p.3 #1 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
AmbientMike wrote:
Doesn't look like the link copied the models selected for the graph on the top. You might have to do it manually.
Apparently Fuji mis-states their iso. You kind of have to be careful jumping to too many conclusions on these graphs
Glad you like your 1.4, since you're stuck using it. Have to see if the rumored 1x-2x tc from Canon comes out. One potential reason they didn't build one in
Yes I noticed and re-selected the models you proposed. The ISO value is the horizontal axis, I assume that Bill did the job and worked with the minimum ISO of both cameras maximizing the DR, so I don't think it affects my reading of the data you provided. The gap is predictably 1 stop.
I am very glad to be "stuck" with the 400mm f2.8 TC and every day that passes by enables me to capture wonderful images with it. The idea of a zoom TC is interesting, let's see if it remains among the long list of creative rumors apparently designed to keep the faithful in Canon ranks or whether it turns into reality. According to Canonrumors we were about to get a 100mp Canon back in 2014... and the R1 was a few months away in 2020... They should rename the site Canonfantasyland.
I personally think that it makes more sense to embed a fixed tele-converter in a zoom lens rather than designing a generic zoom tele-converter to be mounted to fixed lenses. Which is why Canon did include a x1.4 tele on their 180-400mm f4. The reason being that a dedicated tele-converter can be designed to match the specifics of a lens and that by including it in the middle of the elements you can optimized various things.
My personal guess is that the three next Nikon super tele lenses will be:
- 100-200mm f2.0 TC
- 100-300mm f2.8 TC
- 200-500mm f4 TC
And there is a real possibility that these TC may have 2 positions, x1.4 and x2. It's the next logical step. The only question being IMHO whether they can come up with a design as robust as the current one with a x1.4 TC.
But since the 28-70mm f2.0 and 24-105mm f2.8 are mandatory lenses for your applications you won't mind missing on those if my forecast turns out being true. So everything is good.
About being stuck... one of the great things with Nikon is that either Nikon or Sony lenses work great on Nikon bodies so the odds of something great coming my way are double. That's assuming equal levels of innovation. I may get the Sony 300mm f2.8 just for the fun of it. The best of both worlds I guess.
p.3 #2 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
By making valid points in this brand rivalry should not be described as warfare. Unfortunately Europe already at war against Russia. My preference would be for CANON R cameras as Made in Japan unlike Nikon Z cameras.
p.3 #3 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Richard-BB wrote:
By making valid points in this brand rivalry should not be described as warfare. Unfortunately Europe already at war against Russia. My preference would be for CANON R cameras as Made in Japan unlike Nikon Z cameras.
Having been based in Japan for 25 years I should be sensitive to this... but I am not.
Quality out of Nikon's Thai factory has been overall very good. Some small issues with the Z8 but no real impact.
I have lots of respect for the Thai engineers. I have visited the country several times and was always impressed by the level of education of the people.
p.3 #4 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Yes I noticed and re-selected the models you proposed. The ISO value is the horizontal axis, I assume that Bill did the job and worked with the minimum ISO of both cameras maximizing the DR, so I don't think it affects my reading of the data you provided. The gap is predictably 1 stop.
I am very glad to be "stuck" with the 400mm f2.8 TC and every day that passes by enables me to capture wonderful images with it. The idea of a zoom TC is interesting, let's see if it remains among the long list of creative rumors apparently designed to keep the faithful in Canon ranks or whether it turns into reality. According to Canonrumors we were about to get a 100mp Canon back in 2014... and the R1 was a few months away in 2020... They should rename the site Canonfantasyland.
I personally think that it makes more sense to embed a fixed tele-converter in a zoom lens rather than designing a generic zoom tele-converter to be mounted to fixed lenses. Which is why Canon did include a x1.4 tele on their 180-400mm f4. The reason being that a dedicated tele-converter can be designed to match the specifics of a lens and that by including it in the middle of the elements you can optimized various things.
My personal guess is that the three next Nikon super tele lenses will be:
- 100-200mm f2.0 TC
- 100-300mm f2.8 TC
- 200-500mm f4 TC
And there is a real possibility that these TC may have 2 positions, x1.4 and x2. It's the next logical step. The only question being IMHO whether they can come up with a design as robust as the current one with a x1.4 TC.
But since the 28-70mm f2.0 and 24-105mm f2.8 are mandatory lenses for your applications you won't mind missing on those if my forecast turns out being true. So everything is good.
About being stuck... one of the great things with Nikon is that either Nikon or Sony lenses work great on Nikon bodies so the odds of something great coming my way are double. That's assuming equal levels of innovation. I may get the Sony 300mm f2.8 just for the fun of it. The best of both worlds I guess.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, Canon EF lenses also work great on the Z bodies. I have
a couple of EF lenses 200-400 f4, 200 f2, 16-35 2.8 III and they work as well as Nikon F mount glass.
This gives Nikon Z users even more options.
p.3 #6 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
bernardl wrote:
Having been based in Japan for 25 years I should be sensitive to this... but I am not.
Quality out of Nikon's Thai factory has been overall very good. Some small issues with the Z8 but no real impact.
I have lots of respect for the Thai engineers. I have visited the country several times and was always impressed by the level of education of the people.
Cheers,
Bernard
I do not tolerate that Nikon charges me for Made in China or Made in Thailand products as if they would pay there same salaries as in Japan...
p.3 #7 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
garyvot wrote:
Irrelevant. What matters is results. If a camera maintains a high level of accutance with lower noise, it is smart design.
In case you haven't noticed, computational imaging is making meaningful improvements. This is just another example.
I don't necessarily disagree with you - if you read what I said earlier, I said that if it's not something that bothers you for your usage, then you don't need to worry about it. That doesn't change the facts though, which is all I was ever pointing out.
The only reason I replied was because someone was trying to claim everyone bakes in NR in the way Canon does, which is obviously false.
The key difference with your example of computational imaging is that the user not only has a choice to apply it or not, but also to what degree it's applied and what program/method is applying it. Anything baked into a RAW file removes all of that optionality.
p.3 #8 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Historically (back in the DSLR days) Nikon used to clip the black points in RAW files to reduce shadow noise and give the appearance of higher dynamic range... I wonder if they are still doing this with their mirrorless cameras?
p.3 #9 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
molson wrote:
Historically (back in the DSLR days) Nikon used to clip the black points in RAW files to reduce shadow noise and give the appearance of higher dynamic range... I wonder if they are still doing this with their mirrorless cameras?
p.3 #10 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
molson wrote:
Historically (back in the DSLR days) Nikon used to clip the black points in RAW files to reduce shadow noise and give the appearance of higher dynamic range... I wonder if they are still doing this with their mirrorless cameras?
Nikon switched to a black level offset for the last few generations of their DSLRs and has used it for all their Z bodies. Clipping blacks doesn't per se reduce shadow noise since raw processors account for the clipping. It'll only reduce some measures of the noise by less sophisticated analysis tools. Clipping does limit the flexibility in raw processing, esp when doing speciality imaging like astro stacking.
p.3 #11 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Ripolini wrote:
I do not tolerate that Nikon charges me for Made in China or Made in Thailand products as if they would pay there same salaries as in Japan...
Except that they don’t. Just compare the price of the Z8/Z9 vs a1 vs the significantly inferior R3.
Note that Nikon still manufactures some lenses in Japan such as the 400mm f2.8 TC and 600mm f4 TC.
p.3 #12 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
bernardl wrote:
Except that they don’t. Just compare the price of the Z8/Z9 vs a1 vs the significantly inferior R3.
Note that Nikon still manufactures some lenses in Japan such as the 400mm f2.8 TC and 600mm f4 TC.
Cheers,
Bernard
Just a friendly reminder that this thread is cross-posted on the Canon and Nikon boards. Not everybody frequenting the Canon board regard the R3 as 'significantly inferior'.
p.3 #14 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
You know I remember back in the early 90's (EOS-1 days) this foul mouth Nikon rep Ron Tanawaki came into my university photojournalism program to talk about the virtues of shooting Nikon. He spent majority of the given time to mock Canon for using AF which he said no pro uses. He mocked Canon using LCD panel on their cameras cause once again pro cameras should only use dials. And of course he mocked Canon "Pro" lenses for having plastic hoods. This was when Nikon's top of the line F4 used a built in Craftsmen screwdriver to drive AF in their lenes.
The guy above sounds like he attended a few of Tanawaki's workshops through the years.
p.3 #15 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
I also have a Z6 and have personally shot my good friends R5. It's a large step up from the Z6. From everything on fora/reviews/etc, the Z8 is an even bigger step up since you gain the benefits of the stacked sensor.
Ultimately, either a Z8, R5, or R5M2 of some variety is going to be a big step up for you. I think it comes down to what lenses and haptics each system offers that meet your general shooting needs and how much money you want to spend. The Z8 is an incredible tool and value that can be bought used or new and certainly be happily used for 10 years or more. The same can be said if you were to buy an R5. This should be no different than when I bought my D700 14 years ago. A really good tool gives you plenty of time to grow/use it and for most of us here, it'd be hard to argue that a modern camera held us back for at least the last 10-15 years.
p.3 #16 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
alundeb wrote:
Just a friendly reminder that this thread is cross-posted on the Canon and Nikon boards. Not everybody frequenting the Canon board regard the R3 as 'significantly inferior'.
I had forgotten the cross posting aspect, but I am sure that happy R3 users will consider my comment as that of someone not knowing what he is talking about and will continue to happily think they own the best camera ever made.
p.3 #17 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
CelesteForza wrote:
You know I remember back in the early 90's (EOS-1 days) this foul mouth Nikon rep Ron Tanawaki came into my university photojournalism program to talk about the virtues of shooting Nikon. He spent majority of the given time to mock Canon for using AF which he said no pro uses. He mocked Canon using LCD panel on their cameras cause once again pro cameras should only use dials. And of course he mocked Canon "Pro" lenses for having plastic hoods. This was when Nikon's top of the line F4 used a built in Craftsmen screwdriver to drive AF in their lenes.
The guy above sounds like he attended a few of Tanawaki's workshops through the years. ...Show more →
If I am the guy above, I am trying to base my comments on facts. So far what I have described as facts have not been convincingly disputed. If anything meaningless arguments about 30 years old Nikon screw drive lenses not being supported on Nikon mirrorless was the best attempt so far.
I agree that the comments that gentlemen made were idiotic opinions.
I'm happy with my Canon bodies but I sure would love to be able to mount Nikon's 400 TC & 600 TC to them, and also Sony's 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and their new 300 2.8. And that's just getting started on my wishlist of lenses.
Have to see if the rumored 1x-2x tc from Canon comes out. One potential reason they didn't build one in
They should rename the site Canonfantasyland.