Thanks a lot and likewise, those astro shots are very nice and you have Arctic foxes which have been a bit of an obsession for me on my Iceland trips...
bballfreak6 wrote:
Just hopping back in to say had a look at your flickr, pretty awesome stuff.
twodees wrote:
Thanks a lot and likewise, those astro shots are very nice and you have Arctic foxes which have been a bit of an obsession for me on my Iceland trips...
Legit jealous at how accessible Iceland is from where you are. It was a 24 hour flight (not including transfer time) for me from Australia haha. Crazy aurora activity when I was there for the first time last year but I kept on hitting rain and clouds…saw some other photogs there at the time who happened to be at clear spots and got amazing images.
Hold on , hold on. It's almost time for Canon Rumors to look into their crystal ball and post some mind boggling specs, for an upcoming camera and mind blowing lenses. I've heard their latest trusted source is never wrong..Then every YouTuber and Canon fan boy will jump into action. hahaha. Can't wait...
gkinard1952 wrote:
Hold on , hold on. It's almost time for Canon Rumors to look into their crystal ball and post some mind boggling specs, for an upcoming camera and mind blowing lenses. I've heard their latest trusted source is never wrong..Then every YouTuber and Canon fan boy will jump into action. hahaha. Can't wait...
Actually, in the camera rumors world, Canon Rumors and Nikon Rumors are two of the better ones.
If you really want a good laugh, check out what the Sony Rumors grifter is up to these days (and sadly, he now also owns Fuji Rumors and some other rumor sites).
garyvot wrote:
I guess my major takeaway from all the brand war blather is that lack of dynamic range is only a problem when it affects a Canon sensor? (Irony intended.)
And since the arguments defending the A9III make sense, it just shows that not being able to lift shadows by 6 stops in post is meaningless for most photography, but makes a great attack point for photography forums.
Dynamic range is basically the main thing that really matters in a camera. If you disregard it, you are much better off shooting with micro four thirds or APS-C (or even a 1 inch phone sensor).
It's much cheaper, smaller and lighter that way.
The only reason you pay for a bigger sensor is because the increase in dynamic range that it is supposed to give you.
Canon's full frame sensors are currently on the level of MFT sensors in terms of how much light they gather. Same with some of Sony's fast full frame sensors like the one in the Nikon Z6III.
I guess that's the price you have to pay for the increased readout speeds.
Did I mention the R3 and R5 beat the a9III by almost 2 FULL STOPS on Bill Claff's tests? Why are you pushing such an inferior camera?
I'm glad you finally admitted that Canon DSLR'S excellent, since less DR doesn't matter anymore , since Sony came out with a $6k low DR camera.
They only beat the A9III due to cheating (built-in NR that can't be deactivated). Nobody knows how they'd test without this. All three cameras probably have similar dynamic range (light gathering capabilities) to a modern micro four thirds sensor.
jaygould wrote:
Canon's full frame sensors are currently on the level of MFT sensors in terms of how much light they gather.
Yet amazingly, they still manage to surpass the best Sony "full-frame" sensors in dynamic range. This fact seems to have severely emotionally traumatized some Sony and Nikon users, as the endless denials in this thread have proven.
Yet amazingly, they still manage to surpass the best Sony "full-frame" sensors in dynamic range. This fact seems to have severely emotionally traumatized some Sony and Nikon users, as the endless denials in this thread have proven.
No, they're probably about 2 stops behind Sony's full frame sensors right now.
jaygould wrote:
No, they're probably about 2 stops behind Sony's full frame sensors right now.
Published tests prove that the Canon useable dynamic range is higher, whether you're willing to admit it or not, but based on your posting history on this site it's something that's probably beyond your ability to understand.
jaygould wrote:
Dynamic range is basically the main thing that really matters in a camera. If you disregard it, you are much better off shooting with micro four thirds or APS-C (or even a 1 inch phone sensor).
It's much cheaper, smaller and lighter that way.
The only reason you pay for a bigger sensor is because the increase in dynamic range that it is supposed to give you.
Canon's full frame sensors are currently on the level of MFT sensors in terms of how much light they gather. Same with some of Sony's fast full frame sensors like the one in the Nikon Z6III.
I guess that's the price you have to pay for the increased readout speeds....Show more →
The Canon R3 and R5 actually beats the A9III by close to 2 stops. The Z6III is a little better but still gets trounced
Even the D750 is better than the Z6III by 1 stop. Did nikon "cheat" on the D750?
Sony has cameras that get closer but not better than R5 & R3 on DR
molson wrote:
Published tests prove that the Canon useable dynamic range is higher, whether you're willing to admit it or not, but based on your posting history on this site it's something that's probably beyond your ability to understand.
As you can see in your own graph, the "dots" are triangles on the Canon, and squares on the Sony. Triangles means noise reduction has been applied, therefore artificially boosting the dynamic range.
What would the result be at 100 ISO without the NR? Nobody knows. But maybe somewhere around where the Canon RP is. That would make sense.
Kinda curious about the AF on the Canon super telephoto lenses. Anyone here shot with both the new Nikon and Sony supertelephos, with the new AF mechanisms in the lenses vs. the Canon? Is there a noticeable faster focus with the Nikon and Sony super telephotos?
Since Nikon and Sony actually redesigned their big lenses. I am curious if you see a noticeable difference?
gkinard1952 wrote:
Kinda curious about the AF on the Canon super telephoto lenses. Anyone here shot with both the new Nikon and Sony supertelephos, with the new AF mechanisms in the lenses vs. the Canon? Is there a noticeable faster focus with the Nikon and Sony super telephotos?
Since Nikon and Sony actually redesigned their big lenses. I am curious if you see a noticeable difference?
What are you measuring - how fast the motors spin? How fast the elements move? Or how fast the camera and lens can acquire accurate focus? Under what lighting conditions? What subjects? Which cameras? And most importantly, do you actually care, or are you just trying to prolong the stupid arguments?
jaygould wrote:
As you can see in your own graph, the "dots" are triangles on the Canon, and squares on the Sony. Triangles means noise reduction has been applied, therefore artificially boosting the dynamic range.
What would the result be at 100 ISO without the NR? Nobody knows. But maybe somewhere around where the Canon RP is. That would make sense.
It's not my graph, and all the points show actual dynamic range measurements, and clearly the Canon sensor is just as good as the Sony, and slightly better at base ISO.
I realize that you're (probably) just pretending to be stupid in order to prolong the debate, but I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain from it besides embarrassing yourself...
gkinard1952 wrote:
Is there a noticeable faster focus with the Nikon and Sony super telephotos?
Since Nikon and Sony actually redesigned their big lenses. I am curious if you see a noticeable difference?
None whatsoever. In fact, many reports indicate the R3 paired with any of Canon's great whites is unmatched for speed. This is going to be even more evident with the R1's cross-type AF system.
Also, it's worth noting that in Nikon's case, they still haven't figured out how to AF properly. However, being they depend on Sony to make their sensors for them, it's no surprise that Sony would cripple their competitor sensors like that.
