AmbientMike wrote:
Except that's not true, the 5DsR basically beats the A9III on Bill Claff's site, no noise reduction. And honestly Z6III isn't that hot, either, neither is the original A9. The aps D7200 beats all of them
So if we're back to the DR above all used to trash Canon DSLR'S, there are current mirrorless camera you need to avoid
It was kinda stupid, in the midst of the DR push Sony released A9, not having it, really
Why would Canon be given more of a break about DR now than they were 10 or 15 years ago when talking about a camera that uses 10 yo sensor technology? Nothing has changed right? Cameras aren’t fine wines that get better with time. Are we going to rewrite that history as well? Aren’t we all brand agnostic photographers looking for what best enables our creative endeavors?
In case you have not noticed both the Z6III and a9III are absolutely not designed to do landscape, their sensors are optimized for speed. Why not compare to the Nikon and Sony bodies that are used for landscape? If I didn’t know you better I’d be tempted to think that you are looking at this discussion as a Canon vs Sony topic.
But, to your point, the a9III further applies NR to its base ISO raw files like mirrorless Canons, so we don’t know exactly how bad things are.
I just checked photons to photons. The Z6III still has 0.8 stop more DR at base ISO than the 5DRs, doesn’t it? Gains smaller than that were advertised by Canon marketing when they started to apply noise reduction to their mirrorless raw files to artificially embellish their DR numbers. And the GFX-100II indeed has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
AmbientMike wrote:
Except that's not true, the 5DsR basically beats the A9III on Bill Claff's site, no noise reduction. And honestly Z6III isn't that hot, either, neither is the original A9. The aps D7200 beats all of them
So if we're back to the DR above all used to trash Canon DSLR'S, there are current mirrorless camera you need to avoid
It was kinda stupid, in the midst of the DR push Sony released A9, not having it, really
Different cameras for different needs. The A9 is targeted at sports where dynamic range is not the highest priority, speed is, so they designed a camera that meets their customer needs. There are other cameras in the Sony lineup that better meets say a landscapes photographers needs including more pixels and better dynamic range.
bernardl wrote:
Why would Canon be given more of a break about DR now than they were 10 or 15 years ago when talking about a camera that uses 10 yo sensor technology? Nothing has changed right? Cameras aren’t fine wines that get better with time. Are we going to rewrite that history as well? Aren’t we all brand agnostic photographers looking for what best enables our creative endeavors?
In case you have not noticed both the Z6III and a9III are absolutely not designed to do landscape, their sensors are optimized for speed. Why not compare to the Nikon and Sony bodies that are used for landscape? If I didn’t know you better I’d be tempted to think that you are looking at this discussion as a Canon vs Sony topic.
But, to your point, the a9III further applies NR to its base ISO raw files like mirrorless Canons, so we don’t know exactly how bad things are.
I just checked photons to photons. The Z6III still has 0.8 stop more DR at base ISO than the 5DRs, doesn’t it? Gains smaller than that were advertised by Canon marketing when they started to apply noise reduction to their mirrorless raw files to artificially embellish their DR numbers. And the GFX-100II indeed has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
Well, you went from beating up on the 5DSR over DR to taking up for the a9III in consecutive posts, the problem being their DR is about the same. So it's hard to take you seriously, you are definitely not acting brand agnostic imo. At least in your desperate attempts to take up for mirrorless you've admitted there are important things besides DR, one potential reason to use DSLR.
If you want the DR, in a fast camera, get an R3. It beat the A9III by almost 2 full stops (!!!) perhaps the highest DR FF on Bill Claff's tests.
If DSLR'S are so bad, well, speaking of 10+ years ago the D750 beats the Z6III by a full stop.
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, you went from beating up on the 5DSR over DR to taking up for the a9III in consecutive posts, the problem being their DR is about the same. So it's hard to take you seriously, you are definitely not acting brand agnostic imo. At least in your desperate attempts to take up for mirrorless you've admitted there are important things besides DR, one potential reason to use DSLR.
If you want the DR, in a fast camera, get an R3. It beat the A9III by almost 2 full stops (!!!) perhaps the highest DR FF on Bill Claff's tests.
If DSLR'S are so bad, well, speaking of 10+ years ago the D750 beats the Z6III by a full stop. ...Show more →
Are you sure it's me who mentioned the a9III? I think you were the one who mentioned it first. Although I used to own an a9III for almost a year, I don't own one anymore.
I also don't remember writing that DSLRs are so bad. On the other hand I did explicitly acknowledge they are still the better tool for some applications. But to me the 5DRs was never a top DSLRs. It enabled many talented photographers equipped with Canon lenses to take great photographs, but I see it as being clearly behind the more recent D850 on most accounts but a few meaningless extra pixels. Objective measurement back up my views. And today, to me the GFX-100II is the best landscape camera on the planet. That's why I use one. So you see, I currently work with Nikon and Fuji (and Phaseone as well, influence of my old friend Michael Reichmann probably), used Sony quite a bit too. I use what I think is best that I can afford.
You are aware that all recent mirrorless Canons since the R5/R6 apply NR to their raw files in camera, right (that's the triangles in Bill's graphs)? The Base ISO DR value of the R3 is meaningless. Canon camera can't output real raw files anymore. So does the a9III. The Z8/Z9 is an excellent compromise between speed and DR, the a1II being even better. I am sure that the Z9II will be the top dog when it ships in a few months.
And yes, the D750 was an excellent camera. I used to own one and liked it. However, it doesn't track the eye of my subjects as well as the Z6III not does it accept the amazing 35mm f1.2 S so overall, the Z6III is a far better solution for the applications in which In use it. Landscape not being one of them.
If you tried to understand what I write in good faith, you'll find out it's perfectly coherent.
The 5DsR gave me many beautiful wildlife images when the shutter sound did not frighten them and when the AF could get a frame in focus of action.
With the mirrorless silent shooting I often get their photo before they even see me, and the mirrorless cameras are far superior in capturing fast action.
Canon EOS 5DS R180mm lens180mmf/8.01/250s1600 ISO+0.3 EV
bernardl wrote:
Are you sure it's me who mentioned the a9III? I think you were the one who mentioned it first. Although I used to own an a9III for almost a year, I don't own one anymore.
I also don't remember writing that DSLRs are so bad. On the other hand I did explicitly acknowledge they are still the better tool for some applications. But to me the 5DRs was never a top DSLRs. It enabled many talented photographers equipped with Canon lenses to take great photographs, but I see it as being clearly behind the more recent D850 on most accounts but a few meaningless extra pixels. Objective measurement back up my views. And today, to me the GFX-100II is the best landscape camera on the planet. That's why I use one. So you see, I currently work with Nikon and Fuji (and Phaseone as well, influence of my old friend Michael Reichmann probably), used Sony quite a bit too. I use what I think is best that I can afford.
You are aware that all recent mirrorless Canons since the R5/R6 apply NR to their raw files in camera, right (that's the triangles in Bill's graphs)? The Base ISO DR value of the R3 is meaningless. Canon camera can't output real raw files anymore. So does the a9III. The Z8/Z9 is an excellent compromise between speed and DR, the a1II being even better. I am sure that the Z9II will be the top dog when it ships in a few months.
And yes, the D750 was an excellent camera. I used to own one and liked it. However, it doesn't track the eye of my subjects as well as the Z6III not does it accept the amazing 35mm f1.2 S so overall, the Z6III is a far better solution for the applications in which In use it. Landscape not being one of them.
If you tried to understand what I write in good faith, you'll find out it's perfectly coherent.
If you call the butchering of facts a good faith argument, I dont even know what to tell you.
You can't simultaneously run down the 5DSR over DR, then turn around and say the A9III is a great camera. They did about the same on Bill Claff's tests, the difference being that the A9III required NR (as determined by bill Claff) to get there. So the 5DsR might actually be a smidgen better
But I agree the a9III can spit out its poor quality DR images (to hear anti Canon DSLR people tell it) at a high rate
Now you are trying to say the R3 and the a9III have the same DR, even though the R3 beat it quite badly. By almost 2 stops!!! Completely ridiculous
Yes, mirrorless has eye tracking. And the Z6III still has a stop less DR, in tests, than the old D750.
It's amazing the amount of flack you can catch on here for pointing out, gee, some of these new whiz bang mirrorless cameras have about the same DR VS the DSLR'S people used to say are so bad.
And then some guy who doesn't like Canon to begin wirh is twisting the numbers like a pretzel, taking up for inferior DR non Canon cameras after going after the 5DsR for low DR (i quoted his post, see it in my post, he has edited) on the previous page. Pretty amazing.
AmbientMike wrote:
If you call the butchering of facts a good faith argument, I dont even know what to tell you.
You can't simultaneously run down the 5DSR over DR, then turn around and say the A9III is a great camera. They did about the same on Bill Claff's tests, the difference being that the A9III required NR (as determined by bill Claff) to get there. So the 5DsR might actually be a smidgen better
But I agree the a9III can spit out its poor quality DR images (to hear anti Canon DSLR people tell it) at a high rate
Now you are trying to say the R3 and the a9III have the same DR, even though the R3 beat it quite badly. By almost 2 stops!!! Completely ridiculous
Yes, mirrorless has eye tracking. And the Z6III still has a stop less DR, in tests, than the old D750.
Yes, the DR of the a9III sucks. Is it a problem for it’s intended usage? A lot less than it would for a landscape camera such as the 5DRs.
Does it mean that the DR of all Sony cameras suck? Heck no. It is best in class in their landscape focused cameras as a result of superior sensor tech. Which really shouldn’t come as a surprise knowing the Sony semi-conductor sells literally hundreds of times more sensor than Canon through their smart phones activity. They have way more research budget.
I never wrote that the R3 had the same real base ISO DR as the a9Iii. I wrote that we don’t know the real base ISO DR of the R3 since Canon applies in camera Noise Reduction to their raw files (and Sony does the same for the a9III). This is factual, but considering the gap between them it is most probably significantly better. And it’s not surprising considering that it’s not a global shutter.
Is it possible to take great landscape images with a 5DRs? Yes, in some light situations and for some types of landscape.
Do other cameras make the life of photographers a lot easier? Yes, both DSLRs (D850) and mirrorless (long list culminating with the GFX-100II).
But keep transforming what I write if it makes you happy. Objective readers will know it doesn’t make your point honest or right.
As a conclusion for me, shoot whatever works for you. In the end the proof is in the quality of the work. I am not ashamed of mine all things considered and I don’t think that there are other systems that would help me improve besides my current Nikon/Fuji/P1 combination. Hasselblad is tempting on some aspects but Fuji remains better overall for what I do. Sony is better than Nikon in some ways as we speak, but there is seasonality (the Z9II will probably change that) and they fall short in other ways anyways.
But I strive to become a better photographer every day and I keep iterating my equipment as part of that within budget constraints (lenses, packs, accessories,…). And I will be back in the wild as soon as the foot I broke hiking last week will be fixed.
I got started using Canon cameras with a Rebel T7i. With it I have been about full circle owning cameras from all of the major brands. I presently have two Canon 77D and an 80D, plus an older 16 megapixel Fuji. I gave the Rebel T7i to my adult grand daughter two years ago, along with enough gear to get her started using something better than a cell phone. I gave her several sessions in learning how to use the better camera, how the controls all work to use Manual Mode, etc. With it I gave her a 50 mm lens to get started, and taught her to "Zoom with her Feet" until she could afford to buy some zoom lenses. This wasn't a problem, since her main interest was taking photos of flower arrangements for her florist business. A week later her mom told be that I had "Created a Camera Monster" because she was taking pictures of everything. This may be true, but what better way to learn what the camera can do for her. I have since given her a EF 70-300 zoom lens for her to use on vacations, etc.
What better way to get rid of older unused photography gear than to help someone who is sincerely interested in photography to get started and become one of us. She has been back to my studio a few times to learn more, after those initial visits. Mostly it's just her seeking answers to questions, but sometimes it was better to set up a demonstration to help her fully understand how to handle certain situations. Each time she has surprised me with how much she has learned. I may do this again some time in the future with that old Fuji camera, but I'm being very careful to see just how interested they are before giving any gear away. I like the idea of helping someone who is genuinely interested, but don't want to give away anything to someone who will loose interest in a month or two and bury the gear that I give them deep in the back of a closet, never to be touched again.
Yes, I am still using DSLRs, especially the Nikon D5 and Canon 5D Mark IV. Canon EF is still my primary macro system. I shifted to Nikon so that my wife and I can share lenses and accessories for nature/birds/wildlife photography, and much general shooting.
My venture into mirrorlessness is Leica M. I am, really, just an old guy, walking about with a camera.
To further elaborate, our last big upgrade cycle was in the 2016 to 2019 time frame. We had the resources to buy quality, at or near top-tier models. Our Nikon D850 and D5 cameras, and my Canon 5Ds R and 5D Mark IV cameras, are nowhere near the ends of their service lives, and use batteries that remain readily available.
There was a time when the Bird Eye AF feature would have been appealing, but, by the time it became available, we had aged-out of wanting to chase birds. We just sold our Nikkor 500mm f/4E FL, a truly wonderful hand-held BIF lens, after not using it for some time. Our Nikkor 500mm f/4P, which is a Nineties-era top-tier manual-focus lens, will suffice, for the few times we photograph distant wildlife and birds, and the focusing aids in the D5 and D850 work wonderfully to achieve focus. Macro and close-range photography, including ”action macro,” in field conditions, is much more important to us than BIFs and the large “hero” wildlife.
We are not anti-Z. We bought a Nikon Z6 for my wife, with the quite nice 24-70mm f/4 Z lens, but it has been a one-trick pony, for social events. She has had little interest in expanding her selection of Z lenses. The Z8 and Z9 have my attention, but, there has never been any feeling of urgency.
Aren’t we all brand agnostic photographers looking for what best enables our creative endeavors?
