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 26 Apr 2016 (Tuesday) 22:17
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Nikons new D500 vs the Canon 7DII

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,759 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by Bassat. 2 edits done in total.
May 01, 2016 01:26 |  #31

I am always entertained by the manufacturer vs. manufacturer threads. I live in Indiana farm country and hear the same discussions around which pickup truck is best. Much like that debate, this one is totally irrelevant to 99.73% (yes, I made that up :) ) of people using either manufacturer's products.

I, like most other makers of photographs, do not even come close to pushing the limits of my craft, or my equipment. Until I am pushing my gear as hard as I can, and THE GEAR is coming up short, which manufacturer it came from hardly matters. What does it matter if CaKon is 1/2% better than NiNon, when my photography is roughly equivalent to idling along in first gear, using only 20% of its abilities, anyway?

By the way, my farm truck regularly gets so loaded with fresh-felled firewood that the rear leaf springs bend downward, the bumper is near ankle high, and the front wheels are barely on the ground. If a '93 Ford (6D/1DIII) can still get the job done reliably, why should I spend good money on a 2016 GMC or Dodge (1DX, D4S) whatever-mobile? At least with a truck, if I change brands, I don't have sell for a loss, then repurchase, $15,000 worth of the other guy's accessories.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Jun 2011
San Dimas, CA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by John Koerner. 5 edits done in total.
May 01, 2016 09:03 |  #32
banned

Bassat wrote in post #17991330 (external link)
I am always entertained by the manufacturer vs. manufacturer threads. I live in Indiana farm country and hear the same discussions around which pickup truck is best. Much like that debate, this one is totally irrelevant to 99.73% (yes, I made that up :) ) of people using either manufacturer's products.

Your post is entertaining, when your own quote says, "Some glass is ordained; other glass is disdained." :-P


Bassat wrote in post #17991330 (external link)
\I, like most other makers of photographs, do not even come close to pushing the limits of my craft, or my equipment. Until I am pushing my gear as hard as I can, and THE GEAR is coming up short, which manufacturer it came from hardly matters. What does it matter if CaKon is 1/2% better than NiNon, when my photography is roughly equivalent to idling along in first gear, using only 20% of its abilities, anyway?

Nikon is much more than a half% better than Canon.

If you check out SenScore (external link), the old D7200 has more than twice the color range than the 7D2 and nearly twice the dynamic range. That is not "half a percent" of difference, that is twice as good. (DXO Mark tells a similar story (external link), and keep in mind the D7200 is an older camera than the 7D2).

In FF scores, the results are similar. The 5DsR. The 5DsR is class-leading in resolving power, but it only has 70% of the Color Range of the D810 and 80% of the Dynamic Range. (Again, DXO Mark tells a similar story (external link), and again the D810 is an older camera than the 5DsR).

I had waited for years for the 7D2 to come out, and was totally underwhelmed when it did, and so went with the Nikon D810 ... in anticipation of buying a second camera from Nikon ... and am delighted (and chomping at the bit for) my new D500 to arrive. The D500 is everything the 7D2 should have been.

The fact that the relatively-new 7D2 didn't shoot 4K video was another deal-breaker, on top of its mediocre color/DR capabilities. Hell, my old Samsung phone shot 4K video before the 7D2 arrived ... and yet Canon comes out with an $1,800 "topend, pro" APS-C at a later date that can't shoot 4K? :rolleyes:

Next!


Bassat wrote in post #17991330 (external link)
By the way, my farm truck regularly gets so loaded with fresh-felled firewood that the rear leaf springs bend downward, the bumper is near ankle high, and the front wheels are barely on the ground. If a '93 Ford (6D/1DIII) can still get the job done reliably, why should I spend good money on a 2016 GMC or Dodge (1DX, D4S) whatever-mobile? At least with a truck, if I change brands, I don't have sell for a loss, then repurchase, $15,000 worth of the other guy's accessories.

You make a good point, of course. I heard one really good photographer say, "If you can't take a good photograph with a 7 year old camera, then you can't take a good photograph." And while that might be anecdotally-true, when I spend my money I like to know that I am taking the BEST-quality photograph I can possibly take ... and "not leaving colors/dynamic range on the table," because I chose to buy a sensor that can't capture them ... when another available sensor could.

It it nice to know that I am capturing everything that is technologically-possible, rather then missing 30+% of the color potential in each shot I take.




LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Jun 2011
San Dimas, CA
May 01, 2016 09:23 |  #33
banned

Screenshot.

There is more than "half a percent" difference in quality between the two brands.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Jun 2011
San Dimas, CA
May 01, 2016 09:26 |  #34
banned

And, remember, the D7200 is the older, smaller camera. The stats on the D500 aren't even out yet.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
skid00skid00
Senior Member
508 posts
Joined Mar 2004
May 01, 2016 10:19 as a reply to John Koerner's post |  #35

John Koerner, are you seriously proclaiming to the entire world that the nikon is resolving colors that the canon cannot see?

Really?

Please put more than 10 seconds' effort into researching what the numbers you are spouting actually mean. You are dragging the IQ level of these forums way down with your childish fanaticism of nikon.




LOG IN TO REPLY
EricJrSax
Member
EricJrSax's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Baltimore
May 01, 2016 10:34 |  #36

Bianchi wrote in post #17991172 (external link)
Interesting, I didn't know you can add 1.3 to the already 1.5 to give you even more reach. Let us know how well it works.

How do you compare the Nikor 24-70 & 70-200 to Canon's 24-70II & 70-200II. I seen quite a few very nice images from 200-500, everyone seems to be very happy with their copy. Also the price is wright

I didn't either until I DL'd the manual from Nikon's site. I thought I'd try and get a head start on any learning curve headed my way. The 1.3 crop is an option for still shooting,... just like you can select 1.3 or 1.5 (DX) crop on the D810. I set my D810 up so that I can switch between these different crop mode by pressing the Fn button on the front of the body just under the Pv button. I guessing we'll be able to do the same with the D500. At least the manual suggests that we will.

The D500 also defaults to the 1.3 crop when shooting 4K video it looks like. That means it'll add yet another 1.3 crop to the already 1.5 crop. Get those super wide angle glass out guys! LOL!

Never shot with any of Canon's 24-70's, I went from the 24-105 to Sigma's 24-105. Canon's 24-105 was one of Canon's worst lenses I've ever shot with,... L or not. But I did love the range. Even with the D810 and the Nikkor 24-70, I still feel like something's missing when I'm walking around shooting,... so used to the 105mm stretch being available to me I guess. I grew up on that 24-105 red ring. But the D810 makes it easy for me to switch to DX mode without even pulling the body from my face,... and there I am,... at 105mm with the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. My walk-around comfort zone!

Now I've spent a lot of time between the two 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. I gotta say,... the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 edges out the Nikkor glass. That Canon glass is one sweet piece of work. What I've notice between the two is that the Canon fills the frame nicer when shooting close at 200 mil and gives a much softer background blur. In the middle and at the end, they both perform about the same in my opinion. But the Nikkor gives much more contrast than Canon. I do tend to see some purple on the tips of small branches with the Canon sometimes,... and we all know what that means. A wash for an all around shooter or especially a sports shooter, but for portrait work,... the Canon takes it all day!

The 200-500 is a God send if you ask me. Sharp as a tack and constant at f/5.6. A little on the heavy side for extended hand held shooting and I wish they would have shortened the travel on the zoom ring. But other than that,... I'm sure not mourning the lost of Canon's 100-400. Oh,.. I tried using it to take a portrait shot with the D810 when I first got it. Works better at 200 mil than the 70-200 at 200. Now that had me scratching my head.




LOG IN TO REPLY
PNPhotography
Senior Member
PNPhotography's Avatar
Joined Sep 2007
central PA
May 01, 2016 10:48 |  #37

Yeah the colors really are flat and lifeless on the 7dMKII

IMAGE: http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g293/Aphonicsupersonic/454A6696.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://s59.photobucket​.com ...c/media/454A6696.jp​g.html] (external link)

6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om ...2755174446/?ref=boo​kmarks (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,400 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
May 01, 2016 10:53 |  #38

You probably can admire the passion, but any real or relevant info is lost in the tone, manner, and fanaticism of the message. :(


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
EricJrSax
Member
EricJrSax's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Baltimore
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by EricJrSax. 2 edits done in total.
May 01, 2016 11:02 |  #39

gjl711 wrote in post #17991202 (external link)
DX mode is not like a built in t-con at all. DX mode simply crops the image in camera, that's it. Nothing more. You can take a FF image and a DX image, crop the FF image to the same dimensions at the DX image in post and have the identical image. DX mode puts no more pixels on target than a FF image. A t-con on the other hand has optics increasing the actual image size.

I know that,... I think we all know that gjl711! And I think that's the advantage of crop mode over actually trying to extend the lens optically. By letting the camera do the crop,... you're not exploding pixels with software. Yes,... you're losing resolution because you're using the center of the sensor. On the D810, FF is the full 36 mp of the sensor; at 1.3 crop, you're using 30 mp starting from the center of the sensor; and at 1.5 crop (DX mode), you're the 24 mp starting from the center of the sensor. The other advantage of these crop modes is you don't lose a ton of light and your AF focus points operate as usual, that is if they remain in the cropped area of the sensor. Not a problem with most Nikon bodies as their focus points aren't stretched to the edges of the sensor like on the D810 and especially on the D500!

On most Canon bodies, you put a 1.4x or 2x TC on them and you're left with half the light and only your center focus point remaining at cross type! Which in some cases turns your auto-focus into a joke!

So yeah,... if my body allows me switch modes and accomplish the same mission you'd accomplish by sticking a TC between your body and your glass. Well let's just say I'd opt for the mode switching ability. I've looked closely at the files from the D810 in 1.5 crop mode, and they look just fine,... hard to tell which mode the camera was even in when I took the shot. I look at some old files from my old 5D3 and Canon's older version 1.4 TC, and it's easy to tell the TC was at the party!




LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Koerner
Senior Member
734 posts
Joined Jun 2011
San Dimas, CA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by John Koerner. 2 edits done in total.
May 01, 2016 11:25 |  #40
banned

skid00skid00 wrote in post #17991669 (external link)
John Koerner, are you seriously proclaiming to the entire world that the nikon is resolving colors that the canon cannot see?

Really?

Yes, really. According to every testing outfit you want to investigate.


skid00skid00 wrote in post #17991669 (external link)
Please put more than 10 seconds' effort into researching what the numbers you are spouting actually mean. You are dragging the IQ level of these forums way down with your childish fanaticism of nikon.

10 seconds' research? Quite a bit more than that. (I actually have an entire Excel spreadsheet on the pros/cons from many sources, and am quite sure I've researched it more than most.)

So I am not a fanatic at all. I weighed a lot of factors before selling off my Canon lenses and cameras and investing with Nikon.

The most powerful argument of a move away from Nikon bodies would be Sony, not Canon, due to Sony's ability to accept lenses from either maker, along with its class-leading sensor.

I decided against Sony because I don't want to be bothered with "adapters" and can fit primes directly to my Nikon.

I think we all can agree that all modern DSLR cameras are capable of taking wonderful photos ... where we disagree is that they're all equally-capable.

I am sorry if my sharing the charts/graphs and stats made you feel uncomfortable.

If it upsets you to read about Nikon's superior sensors, then maybe it would be best if you stayed on Canon thread topics.
(FYI, I don't have a problem reading about the Sony A7rII being negligibly-ahead of the D810, because the key word really is "negligibly.")

The difference, however, between the Nikon sensor and the 7D2, however, is significant.

It doesn't bother me that another camera might have a better sensor than my own, within my budget, so long as the difference is negligible. I was waiting for an upgrade, and the 7D2 just wasn't enough to make me hit the buy button; in fact, it missed the mark enough to prompt me to move in another direction entirely. It was within my budget to significantly improve my camera by purchasing a D810 and, recently, the D500.

Different people make different decisions. I should be able to share my reasoning without your childish attacks.

I have attacked no person here, only shared the facts and the charts to back them up on why I did what I did.

I won't say anything further here. Denial of the facts isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.




LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,352 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
May 01, 2016 12:54 |  #41

EricJrSax wrote in post #17991758 (external link)
...
So yeah,... if my body allows me switch modes and accomplish the same mission you'd accomplish by sticking a TC between your body and your glass. Well let's just say I'd opt for the mode switching ability. I've looked closely at the files from the D810 in 1.5 crop mode, and they look just fine,... hard to tell which mode the camera was even in when I took the shot. I look at some old files from my old 5D3 and Canon's older version 1.4 TC, and it's easy to tell the TC was at the party!

But that's the thing, it does not accomplish the same thing at all. On the 810, the DX mode is no more than what a P/S does when it does a digital zoom. A T-con changes the optics giving more magnification optically, not digitally. You do pay a penalty of loss of light but that's because the optics has changed. On the 810 there is no reason ever to use the DX mode other than saving file size. There is no optical advantage at all.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
May 01, 2016 13:12 |  #42

gjl711 wrote in post #17991920 (external link)
But that's the thing, it does not accomplish the same thing at all. On the 810, the DX mode is no more than what a P/S does when it does a digital zoom. A T-con changes the optics giving more magnification optically, not digitally. You do pay a penalty of loss of light but that's because the optics has changed.

There is no loss of light, using a TC compared to cropping. The absolute exposure is reduced, as the f-number goes up, but there is no loss of subject light. 1/4 the absolute exposure over 4x the area = the same light.




LOG IN TO REPLY
bih92
Junior Member
bih92's Avatar
20 posts
Joined Jan 2014
Bosnia
May 01, 2016 13:25 as a reply to post 17987529 |  #43

yup Kevin Durant nba superstar has a 7d markii and 70-200mm lens he shot the superbowl with it full credentials on sidelines


Sony a99 24-70 2.8 zeiss , Canon 7d 15-85mm , Canon 7d ii 24-70 f4

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
May 01, 2016 13:26 |  #44

PNPhotography wrote in post #17988612 (external link)
Pretty tough words there John,I mean I do have both the 7DMKII and the Nikon D5500 (same sensor as the d7200) and yeah at low iSO's the Nikon has the dynamic dance edge but once your over maybe ISO 400 they are really close in IQ and in noise.To say that the 7DMKII sensor is pale and sick in IQ is just plain disingenuous.It sounds like you never even owned the 7dMKII?Maybe instead of relying on "specs" from some camera review site you should actually own the camera your judging.Have a good day!

I don't have the files I need to do a direct comparison, but the character of 7D2 noise is top-notch, and that counts for something. It isn't perfect, but it is very fine noise with little low-frequency content, or banding. If the character of the D500 noise is anything less at high ISOs, that small difference in the graph at high-to-medium ISOs shrinks, and the 7D2 takes the lead at ISOs like 25,600 and above.

From the graph at the beginning of this post, it is clear that the 7D2 has less read noise at the photosites themselves, and only has more post-gain system noise.




LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,234 posts
Joined Jan 2010
May 01, 2016 13:28 |  #45

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17989187 (external link)
There isn't enough on the Nikon side to really change sides, especially now that Canon has momentum with its newly designed sensor tech. If there was no changes to Canon's offerings, just more features and bells and whistles, then perhaps a switch would be in order.

Another thing is, how do I mount my 400/4DO II IS on a D500? ;-)a




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

20,321 views & 66 likes for this thread
Nikons new D500 vs the Canon 7DII
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 0.00236 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is CathyBil
781 guests, 406 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017