Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 06 Jan 2016 (Wednesday) 21:02
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

 
frankchn
Senior Member
455 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Jan 08, 2016 22:23 |  #136

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17850604 (external link)
well, cannon used to announce EOS bodies at CES,. like clockwork, nearly every year. They would altenate CES/photokina/CES/phot​okina and so one..

From what I am reading, apparently they don't anymore.

Canon has not announced a full-frame/APS-H camera at CES since before the 1D3 in 2007, so no reason why they would start now.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
don1163
Goldmember
don1163's Avatar
Joined May 2015
Washford, Somerset/ UK
Jan 09, 2016 03:08 |  #137

umphotography wrote in post #17848846 (external link)
Providing the 9 AF points hit your target and work and of course it will not give you the reach factor of the 1.6 crop sensor or the 1Dx AF system that is in the 7D2. The 7D2 does not miss when set up properly and A1 servo is the best I have ever used.

But you will get decent images with a 6D

A good photographer only needs ONE AF point.... :p


1DX, 500L f4, 70-200L f2.8II, 100L f2.8 macro ,16-35 f4, 1.4xIII, Metz 64-AF1

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,587 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 09, 2016 03:34 |  #138

don1163 wrote in post #17850814 (external link)
A good photographer only needs ONE AF point.... :p

Almost. NEEDS one point? I don't think so. I've been taking photos since the 1960s. I didn't get my first AF camera until the 1990s. Lots of us took a fair number of decent photos before AF was even invented.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,186 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Jan 09, 2016 05:29 |  #139

Bassat wrote in post #17850833 (external link)
Almost. NEEDS one point? I don't think so. I've been taking photos since the 1960s. I didn't get my first AF camera until the 1990s. Lots of us took a fair number of decent photos before AF was even invented.

I just mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here anyway. I've been flipping through 40 year old National Geographic magazines while my son is with his piano teacher. The technical quality of the high end photographs in those magazines is noticeably worse than what could be done with your basic Rebel and kit lens today.

I don't discount the effect of the technology we have today. Your basic soccer mom can get shots that are better than what appeared in nationwide sports periodicals from the 1970's. Grain, color fidelity, resolution.....these are all much better today especially if I stick to a comparison using just 35mm format. I think current 1.6X format compares pretty well to 1970's MF film.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,587 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 09, 2016 05:51 |  #140

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850874 (external link)
I just mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here anyway. I've been flipping through 40 year old National Geographic magazines while my son is with his piano teacher. The technical quality of the high end photographs in those magazines is noticeably worse than what could be done with your basic Rebel and kit lens today.

I don't discount the effect of the technology we have today. Your basic soccer mom can get shots that are better than what appeared in nationwide sports periodicals from the 1970's. Grain, color fidelity, resolution.....these are all much better today especially if I stick to a comparison using just 35mm format. I think current 1.6X format compares pretty well to 1970's MF film.

I agree with every word you have here. I'm not sure what any of it has to do with focus.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,186 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by JeffreyG.
Jan 09, 2016 06:06 as a reply to Bassat's post |  #141

The soccer mom part. I can shoot sports with better technical results than the top shooters of the MF era. Part of that is digital, but a huge part is the highly capable AF systems we have today.

You said you took great photos before you had AF. I'm saying for a lot of things AF makes for more and better results. AF matters, and good AF is better than OK AF.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,587 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by Bassat.
Jan 09, 2016 10:53 |  #142

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850892 (external link)
The soccer mom part. I can shoot sports with better technical results than the top shooters of the MF era. Part of that is digital, but a huge part is the highly capable AF systems we have today.

You said you took great photos before you had AF. I'm saying for a lot of things AF makes for more and better results. AF matters, and good AF is better than OK AF.

You are correct. I see your point that good AF has a lot to do with this. Perhaps I did take some nice photos 40 years ago. It makes perfect sense that I did NOT try shots I knew I couldn't make, because of focusing issues. Today, with just about any camera/lens combination, much more is achievable, with even entry level DSLR equipment. If I'd had a 70D (what I have) type AF in 1975, I could have tried more things. I'm fairly certain, that as poor as my 6D is at AI-Servo, it is better than I was with all manual equipment. Point taken.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon_Doh
Senior Member
Jon_Doh's Avatar
Joined Apr 2007
Area 51
Jan 09, 2016 15:36 |  #143

frankchn wrote in post #17850620 (external link)
Canon has not announced a full-frame/APS-H camera at CES since before the 1D3 in 2007, so no reason why they would start now.

And it's been about that long that they've been eating Nikon's exhaust fumes.


Canon 1D Mark III, 70-200 L IS F4, 17-40 L, 50 1.8, Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter
Leica V-Lux 4
Sony NEX 3 used only for astrophotography with Meade LX 90 ACF SCT and Skywatcher 120 ED telescopes
Canon A2 (film), 24-50 Sigma, 70-210 Sigma

LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2007
Lincolnshire,UK
Jan 09, 2016 16:02 |  #144

JeffreyG wrote in post #17850892 (external link)
The soccer mom part. I can shoot sports with better technical results than the top shooters of the MF era. Part of that is digital, but a huge part is the highly capable AF systems we have today.

You said you took great photos before you had AF. I'm saying for a lot of things AF makes for more and better results. AF matters, and good AF is better than OK AF.

I still use manual focus today sometimes. If a cyclo-x rider is to appear over a jump or hummock/hump of soil etc I'll pre-focus on the spot I imagine the best effect will be. Same with horse jumping or motorcycling racing. Pre-planning gets me the best photos not a supreme AF system I find. Yes, I can use my 1-series AF to it's best ability and tracking focus is an area manually is near impossible to do - this I find is where the news/sports photographers get their best images of crashes/falls etc.

Having spoken to a lot of Nikon/Canon/Sony users at a show last year I was surprised at how many still stick to the centre point and re-compose. Asked if they use the area focus for instance and I got a blank look of 'are you stupid'? I really don't think folks actually experiment with focus zones the same way as I feel they don't experiment with different exposure modes, like multi-spot, which I find absolutely brilliant in high contrast situations. But, there I digress I'm a Canon supporter through and through.

I have good friends with Nikon top end stuff, the D4 etc and they sometimes envy my colours and other days I envy their colour clarity. I think the best thing to do is buy one model in each camp and they'll be no complaining ... :lol:


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.ukexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
idkdc's Avatar
2,799 posts
Joined Oct 2014
Jan 09, 2016 20:22 |  #145

Jon_Doh wrote in post #17851418 (external link)
And it's been about that long that they've been eating Nikon's exhaust fumes.

Canon's been holding relatively steady in market share while Nikon's plummeted (D600 and qc problems, shut down repair shops, restrict parts to third-party repair shops = bad PR). How is that eating Nikon's exhaust fumes? It's customer service and qc that keeps customers, not just new-fangled and costly tech and DR. See Samsung and Pentax IBIS and other technologies for how they're doing with their share of the market.


1DIII through 1DXII(2) | 5D2-4 | 5DS | 8-800mm
XT2 | 16-140mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
idkdc's Avatar
2,799 posts
Joined Oct 2014
Jan 09, 2016 20:27 |  #146

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17849775 (external link)
Nothing Canon has right now has the clean shadow pushing that the Sony sensor has. This is very simply due to the design of the sensor and ADC differences between Sony and Canon. In order for Canon to leapfrog Nikon/Sony, they will have to redesign their sensor. All they have done up to this point was redesign the micro lenses a bit, and put in better processing post capture to remove noise in the raw, or at least to get rid of pattern noise.

Supposedly due to some patents that were filed, Canon may very well just have that in their labs right now. With their concept of each sensel reading twice per shot, each time at different ISO amplifications, the DR and noise issues could be greatly reduced.

*Shrugs* I've shot with an a7s and 5D3 before and compared the raw files. Not as big of a difference as people make it out to be. Maybe it's because I usually don't get the exposure wrong and try to lift the shadows four stops. If your exposure is correct, it's really no that big of a deal, and the 5DSR supposedly expands shadow range without noise in lift compared to past Canon DSLR's. Hopefully Canon does combine ADC and sensor in the next generation of full frame cameras. I would enjoy expanded DR mostly for landscapes with moving trees, people shots with backgrounds, etc.


1DIII through 1DXII(2) | 5D2-4 | 5DS | 8-800mm
XT2 | 16-140mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scooby_Doo
Member
157 posts
Joined Nov 2010
North Dakota
Jan 09, 2016 22:31 |  #147

Nikon's been taking the hit, but how much longer can Canon coast? At the rate they're moving it looks like they've reached the tech plateau.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
sapearl's Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined Dec 2005
Cleveland, Ohio
Jan 09, 2016 22:35 |  #148

Scooby_Doo wrote in post #17851848 (external link)
Nikon's been taking the hit, but how much longer can Canon coast? At the rate they're moving it looks like they've reached the tech plateau.

It may look that way to us on the outside but I doubt that Canon is really coasting. R&D is always going on the stockholders wouldn't lack of progress. As for reaching the "tech plateau" that just gets pushed higher and higher for everybody :-P.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITEexternal link- MY GALLERIESexternal link- MY BLOGexternal link
Artists Archives of the Western Reserveexternal link - Board

LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Somebloke's Avatar
633 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by Somebloke.
Jan 09, 2016 23:04 |  #149

idkdc wrote in post #17851704 (external link)
*Shrugs* I've shot with an a7s and 5D3 before and compared the raw files. Not as big of a difference as people make it out to be. Maybe it's because I usually don't get the exposure wrong and try to lift the shadows four stops. If your exposure is correct, it's really no that big of a deal, and the 5DSR supposedly expands shadow range without noise in lift compared to past Canon DSLR's. Hopefully Canon does combine ADC and sensor in the next generation of full frame cameras. I would enjoy expanded DR mostly for landscapes with moving trees, people shots with backgrounds, etc.

Yeah who needs dynamic range anyway...just expose correctly lol




LOG IN TO REPLY
evoul
Member
Joined Sep 2009
AZ
Jan 09, 2016 23:08 as a reply to post 17849827 |  #150

"and ability to compose in camera with a 150+ points is huge"

Not when only 55 of them are selectable.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

76,387 views & 414 likes for this thread
Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00209 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is Lace09
509 guests, 435 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016