bernardl wrote: EB-1 wrote:
What single lens would be used to compare all those different bodies?
EBH
Sigma or Zeiss? They have native versions for Canon and Nikon DSLRs and there are excellent adapters for Sony and Fuji GFX.
The Sigma 105mm f1.4 or Otus 100mm f1.4 are probably the best performers.
But DR comparisons are widely available demonstrating the large superiority of Sony sensors, even more so when considering the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX. There is probably a 3 stop real world gap btwn the 5DRs and the GFX-100II. Which is nothing short of huge.
Rewriting history is fashionable in some parts these days but nothing has changed in reality.
It’s of course possible to limit one’s shooting to situations where this won’t make any difference, or to let one’s post processing style be limited by what the sensor can tolerate. And there is of course affordability also. New equipment becoming more pricy due to tariffs etc,… So it’s fine to continue shooting with the 5Drs of course. But I would personally still want to be objective about what I am missing out on.
And btw the GFX-100II is a great solution to scan large format negatives thanks to its multishot capabilities. I have created a dedicated set up for this that also allows for flat stitching with a dedicated continuous source, Arca tech camera and Rodenstock macro lens. Way better than my former Imacon and it can do 8x10.
Cheers,
Bernard
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 indeee has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
bernardl wrote: EB-1 wrote:
What single lens would be used to compare all those different bodies?
EBH
Sigma or Zeiss? They have native versions for Canon and Nikon DSLRs and there are excellent adapters for Sony and Fuji GFX.
The Sigma 105mm f1.4 or Otus 100mm f1.4 are probably the best performers.
But DR comparisons are widely available demonstrating the large superiority of Sony sensors, even more so when considering the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX. There is probably a 3 stop real world gap btwn the 5DRs and the GFX-100II. Which is nothing short of huge.
Rewriting history is fashionable in some parts these days but nothing has changed in reality.
It’s of course possible to limit one’s shooting to situations where this won’t make any difference, or to let one’s post processing style be limited by what the sensor can tolerate. And there is of course affordability also. New equipment becoming more pricy due to tariffs etc,… So it’s fine to continue shooting with the 5Drs of course. But I would personally still want to be objective about what I am missing out on.
And btw the GFX-100II is a great solution to scan large format negatives thanks to its multishot capabilities. I have created a dedicated set up for this that also allows for flat stitching with a dedicated continuous source, Arca tech camera and Rodenstock macro lens. Way better than my former Imacon and it can do 8x10.
Cheers,
Bernard
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, right? 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 indeee has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
bernardl wrote: EB-1 wrote:
What single lens would be used to compare all those different bodies?
EBH
Sigma or Zeiss? They have native versions for Canon and Nikon DSLRs and there are excellent adapters for Sony and Fuji GFX.
The Sigma 105mm f1.4 or Otus 100mm f1.4 are probably the best performers.
But DR comparisons are widely available demonstrating the large superiority of Sony sensors, even more so when considering the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX. There is probably a 3 stop real world gap btwn the 5DRs and the GFX-100II. Which is nothing short of huge.
Rewriting history is fashionable in some parts these days but nothing has changed in reality.
It’s of course possible to limit one’s shooting to situations where this won’t make any difference, or to let one’s post processing style be limited by what the sensor can tolerate. And there is of course affordability also. New equipment becoming more pricy due to tariffs etc,… So it’s fine to continue shooting with the 5Drs of course. But I would personally still want to be objective about what I am missing out on.
And btw the GFX-100II is a great solution to scan large format negatives thanks to its multishot capabilities. I have created a dedicated set up for this that also allows for flat stitching with a dedicated continuous source, Arca tech camera and Rodenstock macro lens. Way better than my former Imacon and it can do 8x10.
Cheers,
Bernard
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, right? 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 ZR 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 indeee has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
bernardl wrote: EB-1 wrote:
What single lens would be used to compare all those different bodies?
EBH
Sigma or Zeiss? They have native versions for Canon and Nikon DSLRs and there are excellent adapters for Sony and Fuji GFX.
The Sigma 105mm f1.4 or Otus 100mm f1.4 are probably the best performers.
But DR comparisons are widely available demonstrating the large superiority of Sony sensors, even more so when considering the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX. There is probably a 3 stop real world gap btwn the 5DRs and the GFX-100II. Which is nothing short of huge.
Rewriting history is fashionable in some parts these days but nothing has changed in reality.
It’s of course possible to limit one’s shooting to situations where this won’t make any difference, or to let one’s post processing style be limited by what the sensor can tolerate. And there is of course affordability also. New equipment becoming more pricy due to tariffs etc,… So it’s fine to continue shooting with the 5Drs of course. But I would personally still want to be objective about what I am missing out on.
And btw the GFX-100II is a great solution to scan large format negatives thanks to its multishot capabilities. I have created a dedicated set up for this that also allows for flat stitching with a dedicated continuous source, Arca tech camera and Rodenstock macro lens. Way better than my former Imacon and it can do 8x10.
Cheers,
Bernard
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, right? 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?
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 ZR 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 indeee has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sep 29, 2025 at 05:49 PM
Previous versions of bernardl's message #16899344 « Anyone Still Using DSLR''s? »
Aren’t we all brand agnostic photographers looking for what best enables our creative endeavors?