don't wanna start a raging fight.......

Started Jun 6, 2012 | Discussions
dirkluchtman
Regular MemberPosts: 468
Like?
don't wanna start a raging fight.......
Jun 6, 2012

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away, especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores, entry level vs pro.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 801%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 795%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 483%7C0 (brand3) Canon

And who care about ISO anyway; it's all about dynamic range

dirkluchtman
Regular MemberPosts: 468
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

The link doesn't work. Here's the comparison.

Nikon D3200 ($699, incl lens)
Overall: 81
Color depth: 24.1bits
Dynamic range: 13.2 evs
Low-light ISO: 1131

Canon 5D Mark II ($2199)
Overall: 79
Color depth: 23.7
Dynamic range: 11.9evs
Low-light ISO: 1815

Canon 5D Mark III ($3499)
Overall: 81
Color depth: 24
Dynamic range: 11.7evs
Low-light ISO: 2293

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ogjetaknight
Regular MemberPosts: 359
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

Being a crop sensor it part of the reason for the price.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
onemoremile
New MemberPosts: 11Gear list
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

dirkluchtman wrote:

The link doesn't work. Here's the comparison.

Nikon D3200 ($699, incl lens)
Overall: 81
Color depth: 24.1bits
Dynamic range: 13.2 evs
Low-light ISO: 1131

Canon 5D Mark II ($2199)
Overall: 79
Color depth: 23.7
Dynamic range: 11.9evs
Low-light ISO: 1815

Canon 5D Mark III ($3499)
Overall: 81
Color depth: 24
Dynamic range: 11.7evs
Low-light ISO: 2293

DxO does not take into account accuracy and speed of autofocus, quality of the metering system, quality of construction, weatherproofing, handling, noise levels, etc., etc. I think that many modern digital SLRs have sensors that test out very well; the important question for me is whether it will help me make better pictures.

 onemoremile's gear list:onemoremile's gear list
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,680Gear list
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

You'll see all kinds of weird answers. Right or wrong those people always say you pay the full frame price for the IQ, everything else is not important. All of sudden IQ is not important any more when Canon's full frame IQ is behind other full frame or aps-c cameras.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ogjetaknight
Regular MemberPosts: 359
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to carlk, Jun 6, 2012

carlk wrote:

You'll see all kinds of weird answers. Right or wrong those people always say you pay the full frame price for the IQ, everything else is not important. All of sudden IQ is not important any more when Canon's full frame IQ is behind other full frame or aps-c cameras.

Lol, your silly If the only thing you loose between the d3200 and the d800 for $2300 less is one stop in dynamic range then why would anyone buy the d800?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Clint Dunn
Senior MemberPosts: 1,227Gear list
Like?
My 2 cents
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

dirkluchtman wrote:

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away, especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores, entry level vs pro.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 801%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 795%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 483%7C0 (brand3) Canon

And who care about ISO anyway; it's all about dynamic range

There's no doubt that Canon is WAY behind Nikon in sensor design...Nikon is definitely got the advantage in pretty much their whole camera line as it relates to sensor performance.

You know what, I don't care. I got into digital photography in 2005 with a 20D. At that time (and for many years after) Nikon could not touch the quality of Canon sensors. Now things have swung the other way but I am way too invested in Canon glass to change systems. Besides, give it another 2 years and Canon will likely leapfrog Nikon...that's what competition does!

In the meantime I have a 5D2 that still produces AMAZING files, and a new XPro1 that for an APS-C sensor produces nicer files than anything from Canon or Nikon.

Clint
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

 Clint Dunn's gear list:Clint Dunn's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dirkluchtman
Regular MemberPosts: 468
Like?
Re: My 2 cents
In reply to Clint Dunn, Jun 6, 2012

yeah Fujifilm seems to come up with some pretty amazing gear lately, definitely something to keep an eye on..

Clint Dunn wrote:

dirkluchtman wrote:

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away, especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores, entry level vs pro.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 801%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 795%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 483%7C0 (brand3) Canon

And who care about ISO anyway; it's all about dynamic range

There's no doubt that Canon is WAY behind Nikon in sensor design...Nikon is definitely got the advantage in pretty much their whole camera line as it relates to sensor performance.

You know what, I don't care. I got into digital photography in 2005 with a 20D. At that time (and for many years after) Nikon could not touch the quality of Canon sensors. Now things have swung the other way but I am way too invested in Canon glass to change systems. Besides, give it another 2 years and Canon will likely leapfrog Nikon...that's what competition does!

In the meantime I have a 5D2 that still produces AMAZING files, and a new XPro1 that for an APS-C sensor produces nicer files than anything from Canon or Nikon.

Clint
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
oysso
Regular MemberPosts: 469
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

dirkluchtman wrote:

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away, especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores, entry level vs pro.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 801%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 795%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 483%7C0 (brand3) Canon

And who care about ISO anyway; it's all about dynamic range

For many it is only about dynamic range at low iso. but for many it is high iso performance and other aspects as FPS and , AF, lenses etc....

ALL cameras of today gives good quality imagery. Yes, Nikon have an edge right now. But that does not mean that in a sudden all the Canon cameras do not give good picture result any more ..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carlk
Forum ProPosts: 15,680Gear list
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to Ogjetaknight, Jun 6, 2012

Ogjetaknight wrote:

carlk wrote:

You'll see all kinds of weird answers. Right or wrong those people always say you pay the full frame price for the IQ, everything else is not important. All of sudden IQ is not important any more when Canon's full frame IQ is behind other full frame or aps-c cameras.

Lol, your silly If the only thing you loose between the d3200 and the d800 for $2300 less is one stop in dynamic range then why would anyone buy the d800?

I actually don't disagree with you. For majority of people D3200 is more than good enough for them. That includes most of the people who claim "I buy or want to buy a full frame for the better IQ". You pay for D800 is you want a 36MP mini-MF.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cpkuntz
Regular MemberPosts: 493Gear list
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to oysso, Jun 6, 2012

I certainly want Canon to improve the dynamic range of their sensors, but for now I'm glad they focused on high ISO quality (although they could still do much better). I shoot in low light far more often than I push shadows in post processing. Of course, others have different needs.

 cpkuntz's gear list:cpkuntz's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ogjetaknight
Regular MemberPosts: 359
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to carlk, Jun 6, 2012

carlk wrote:

Ogjetaknight wrote:

carlk wrote:

You'll see all kinds of weird answers. Right or wrong those people always say you pay the full frame price for the IQ, everything else is not important. All of sudden IQ is not important any more when Canon's full frame IQ is behind other full frame or aps-c cameras.

Lol, your silly If the only thing you loose between the d3200 and the d800 for $2300 less is one stop in dynamic range then why would anyone buy the d800?

I actually don't disagree with you. For majority of people D3200 is more than good enough for them. That includes most of the people who claim "I buy or want to buy a full frame for the better IQ". You pay for D800 is you want a 36MP mini-MF.

Aaah, so it's about the mega pixels then, and not "all about the DR" like the OP suggested. I believe Nokia has the solution then, it has over 40MP, a true mini MF.

My point here is that there are many things that determine IQ, you can't simply point to one feature and say that it is the only thing that makes the diffrence. My 8mp iPhone takes great pictures for a phone but my old 20d blows it away, even with its much older, less advanced sensor tech.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joema1
Regular MemberPosts: 360Gear list
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

dirkluchtman wrote:

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away, especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores, entry level vs pro.

Those same tests show the D3200 has better dynamic range than the D4 which costs 10 times as much.

They also show the D3S from 2009 has better low light capability than the D4 from 2012.

And they show the Canon 70-200 IS II is significantly worse than the older, cheaper 70-200 IS USM.

If you trust all those as comprehensively reflecting real world experience, then you can equally trust DxOMark's numbers about 5D3 vs other cameras.

 joema1's gear list:joema1's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
happysnapper62
Contributing MemberPosts: 950
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to joema1, Jun 6, 2012

I hate to go off topic, but having come to photography from golf, the same "newer must be better" syndrome was alive & well there too! There were loads of guys { & yes 99% of them were male} who would shell out thousands on pro -gear that they were convinced would make them better golfers. Their handicaps never seemed to go down, but their bank ballances did. The winners always seemed to be the ones with older equipment, that they had learned to handle. I have no doubt that both golf & photographic technology has come a long way over the last 20 years or so, & has benefited numerous users, unfortunately splashing the cash on expensive gear that looks good in the bag, is no guarantee of taking better pictures. Thing is, the companies have simply GOT to up=date their equipment specs on a regular basis, they simply HAVE to bring out something NEW....before the competition does. We do get the benefit I believe, but like in a lot of things todays new model soon becomes out of date, only to be replaced by the latest, but not neccesarily better, model. And I have no doubt it will continue to do so. lee uk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dirkluchtman
Regular MemberPosts: 468
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to happysnapper62, Jun 6, 2012

Thing is I need 1) a minimum resolution (21mp suffices for me) and 2) the shallow depth of field offered by full frame. This combo (eg the 5D Mark II) is costing me at least 2000 today, even though, when analyzed to individual sensor parameters, there are cameras that cost a fraction of that with better performance. I am waiting for the rumored Nikon D600 (or an unlikely Canon equivalent) to become a fact because that camera may well be the perfect solution.

happysnapper62 wrote:

I hate to go off topic, but having come to photography from golf, the same "newer must be better" syndrome was alive & well there too! There were loads of guys { & yes 99% of them were male} who would shell out thousands on pro -gear that they were convinced would make them better golfers. Their handicaps never seemed to go down, but their bank ballances did. The winners always seemed to be the ones with older equipment, that they had learned to handle. I have no doubt that both golf & photographic technology has come a long way over the last 20 years or so, & has benefited numerous users, unfortunately splashing the cash on expensive gear that looks good in the bag, is no guarantee of taking better pictures. Thing is, the companies have simply GOT to up=date their equipment specs on a regular basis, they simply HAVE to bring out something NEW....before the competition does. We do get the benefit I believe, but like in a lot of things todays new model soon becomes out of date, only to be replaced by the latest, but not neccesarily better, model. And I have no doubt it will continue to do so. lee uk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fujiar
Junior MemberPosts: 34
Like?
Dont forget
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

The new Canon 24-70 2.8 II is $2499 in Canada, almost $1000 more than the Nikon equivalent and the Nikon is sharper?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
expro
Contributing MemberPosts: 797Gear list
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

haha... remember the good old film days...that must have been very strange to pay 10x for a camera that didn't even have a sensor and took the same film!

Wow what a very big mistake that was !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Phil Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 2,535Gear list
Like?
Re: Dont forget
In reply to fujiar, Jun 6, 2012

fujiar wrote:

The new Canon 24-70 2.8 II is $2499 in Canada, almost $1000 more than the Nikon equivalent and the Nikon is sharper?

Have you compared linear distortion, contrast, color rendering, vignetting, bokeh, CA, focusing speed and accuracy, weight, sound level, durability and weather sealing?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter 13
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,301
Like?
Re: don't wanna start a raging fight.......
In reply to carlk, Jun 6, 2012

carlk wrote:

You'll see all kinds of weird answers. Right or wrong those people always say you pay the full frame price for the IQ, everything else is not important. All of sudden IQ is not important any more when Canon's full frame IQ is behind other full frame or aps-c cameras.

Actually, the role of the format is the IQ factor (pun intended) that is not listed there and left to the reader's intelligence.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryJP
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,802Gear list
Like?
Re: My 2 cents
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 6, 2012

Having been part of the X10 debacle, and - possibly - only getting a properly functioning camera this month, nine months after it came out, I am not going to touch Fuji with a barge pole again for as long as I live.

This is a company that does not give a a crap.

dirkluchtman wrote:

yeah Fujifilm seems to come up with some pretty amazing gear lately, definitely something to keep an eye on..

Clint Dunn wrote:

dirkluchtman wrote:

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away, especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores, entry level vs pro.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 801%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 795%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 483%7C0 (brand3) Canon

And who care about ISO anyway; it's all about dynamic range

There's no doubt that Canon is WAY behind Nikon in sensor design...Nikon is definitely got the advantage in pretty much their whole camera line as it relates to sensor performance.

You know what, I don't care. I got into digital photography in 2005 with a 20D. At that time (and for many years after) Nikon could not touch the quality of Canon sensors. Now things have swung the other way but I am way too invested in Canon glass to change systems. Besides, give it another 2 years and Canon will likely leapfrog Nikon...that's what competition does!

In the meantime I have a 5D2 that still produces AMAZING files, and a new XPro1 that for an APS-C sensor produces nicer files than anything from Canon or Nikon.

Clint
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

-- hide signature --
 GaryJP's gear list:GaryJP's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon PowerShot G1 X Sony RX100 II G1 X II Canon EOS-1D Mark III +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads