bernardl
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Anyone Still Using DSLR''s? | |
AmbientMike wrote:
bernardl wrote:
AmbientMike wrote:
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 indeed has about 3 stops advantage while having twice the resolution.
Cheers,
Bernard
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.
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.
I you try to understand what I write in good faith, you'll find out it's perfectly coherent.
Cheers,
Bernard
|
