + 12-14 fps but at 4,500 or do they tone it down and keep it within 45-50mp and around 10-12fps at say 3,500? They could do both just because.
Not at all. My investment in lens precludes me from anything but Canon. Sure I could sell them but the hit I would take would not allow me to replicate the vast variety I have.
Mike Veltri wrote:
Brian you sound like a little kid in a candy shop, as do some others.
Brand does not make the photographer. Like I have said to others, I never look at an image and wonder what camera lens combo took the image.
All the bickering over cameras is a joke, as the best investment is in glass when it comes to photography.
Now, if a new piano makes you a better musician or a new car makes you drive better, then go for it.
I shoot with a lot of Nikon shooters that have the best gear that Nikon has and no one says that Nikon is better than Canon as that is kids shit... just saying!...Show more →
This argument keeps being repeated and while it's true for many kinds of photography, it's not for bird photography. The combination of the highest resolution with the highest speed, high-ISO image quality, deepest buffer and best AF coupled with the best long lenses will result in the best bird images, all other things being equal.
And we're not talking here about trading up, we're talking about switching from a 1DX at $6000 to a camera that's almost half the price. This is about the tool, not about the gadget.
These BIF debates remind me of the rants of the rail fans of a couple of decades ago - no camera on the market, no matter how good, could ever satisfy their insatiable need to get a sharp photo of a moving train.
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
Thanks for sharing your experience, good info. Did you try group area AF (better than D9 or similar for birds in flight), and did you adjust the focus tracking with lock-on delay? Nikon defaults to a delay of 3 I think, but I find that turning the delay off entirely is best when photographing incoming subjects.
Hi,
Yes I did experiment with different patterns, The Nikon AF just didn't seem to have the kind of horse power to drive the lens as fast as the 1DXII rocks the focus in my 600II regardless of the settings. It could also be the motor in the Nikon 600FL is not quite as powerful as the one in the Canon's 600II.
As for refocus delay, it doesn't really affect the AF drive speed. i.e. how fast the camera drives the lens, it controls how long the camera will wait until it attempts to refocus when it loses the bird. When hand holding a super-telephoto lens there are moments when you can't keep the bird perfectly centered in the frame and if the refocus delay is short the camera may latch to the BG, it makes the AF more twitchy, so I set this delay to longest. Unlike other subjects birds fill only a small portion of the frame so even in incoming scenario there is the danger of locking on the BG, in which case there is no time to bump the focus and get back on the bird...it's a very challenging subject.
Once I process all the photos from D5 I may write more about this topic on my blog...
arbitrage wrote:
I can say that the 1.4TCIII on the 200-500 does a good job and the D500 can still focus it reasonably well but not as good as the Canon 1.4TCIII on a 100-400II (but those aren't directly comparable lenses and in different price categories).
I would say that the Nikon 1.4x, 1.7x, and even 2x TC are good on the 300 f4. I doubt that the Canon's are that much better.
thenoilif wrote:
It also showed that you can have high MP and a respectable fps in one body.
Which leads me to believe that the specs of the 850 will not hold up for very long.
Within the year, Sony will release a better spec'ed FF mirrorless camera, higher mp and higher fps than the 850. The only thing that remains to be seen is if they go all out and do something like a 50-60mp + 12-14 fps but at 4,500 or do they tone it down and keep it within 45-50mp and around 10-12fps at say 3,500? They could do both just because.
Sony made a serious go at the high-end market with both the A7rii and then the A9. Both cameras really shocked a lot of people. They have shown that they are the innovators right now and are really pushing to convert people over to their system and mirrorless in general. The 850 gives existing Nikon owners something to look up to but it's not a 'game-changer' like either of Sony's recent releases. ...Show more →
Sony is said to be testing three sensors IIRC, between 42MP and 70MP. There have been no leaks or rumors on what a A7RIII may offer, but here's my 2c as one option. One serious option I could see is to make the A7RIII an improved mirrorless version of the A99II. It's already been rumoured the A7III will get the A9 AF. so take it as a given so will the R. If they want to offer 12fps with e-shutter they will need stacked sensor, but they will need to improve the DR. I doubt they would make the same compromises as the A9 and lower DR, but then again the hit to DR maybe lower. If they are only offering 12fps, the ADC's won't need to be clocked anywhere near as fast, so read noise would not suffer to the same degree. Combine that with improvements in the stacked sensor design and they might be able to keep DR fairly similar to to the A7RII anyway. With 12fps and even 42MP, A9 AF, battery, better ergonomics, stacked sensor, silent shooting it would be a pretty strong competitor to D850 and they are finally going to release a 400mm supertele. Maybe they could higher in res too, 48MP @ 10fps would be possible extrapolating from A9 performance. The other possibility is they will release a higher MP A9R and the A7RIII will be more mainstream in speed.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
and it offers 4K from FF, not 1.7x crop.
Let's wait and see how much aliasing is incurred from scaling down the image... And how badly the rolling shutter is. And how bad the focusing is compared to the 5DIV (it looks totally useless in the example video, hunting back and forth aimlessly)...
It offers fully electronic shutter in LV.
With possibly the common problem to be a total unusable failure when fast shutter speeds are required and there is an artificial light source (pulsed LED or traditional lighting driven by mains frequency)...
Zebras are also offered,
But only while shooting HD, not UHD...
Imagemaster wrote:
I would say that the Nikon 1.4x, 1.7x, and even 2x TC are good on the 300 f4. I doubt that the Canon's are that much better.
Yes, I've been watching your recent posts with the 2xTC on the 300/4. They have been looking good. I was very close to sending you a PM when you had the 300/4 up for sale. I see you have decided to keep it.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If those DR values hold up, then IMO BSI has been a waste of time and effort from Nikon. Sony A7RII benefits by about 1 stop in DR at ISO 800+ compared to D810. I can't believe Nikon would go to the trouble of adding BSI and not show any worthwhile increase in DR, even if noise is a bit better. This would actually deter me quite a bit from D850.
It's actually for speed, and not IQ. FF sensors already see very little benefit from BSI because their fill factor is already so high. IQ advantages from BSI favor smaller sensors and smaller pixels, and the benefits fall off sharply as the sensors and pixels get larger.
CanadaMark wrote:
It's actually for speed, and not IQ. FF sensors already see very little benefit from BSI because their fill factor is already so high. IQ advantages from BSI favor smaller sensors and smaller pixels, and the benefits fall off sharply as the sensors and pixels get larger.
Yeah so people say, but clearly Sony used the BSI to also greatly improve QE and DR compared to their old 36MP sensor. There are indications this may not be a Sony sensor, possibly it's a Samsung sensor, they also had BSI and if so they are not as advanced as SOny is why the results are not that good. There are other ways to improve speed without using BSI. Either that or the fact it's Nikon's own design and doesn't use Sony's BSI tech is another reason it's not as good as expected.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yeah so people say, but clearly Sony used the BSI to also greatly improve QE and DR compared to their old 36MP sensor. There are indications this may not be a Sony sensor, possibly it's a Samsung sensor, they also had BSI and if so they are not as advanced as SOny is why the results are not that good. There are other ways to improve speed without using BSI.
That's Nikon Japan saying that, not 'people'. There is no reason to doubt them, especially when it also makes sense from a technical standpoint.
The sensor itself is entirely a Nikon design. It features copper wire, dual gain, and is BSI which is starting to look a lot like Sony's fab (or the production lines Sony now owns, like those from Toshiba). We will find out soon enough for sure. In a world where everything is already so optimized that sensor gains are extremely difficult to obtain (when you are already comparing to one of the best like the D810), the fact that they appear to have matched or slightly improved DR, improved ISO performance by a claimed stop, as well as added the electronic shutter, 4K, and increased MP count is really quite an accomplishment. In terms of what people expected from a D810 replacement, I don't see anything so far that suggests this won't be the best sensor available for that. Expecting huge gains is unrealistic because we hit a wall years ago in sensor performance (for Sony/Nikon anyway), and it's all about the small gains now.
Bill Claff's preliminary numbers show slightly higher overall DR in the measured values (ISO 64 not tested yet), and a very significant bump in ISO performance.
