Do you think Canon will respond to the Nikon D800?

Hogloff wrote in post #16738618
Why did you purchase the 5DIII if it would not make you a better photographer?

Because photography is not about pixel. Its about capturing moments, composition. The technology is there to help you but I won't frame the shot for you. Better ISO or AF performance are bonuses but its all there is to it. I came from a generation who use to shoot on B&W Film. Developing your photos was also a skill. Today it has been replaced by photo editing software. Technology evolve but the principle of photography will always remains the same.

fogboundturtle wrote in post #16738558
I just think we put way too much emphasis on technology when we should be focusing on technique, composition, etc...

Today's camera are all very capable. Pick what fits your need. That's. It just a freaking piece of hardware. Its just a tool. It won't take the photo for you. It won't make you a better photograph. I certainly dislike pixel peeper that comes around and talk about details that are insignificant to overall end result.

It's just a freaking thread. It's just a discussion.

Do you really think that making a few posts in a thread like this means a person is not focusing on technique, composition, etc. ? How much time do you really think is invested in this discussion? Speaking for myself, I am far far far more interested in the technique/composition side of things. But, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing approach. It doesn't mean I can't also be thoughtful about the gear I use (and express those thoughts in a gear-centric thread such as this).

fogboundturtle wrote in post #16738642
Because photography is not about pixel. Its about capturing moments, composition. The technology is there to help you but I won't frame the shot for you. Better ISO or AF performance are bonuses but its all there is to it. I came from a generation who use to shoot on B&W Film. Developing your photos was also a skill. Today it has been replaced by photo editing software. Technology evolve but the principle of photography will always remains the same.

Still didn't say why you updated to the latest greatest technology camera.

I understand the skill in capturing the photo comes from the person...but you said new technology won't make a better photo...so why did you upgrade to new technology?

David Arbogast wrote in post #16738668
It's just a freaking thread. It's just a discussion.

Do you really think that making a few posts in a thread like this means a person is not focusing on technique, composition, etc. ? How much time do you really think is invested in this discussion? Speaking for myself, I am far far far more interested in the technique/composition side of things. But, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing approach. It doesn't mean I can't also be thoughtful about the gear I use (and express those thoughts in a gear-centric thread such as this).

And new technology like more dynamic range does simplify the technical aspects at times ( no need for GND or merging multiple exposures ) thus allowing to better forcus on compositions, light, vision etc... Removing technical hurdles with new technology is a good thing.

Hogloff wrote in post #16738686
And new technology like more dynamic range does simplify the technical aspects at times ( no need for GND or merging multiple exposures ) thus allowing to better forcus on compositions, light, vision etc... Removing technical hurdles with new technology is a good thing.

and I didn't say it doesn't. I says we are focusing on technology too much.

fogboundturtle wrote in post #16738708
and I didn't say it doesn't. I says we are focusing on technology too much.

But wouldn't that depend on exactly what type of photography you do?

If shooting astro, you can't ignore the technical side that some of the light you want to capture is blocked by a normal camera. And you can't ignore the fact that you need long exposure times, where different cameras will behave differently depending on noise.

And if shooting high-DR scenes, you can't ignore the technical side because if there is movement in the scene then bracketing can't directly be used as an alternative to a camera with high DR support.

Shooting macro? Well that takes lots of light - so macro photographers just has to spend a significant amount of time trying to figure out how to get as much, and very even, light on their subject while at the same time have to take multiple exposures to get a proper focus stack.

Lots of situations do require the photographer to put very much thought into the actual gear requirements.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16733143
It's anyone's guess at this point, but the new high-MP camera from Canon is often rumored to be a 1-series, so it wouldn't be anywhere in the same price range anyway. If you really want access to a 36mp sensor with 14 stops of DR right now, the best way to do it would be with the Sony a7r, since you can get an adapter and use all your Canon lenses, and as a plus, you'll get to use the "mini-Otus" 55mm f/1.8

IMO, it would seem that all the major camera manufacturers are holding out for Photokina 2014, so you likely won't see any new (major) announcements until mid-September. It doesn't seem like anything major will come out of NAB 2014, but I could be wrong.

a bit daft if nothing comes out before then considering there is a massive sport event happening in brazil this summer

jonneymendoza wrote in post #16738724
a bit daft if nothing comes out before then considering there is a massive sport event happening in brazil this summer

So how many sports photographers needs 40MP+ cameras with huge DR?

pwm2 wrote in post #16738722
But wouldn't that depend on exactly what type of photography you do?

If shooting astro, you can't ignore the technical side that some of the light you want to capture is blocked by a normal camera. And you can't ignore the fact that you need long exposure times, where different cameras will behave differently depending on noise.
.

AP is my domain and I can tell you that even thought DSLR have a huge disadvantage compare to peltier cooled ccd monochrome camera, I have seen amazing picture done with DSLR. All thanks to great post processing. You will obviously yield much better result with a CCD but it doesn't prevent you from achieving great result. In the AP world, almost no one shoot with Nikon because its a close API while Canon is almost open source. Most AP software support Canon. It's a totally different world than daylight photography.

this is kinda the point. Yeah, DR is a factor but if you know the limit of what you camera can achieve, you can always find a way to put yourself in a situation to succeed.

Note : in astrophotography the most important thing is your mount and tracking, not the camera

Mjkxxl wrote in post #16733846
the only thing Canon has going for it is lenses and video.

Not really.

Sigma have caught up and are making lens that match if not beat Canones L equivalent/

question to you all:

is it not in a way cheating/laziness how Nikon just use sony's sensor and dont bother building their own?

In a way you got to hand it to canon. at least they try to build their own sensor but nikon dont so its quite unfair as Nikon can just pic whoever is making the best sensor at the time..

why diddnt Sony patent their sensors so no other camera brand can use it?

Imagine if Sony had a d800 so to speak and nikon and canon had no answer to that superior sensor?

Doesnt make sense what sony are doing. Surely they should make sure nikon etc dont use there sensors to help force buyers into investing in there gear instead.

Right now you can skip sony's cameras and lenses and just get a nikon and enjoy the same sensor but with better camera and better lenses.

Daft from Sony dont you agree or am i missing something?

pwm2 wrote in post #16738730
So how many sports photographers needs 40MP+ cameras with huge DR?

Could be handy during the bright midday games

You do have a point i guess but still i think you can fool a lot by releasing a high DR camera whilst during the world cup in thinking it can take action shots better. i dunno but marketing a product never actually tells the truth in what the actual product specialise in.

What do you think?

fogboundturtle wrote in post #16738642
Because photography is not about pixel. Its about capturing moments, composition. The technology is there to help you but I won't frame the shot for you. Better ISO or AF performance are bonuses but its all there is to it. I came from a generation who use to shoot on B&W Film. Developing your photos was also a skill. Today it has been replaced by photo editing software. Technology evolve but the principle of photography will always remains the same.

to be fair, ediitng pics with software requires skill too. Not as much as film i suppose but still its a challenge to PP your image the way you visioned it

pwm2 wrote in post #16738730
So how many sports photographers needs 40MP+ cameras with huge DR?

I would trade the 40mp for less mp and more FPS if I was a sports photographer.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #16738744
Not really.

Sigma have caught up and are making lens that match if not beat Canones L equivalent/

Sigma does not have a complete line program. With some few exceptions, they can only supply a couple of good standard lenses.

Why? A small company has less options. And all cameras - doesn't matter what brand - contain components bought from other companies.

But it would be bad for the users if there aren't multiple sensor manufacturers that are big enough that they can make money.

Nothing unfair. Remember that there are always two sides of a coin - Nikon have to settle for what is on sale. Canon could introduce a dual-pixel sensor all on their own - such a sensor is a great advantage if wanting to switch over to mirrorless cameras.

Sony do have patents. But the patent is to stop other companies from making copies of the sensor. Sony can still decide to sell sensors, or sell licenses to produce sensors.

But in the case of Nikon using Sony sensors - Nikon might have requested an exclusivity deal that Sony must not also ship Exmor sensors to Canon.

Sony basically have a D800.
Canon currently do not have any answer.
Nikon only has an answer as long as Sony sells them sensors at a competitive price.

Remember that Sony invested almost a billion dollars last year to increase the production capacity of sensors. The reason? Because they make money selling their sensors. And the longer it takes Canon to release a competing sensor, the more money Sony will be able to make.

There are seldom any "better" or "best". It is mostly individual needs that decides which camera is best suited to the own needs. The Nikon D800 isn't magic.

That Sony is making lots of money from selling sensors? And that Sony may even start to make lots of money from cameras in case it takes too long for Canon to be able to release a new sensor?

jonneymendoza wrote in post #16738744
Not really.

Sigma have caught up and are making lens that match if not beat Canones L equivalent/

question to you all:

is it not in a way cheating/laziness how Nikon just use sony's sensor and dont bother building their own?

In a way you got to hand it to canon. at least they try to build their own sensor but nikon dont so its quite unfair as Nikon can just pic whoever is making the best sensor at the time..

why diddnt Sony patent their sensors so no other camera brand can use it?

Imagine if Sony had a d800 so to speak and nikon and canon had no answer to that superior sensor?

Doesnt make sense what sony are doing. Surely they should make sure nikon etc dont use there sensors to help force buyers into investing in there gear instead.

Right now you can skip sony's cameras and lenses and just get a nikon and enjoy the same sensor but with better camera and better lenses.

Daft from Sony dont you agree or am i missing something?

Without answering all the questions, Nikon does make (or design, anyway; I think they farm out the actual manufacturing) some of their own sensors. Just not the latest ones.