Chuck Westfall avoids answering question about 5D3 RAW ISO noise.

Hogloff wrote in post #14078038
The camera is not even out and it already hit the sweet spot for you.

He said "sweat spot." I figured he meant the anticipation has him all hot and bothered.

Tony Parenti wrote in post #14079779
Sorry but I don't see a HUGEEEEEEE difference. But I can tell you one was processed properly using a RAW image and the other is SOOC JPEG.

Also, the Canon shooter needed MORE DOF. the left eye is slightly blurry at 100%. And the nikon post processor is better IMO. There is a good amount of blemish on the canon girls face. And I believe the bride has better lighting too.
But in absolute terms, it's hard to compare with so many different variables in play.

Ivann wrote in post #14076446
I am thinking that if Canon had any significant improvement in RAW noise, dont you think that Chuck would have bragged about it? I mean like he did with the 2 stop jpeg improvement.

If you carefully read the interview, Chuck is actually saying something like:

"Sony [Nikon] has much better patented sensor technology. We can't do it in hardware, so we fake it in software."

Or at least that's what I read between lines

And if you read more carefully, Chuck also said:

"WTF ! Quick ! Plan-B ! Use the 1-series AF or they will switch to Noink !"

I don't know where people got this expectation that the RAW image noise was going to be two stops better. Canon has never release a body that was two stops better from previous.

I think some folks are suffering a haze of nostalgia for improvements that never were. Look at the 1.6X sensor line. If you go from the 20D all the way to the T2i you see maybe a half stop improvement total over that entire span. The T3i/60D/7D sensor represents a huge 1/2 stop again over that......adding up to a whopping one full stop improvement over an eight year span.

The 5D2 betters the 5D by about a stop, and that was after nearly four years between them.

Now people are practically suicidal because the 5D3 isn't two full stops better than the 5D2?

If anything, sensor technology should be maturing and subsequent cameras should be stagnating. This will force the OEMs to bleed higher end features into lower end models to spur sales. Look at the Rebel line and you see this happening.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14080813
Look at the Rebel line and you see this happening.

I have--and this is why I have a problem with the pricing--The Rebel line has managed to add all the similar upgrades to the 5 series while the price has dropped by exactly 50% in the same time period.

dave kadolph wrote in post #14081200
I have--and this is why I have a problem with the pricing--The Rebel line has managed to add all the similar upgrades to the 5 series while the price has dropped by exactly 50% in the same time period.

Some advances are subject to Moore's Law, and some aren't. Mechanical precision, such as it takes to create a 100% viewfinder and two-score focus points on that screen, is not subject to Moore's Law. Greater mechanical precision costs more money every time.

CheshireCat wrote in post #14080539
If you carefully read the interview, Chuck is actually saying something like:

"Sony [Nikon] has much better patented sensor technology. We can't do it in hardware, so we fake it in software."

Or at least that's what I read between lines

Yep...software can only message the data. Better data off the sensor always results in better photos on paper.

Sometimes when POTN gets me down on how awful Canon cameras are and that Nikon is eating their lunch, I head over to the Nikon specific forums elsewhere and read about how awful Nikon cameras are and how Canon is eating their lunch.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14081408
Sometimes when POTN gets me down on how awful Canon cameras are and that Nikon is eating their lunch, I head over to the Nikon specific forums elsewhere and read about how awful Nikon cameras are and how Canon is eating their lunch.

And then you buy a Pentax

RDKirk wrote in post #14081277
Some advances are subject to Moore's Law, and some aren't. Mechanical precision, such as it takes to create a 100% viewfinder and two-score focus points on that screen, is not subject to Moore's Law. Greater mechanical precision costs more money every time.

D700 went from 95% to 100% all while maintaining the same price - and while tripling its resolution, adding movie features, and a slew of other things...

Either Nikon is plain better at designing, engineering and manufacturing cameras or Canon is trolling us all...

JeffreyG wrote in post #14081408
Sometimes when POTN gets me down on how awful Canon cameras are and that Nikon is eating their lunch, I head over to the Nikon specific forums elsewhere and read about how awful Nikon cameras are and how Canon is eating their lunch.

Myself, I keep a Coolpix 880. Helps.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14080813
I don't know where people got this expectation that the RAW image noise was going to be two stops better.
The 5D2 betters the 5D by about a stop, and that was after nearly four years between them.

4 year cycle and FF allowed the 5Dii to be a stop better than the 5Dc right. and the 5Dii had twice the MP right? So when you go another 4 years you'd expect a similar improvement right? Then factor in the part about them leaving the resolution the same, and actually making the photo sites BIGGER via some hardware tricks and yeah, you'd like to think the 4 years gets one stop (ie software) and the hardware improvements gets another stop.... It would have been nice, and with that time and the photo sites actually getting BIGGER, yeah....

dave kadolph wrote in post #14081200
I have--and this is why I have a problem with the pricing--The Rebel line has managed to add all the similar upgrades to the 5 series while the price has dropped by exactly 50% in the same time period.

check the T3i's price against the other rebels before it. The rebels have also gotten more expensive. So much so they had to fork the line and make the T2/T3 line to keep something in it's original price range.

jthomps123 wrote in post #14081482
D700 went from 95% to 100% all while maintaining the same price - and while tripling its resolution, adding movie features, and a slew of other things...

the D700 was $2700, the D800 is $3000. Yeah, the D700 started life at $3000, but it dropped to $2700 VERY soon, like street price -vs- MSRP price soon. I bought brand new for $2700 not long after they were released.


Price wise, should we go to the D30's price and say everything in that line has always gotten cheaper too? I think some of you guys haven't been in the DSLR market for quite as long as the rest of us that you're so shocked a price went up.... DSLRs used to cost what, $20k? Even more for some of the very first options (that didn't even have 1mp)...

jacobsen1 wrote in post #14081706
4 year cycle and FF allowed the 5Dii to be a stop better than the 5Dc right. and the 5Dii had twice the MP right? So when you go another 4 years you'd expect a similar improvement right? Then factor in the part about them leaving the resolution the same, and actually making the photo sites BIGGER via some hardware tricks and yeah, you'd like to think the 4 years gets one stop (ie software) and the hardware improvements gets another stop.... It would have been nice, and with that time and the photo sites actually getting BIGGER, yeah....

Maybe the 5D3 will be a stop better. It's possible. I'll let you know when I have mine.

I'm just kind of tired of the folks who have already declared the winner before the starting gun has even fired.

I should not be surprised though....we get the same stuff with every high end body announcement. Keep in mind that the real, total consensus usually doesn't firm up for at least six months after people get them.

It took me that long to realize that as much as I love the high ISO and focus tracking performance of my 1D4, the 1D3 was actually a better camera for event shooting in really low light. The 1D4 has worse AF in those situations.

Who knows where the 5D3 prices will go after lauch, but as an early adopter I hope they stick at $3500 for a year!

jacobsen1 wrote in post #14081706
4
the D700 was $2700, the D800 is $3000. Yeah, the D700 started life at $3000, but it dropped to $2700 VERY soon, like street price -vs- MSRP price soon. I bought brand new for $2700 not long after they were released.

And I can guarantee that even at $2700 they were making a hefty profit. The point is outside of inflation or some new transuranic body, there is no reason for a 30% price hike... outside of profit. Canon knows this camera is hyped to the moon, and it will sell at an inflated price because we are lame enough to buy it at an inflated price. The fanboys here just need to stop making excuses and admit it... Canon is gouging us here because we let them.