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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Jul 2014 (Monday) 15:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why Canon, when Nikon...

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,203 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5946
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 13, 2014 11:56 |  #241

Charlie wrote in post #17093601 (external link)
right, I was just trying to get a little bit on track again with the main question: "Any good reason to stay with canon?"

and the answer is absolutely. It's been established that dynamic range is better with the sony sensor, however, dynamic range is not everything. Final product is everything.

Definitely depends on what you shoot. DR really never plays a part in what I shoot, most of what I shoot has a pretty narrow DR, even when I am outside. So it comes down to other factors for me as to which system I use. Now pulling an underexposed shot up 2 stops or so is something I do, so I need enough sensor performance to handle that without banding and creating noise artifacts. Canon's banding issues have been greatly reduced, but still does rear its ugly head from time to time on the newer bodies.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 13, 2014 12:00 |  #242

davesrose wrote in post #17093557 (external link)
In this thread, there have been a lot of back and forths about pulling shadows. Bit depth isn't seperate from the sensor dynamic range, and is the final element in the picture's tonal range. Having a good sensor, A/D converter, and large enough bit depth in the recorded image are all aspects of DR in photography. It also then creates arguments about what usable DR there is in digital cameras :D

Sensor dynamic range is fixed (read out electrons in the noise, read out electrons in the full well) before digitization occurs. If there are enough bits, it can be accurately written. If there aren't enough bits, the bit-depth is the limiting factor. IF there are enough bits, the sensel's properties are the limiting factor.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,146 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6245
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 13, 2014 12:04 |  #243

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17093605 (external link)
Definitely depends on what you shoot. DR really never plays a part in what I shoot, most of what I shoot has a pretty narrow DR, even when I am outside. So it comes down to other factors for me as to which system I use. Now pulling an underexposed shot up 2 stops or so is something I do, so I need enough sensor performance to handle that without banding and creating noise artifacts. Canon's banding issues have been greatly reduced, but still does rear its ugly head from time to time on the newer bodies.

Correct, if you shoot sports or weddings for a living, I would definitely choose Canon. I would even say that most people shoot primarily other people, and Canon looks better.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Aug 13, 2014 12:16 |  #244

Hogloff wrote in post #17093482 (external link)
That may be true...but the Sony is not targeted at portraits. Its more a landscape camera where dynamic range is of utmost importance.

Says who? Hogloff?

I'm the last one to say bad things about the Sony, but the fact that it's a landscape camera in your mind is because it's simply non-competitive in other arenas where SLRs excel.

Also, why would the a7 series not be usable (or "targeted" as you proclaim) for portraits?
Even its limited AF capabilities are perfectly adequate for portrait shots.


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 13, 2014 12:46 |  #245
bannedPermanent ban

andrikos wrote in post #17093658 (external link)
Says who? Hogloff?

I'm the last one to say bad things about the Sony, but the fact that it's a landscape camera in your mind is because it's simply non-competitive in other arenas where SLRs excel.

Also, why would the a7 series not be usable (or "targeted" as you proclaim) for portraits?
Even its limited AF capabilities are perfectly adequate for portrait shots.

I'm talking about the A7R which has the megapixels that are typically not required for weddings or portraits, but are needed for landscape and possible commercial shots.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:04 |  #246

Hogloff wrote in post #17093741 (external link)
I'm talking about the A7R which has the megapixels that are typically not required for weddings or portraits, but are needed for landscape and possible commercial shots.

Where having great skin tones is very important, correct?
You just told the guy that skin tones are not important because the Sony a7 is a landscape camera... :rolleyes:


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:07 |  #247
bannedPermanent ban

andrikos wrote in post #17093794 (external link)
Where having great skin tones is very important, correct?
You just told the guy that skin tones are not important because the Sony a7 is a landscape camera... :rolleyes:

Really...a shot of a new hitech stove doesn't have much skin on it now does it.

Funny how the like of all the Nikon shooters that shoot portraits get by without the "Canon" skin colours. Wonder how they manage.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:15 |  #248

vipergts831 wrote in post #17093002 (external link)
So much sensor masturbating going on in this thread...now i will go back to stroking the A7r :lol:

You made me laugh.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:43 |  #249

Charlie wrote in post #17093373 (external link)
Here's one in favor of the Canon camp, and I think it's pretty significant. Test setup: Same exposures, same white balance, same lens (canon nifty fifty).

shot at ISO 3200
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oFhA​hG  (external link) Skin tone comparison (tan complexion) (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

shot at ISO 2000
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oHjp​k4  (external link) Skin tone comparison (fair skin) (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

IMO, Canon absolutely crushes sony when it comes to skin tones.

Can you please post the raw files? If you want to do them again without the little girl that's fine. I just want to see how that Sony Alpha 7R performs at the high end of it's ISO range in comparison to e 6D too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,146 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6245
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:52 |  #250

CRCchemist wrote in post #17093922 (external link)
Can you please post the raw files? If you want to do them again without the little girl that's fine. I just want to see how that Sony Alpha 7R performs at the high end of it's ISO range in comparison to e 6D too.

it wont be a fair comparison, I shot those with sRaw for the canon (typically do this for snapshots to save space). If I have time, I may do it again. Around 6400+ the canon overtakes sony, even if downsampled. Difference in high ISO up to that point is fairly negligible, both handle it very well.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Aug 13, 2014 13:54 |  #251

Charlie wrote in post #17093951 (external link)
it wont be a fair comparison, I shot those with sRaw for the canon (typically do this for snapshots to save space). If I have time, I may do it again. Around 6400+ the canon overtakes sony, even if downsampled. Difference in high ISO up to that point is fairly negligible, both handle it very well.

Okay! That's good enough for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,203 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5946
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 13, 2014 14:18 |  #252

Charlie wrote in post #17093951 (external link)
it wont be a fair comparison, I shot those with sRaw for the canon (typically do this for snapshots to save space). If I have time, I may do it again. Around 6400+ the canon overtakes sony, even if downsampled. Difference in high ISO up to that point is fairly negligible, both handle it very well.

The resizing down to the sraw size would typically help improve the noise on the Canon, you could resize the sony down to the same size, then compare? It would help equalize them a bit that way.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 13, 2014 14:25 |  #253

Charlie wrote in post #17093373 (external link)
Here's one in favor of the Canon camp, and I think it's pretty significant. Test setup: Same exposures, same white balance, same lens (canon nifty fifty).
tone comparison (tan complexion) (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

shot at ISO 2000
Skin tone comparison (fair skin) (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

IMO, Canon absolutely crushes sony when it comes to skin tones.

I shoot asian weddings more often and I find that Asian skin tones are better with Nikon. With Canon it can be difficult to correct. Ever since I used the Passport ColorChecker the point becomes moot. Profile from the Canon and use that same profile on Nikon files. Done! Look into the Passport ColorChecker. I recommend it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 13, 2014 14:26 |  #254

vipergts831 wrote in post #17093002 (external link)
So much sensor masturbating going on in this thread...now i will go back to stroking the A7r :lol:

I stroke them all the time. :lol:;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,146 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6245
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 13, 2014 14:39 |  #255

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17094011 (external link)
The resizing down to the sraw size would typically help improve the noise on the Canon, you could resize the sony down to the same size, then compare? It would help equalize them a bit that way.

Way I do it is view typical Sony files 1:2 compared with Canon 1:1 for such comparisons, but at 6400, not really worth the debate. Above, the Sony color noise is out of control. Snapshots, i'de do 12800 or even 25600 with the 6d, but max 6400 with Sony.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

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

57,181 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why Canon, when Nikon...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is stapelt
1014 guests, 325 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.