Things appearing what they really are and differences in gradations like we were supposed to get with 14 bit files as compared to 12 bit never really materialized. In the end result, progress is happening, but to get it to wind up in the finished print would be amazing.
lidesun wrote:
Did you compared the two 100% crops for details ?
How can you honestly compare the two when no one (aside for Michael knowing details about his own image) has any idea what type of PP/resizing/etc either image went through before it got to where it is? If anything a side by side test would have to be done using the same exact methods including uprezing/downrezing for a fair comparison.
lidesun:
Did you compared the two 100% crops for details ?
I did and I have no doubt that 1Ds mkII, in the hands of competent photographer, can produce outstanding results (the perfectly prepared model does not hurt either).
My point is not about outstanding results professionals can achieve using Canon cameras but the relative lack of progress in sensor development, Canon has demonstrated. Nikon has advanced faster in the last year or so than Canon did and it may have been already anticipated when seeing the arrogance Canon has been displaying recently.
Canon had become very complacent and Nikon caught them napping. Nikon has been working very hard to improve their cameras and lens line. Now they have 3 fabulous FF bodies and truly deserve to occupy the top 3 positions in the DXO Rankings. And the resolution from their newer zoom lenses are prime-lens quality. Stunning progress. I am pretty sure they will occupy the top spot for at least another couple of years. Canon is now playing catch up.
mfurman wrote:
5 years ago, Canon was King. What happened since, then?
It takes more than measument of the pixel level to be A KING. Camera is an integration system and should be measured at the integration system level. DxO is an incomplete camera test. DxO provides only the sensor reading at the signal level but not the whole picture.
M Vers wrote:
How can you honestly compare the two when no one (aside for Michael knowing details about his own image) has any idea what type of PP/resizing/etc either image went through before it got to where it is? If anything a side by side test would have to be done using the same exact methods including uprezing/downrezing for a fair comparison.
Absolutely agree....Canon should do better...but it's not a bad thing at all for Nikon caught up on sensor part, good for all of us as end users..
Wait, you said upsizing and resizing ? 100% view or crop no upsizing and resizing involved..
