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...

 
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,337 posts
Gallery: 344 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3680
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Sep 11, 2014 17:18 |  #466

Going 3:1 on an image shot on my 5D3 looks plenty good to me. Mind you, I don't print 10 foot tall images to hand about with a magnifying glass to my friends either.
Yes the Nikon 800 series are great, well their sensor is anyway. Yes I have shot with one, but there is a lot more to look at than just the body. Don't worry though as Canon or Sony or Fuji or... will come out with something better soon. Me? Well I find Nikon clunky to use as I don't use the D800 enough to get use to it.
Go try a medium format camera if you want better image quality, slightly bigger difference between one of those and the DSLR's tit for tat that goes on in the marketing world of selling you crap you don't need.


Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
Gear List (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)About Capture One (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 11, 2014 17:39 |  #467

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #17148764 (external link)
Go try a medium format camera if you want better image quality, slightly bigger difference between one of those and the DSLR's tit for tat that goes on in the marketing world of selling you crap you don't need.

Actually... todays full frame cameras perform as good as medium format film, and 36MP digital bodies have an edge over medium format film. Digital medium format is the new large format. The quality in todays digital cameras is simply exceptional.


http://kbesios.com …ium-format-film-part-iii/ (external link)
http://www.olegnovikov​.com …kon_d700_resolu​tion.shtml (external link)


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snegron
Senior Member
256 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Florida
     
Sep 11, 2014 17:43 |  #468

Interesting thread! Up until several days ago I have been using Nikon equipment for many years. While I was familiar with and enjoyed using Nikon cameras and lenses, I was always looking for a perfect travel camera.

From what I have seen in the images I have shot with my new, entry level T3i, I am impressed! Even with the inexpensive kit lenses that came with it the images are impressive.

Not that the images I get from my Nikon's are worse; I won't stop using my Nikon equipment anytime soon. However, if I get some more money I will definitely invest in better glass and someday a 5D Mark (whatever number it will up to when I can afford it).

As others have mentioned, both systems have their merits and quirks. You can't go wrong with either one.

p.s. Just for the fun of it I'm thinking about carrying both my DSLR's on me one day; my T3i on one shoulder, my D200 on the other just to start up a conversation with people! When someone asks why I'm carrying two competing brands I can say that I couldn't make up my mind that day! :D

Actually, since I really can't afford to get a decent telephoto for my T3i at this time, I can carry my D200 with my 180mm 2.8 AF-ED with me. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,796 posts
Likes: 552
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Sep 11, 2014 18:01 |  #469

Mornnb wrote in post #17148793 (external link)
Actually... todays full frame cameras perform as well as medium format film. Digital medium format is the new large format.

They may or may not be. If you want sharp prints viewed close up, then a 36MP camera is good for a 20"x14" print (keeping 300 DPI). A 22MP is good for 14"x11". It is always debated about film's differences with digital comparing DR and resolving power. I think film still has some advantages with DR, and digital seems much better with high ISO....how "sharp" or better overall IQ is is always debatable. That you can change ISO and check exposures immediately has always tipped to digital's favor:)

http://www.clarkvision​.com …vs.digital.summ​ary1.html/ (external link)


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Sep 11, 2014 18:18 |  #470
bannedPermanent ban

davesrose wrote in post #17148830 (external link)
They may or may not be. If you want sharp prints viewed close up, then a 36MP camera is good for a 20"x14" print (keeping 300 DPI). A 22MP is good for 14"x11". It is always debated about film's differences with digital comparing DR and resolving power. I think film still has some advantages with DR, and digital seems much better with high ISO....how "sharp" or better overall IQ is is always debatable. That you can change ISO and check exposures immediately has always tipped to digital's favor:)

http://www.clarkvision​.com …vs.digital.summ​ary1.html/ (external link)

I shoot with both a Sony A7R and medium format film ( Fuji 6x9 ) and one is not better than the other, but different. I like both and the A7R for colour is better, but the Fuji medium format with B&W film just gives that beautiful grain look that I have yet to fully duplicate with a digital sensor.

So no, one has not surpassed the other in all areas. They are just different.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,796 posts
Likes: 552
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Sep 11, 2014 18:54 |  #471

Hogloff wrote in post #17148862 (external link)
I like both and the A7R for colour is better, but the Fuji medium format with B&W film just gives that beautiful grain look that I have yet to fully duplicate with a digital sensor.

I think a large part of that is the inherit benefit of DR with a single layer of emulsion for a B&W film (vs layered for color). Having had experience developing film, my first experiences with digital seemed lack luster. You had to get exposure right on for the image not to look pixelated. The first digital camera I bought had good IQ for computer resolutions, but if there was noise, it looked like video noise. When I bought my first DSLR, I remember looking at the noise patterns thinking they looked much better: not quite is "clean" looking as grain, but getting there. I'm sure digital will continue to mature to get higher resolutions (and larger prints), as well as improve in DR. I'm interested in seeing what becomes of utraHD standards, as deeper color spaces are being considered. 10-12bpc displays will help push HDR sources.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,337 posts
Gallery: 344 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3680
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Sep 12, 2014 03:43 |  #472

Mornnb wrote in post #17148793 (external link)
Actually... todays full frame cameras perform as good as medium format film, and 36MP digital bodies have an edge over medium format film. The quality in todays digital cameras is simply exceptional.


http://kbesios.com …ium-format-film-part-iii/ (external link)
http://www.olegnovikov​.com …kon_d700_resolu​tion.shtml (external link)

We are talking digital here, right? No body mentioned film, actually, film is much harder to work with. So I think you'll find that an 80MP Digital Back will somewhat out preform some small 24X36 sensor. Go shoot with one if you want to find out what I'm talking about.

Generally I prefer shooting with a 5d3, because I like the overall feel from the camera. The D800's also have nice things I like about them the sensor is nice and I like the shutter button a bit better. Really one is so close to the other that it, actually, won't matter most of the time.


Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
Gear List (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)About Capture One (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 12, 2014 15:58 |  #473

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #17149524 (external link)
We are talking digital here, right? No body mentioned film, actually, film is much harder to work with. So I think you'll find that an 80MP Digital Back will somewhat out preform some small 24X36 sensor.

The point I was making is that todays 35mm digital, more than reaches the traditionally 'professional' quality of medium format film. It is adequate for most pros especially given the huge price premium of a 80MP medium format rig.
Also neither does medium format digital offer an advantage in dynamic range, in fact the D800E/a7R have better DR than most medium format digital bodies.

davesrose wrote in post #17148830 (external link)
They may or may not be. If you want sharp prints viewed close up, then a 36MP camera is good for a 20"x14" print (keeping 300 DPI). A 22MP is good for 14"x11". It is always debated about film's differences with digital comparing DR and resolving power. I think film still has some advantages with DR, and digital seems much better with high ISO....how "sharp" or better overall IQ is is always debatable.
http://www.clarkvision​.com …vs.digital.summ​ary1.html/ (external link)

Check the link I posted above from kbesios, notice how much better the D800e handled dynamic range and highlights than the Kodak Portra ISO 160 film. The resolution is a tie, but digital has better dynamic range and less noise at low ISO.

That you can change ISO and check exposures immediately has always tipped to digital's favor:)

The other big advantage is the ability to adjust white balance on the fly and in post.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,796 posts
Likes: 552
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Sep 12, 2014 16:37 |  #474

Mornnb wrote in post #17150635 (external link)
Check the link I posted above from kbesios, notice how much better the D800e handled dynamic range and highlights than the Kodak Portra ISO 160 film. The resolution is a tie, but digital has better dynamic range and less noise at low ISO.

Depends on exposure and film used:

https://www.onlandscap​e.co.uk …daks-new-portra-400-film/ (external link)

B&W large format film still pretty much is king with resolution and DR.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,337 posts
Gallery: 344 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3680
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Sep 12, 2014 17:06 |  #475

Mornnb wrote in post #17150635 (external link)
The other big advantage is the ability to adjust white balance on the fly and in post.

The big pain in the hole in shooting Digital you mean, having to constantly adjust the WB. Not really an advantage to have to do more work for the same result.

Film is lovely to shoot with, the uncertainly of the process is nail bitingly wonderful. Digital is just plain easy and wonderful because of that, I love both but would hate to have to go back to film full time. Can you imagine the cost involved!

As far as DR goes MF cameras now have 14 stops of light in their range, that's glorious 44x33mm sized stops of DR. I'd love if Canon had a better range though for the odd time you think about recovering some shadow detail but hey, gota give the Sony, sorry, Nikon fb's something to brag about right :p


Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
Gear List (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)About Capture One (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Sep 13, 2014 18:22 |  #476

Mornnb wrote in post #17150635 (external link)
The point I was making is that todays 35mm digital, more than reaches the traditionally 'professional' quality of medium format film. It is adequate for most pros especially given the huge price premium of a 80MP medium format rig.
Also neither does medium format digital offer an advantage in dynamic range, in fact the D800E/a7R have better DR than most medium format digital bodies.

Check the link I posted above from kbesios, notice how much better the D800e handled dynamic range and highlights than the Kodak Portra ISO 160 film. The resolution is a tie, but digital has better dynamic range and less noise at low ISO.

The other big advantage is the ability to adjust white balance on the fly and in post.

Something about that doesn't seem right... I know too many professional photographers out here that still photograph in B&W film because they say they have better tonal contrast and dynamic range than they can possibly get with digital.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 13, 2014 19:05 |  #477

CRCchemist wrote in post #17152543 (external link)
Something about that doesn't seem right... I know too many professional photographers out here that still photograph in B&W film because they say they have better tonal contrast and dynamic range than they can possibly get with digital.

B&W film is a different story to colour film.
Also the other thing to consider is that film is digitalised by a scanner and in some situations it will be the scanner which is limit.
Generally speaking film retains greater tonal detail in the highlights, because you do not have the problem of channel clipping. Film gradually falls off in the highlights rather than sharply ending in full white. However, digital behaves better than film in the shadows, retaining more detail and lower noise. So overall digital may have greater range, but the highlights are far worse.
I would expect that if the example image from kbesios with the D800E was shot as a jpeg, the camera would have been metered to the sky with the foreground being raised in exposure. It's part of Nikon's jpeg engine and is called adaptive dynamic range.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,796 posts
Likes: 552
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Sep 13, 2014 20:25 |  #478

Mornnb wrote in post #17152582 (external link)
Generally speaking film retains greater tonal detail in the highlights, because you do not have the problem of channel clipping. Film gradually falls off in the highlights rather than sharply ending in full white. However, digital behaves better than film in the shadows, retaining more detail and lower noise. So overall digital may have greater range, but the highlights are far worse.

Highlights are a part of DR. The whole point in siding with overexposure is to capture more light levels. Sony sensors are better for shadow recovery, but because stops of light are exponential, you're still going to get more contrast in the highlight information (not shadow). I find there still is quite a bit of give in the extreme highlights untill you reach clipping with new DSLRs. B&W film is always going to have an advantage with DR because it is single layer: instead of color which has three (and knocks down exposure). I think DSLRs are all better then 35mm film at resolving power and dynamic range. It gets very debateable when you get into larger film formats.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

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

56,736 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 majorsite2
1006 guests, 237 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.