dave: They did an amazing job on the sensor. The dynamic range equals the much bigger pixels of the 5D III. This would make a fantastic 22mp asp-c dslr. Of course that would cut into FF sales, so it won't happen soon.
DR equal to the 5DIII is hardly impressive. The 5DIII offers similar DR to the past 5 years' worth of Canon APSC cameras.
IvanM: Who still uses Canon today? Can one still take a passable photo with a Canon? Are Canon's being dumped for Sony's by the Pros? How Bad is the DR really?
Here is a breakdown of the cameras and lenses used by the winners of the World Press Photo Awards: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25150.15
I think the results says it all....
I've honestly never seen anyone argue that Canons don't take "passable" photos. I have seen some argue that the sensors aren't currently producing the best low ISO results.
The WPP Awards tell you nothing about how Canon sensors stack up to their competition for three main reasons:
1) The genre is less reliant on low ISO sensor performance than it is on other areas, where Canon excels.
2) Nobody disputes that Canon have the highest user base. Of course they are going to be well represented in any sample.
3) The photographer and the scene in front of them is more important than the equipment. More photographers in front of more scenes are *still* using Canon equipment.
I too would like to see more DR at low ISO in Canon's files. Why? Simply because I could use it. It won't get me in to the WPP Awards, but when I buy something I want to buy the best one, to give me the best chance of success with it. Canon has loads going for it, I'd just like to see low ISO DR added to the list.
mgrum: "Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"
That's pretty much all Canon have done for the past 6 years ;)
I'd assumed that line was meant to be sarcasm!
It must take a special kind of glue to stick two and a half 70D sensors together.
Sessility: What really annoys me about the first photo is that it's so obviously a composite (the reflection doesn't match the stars in the sky). I know the technical reasons for it (light level of sky vs. foreground, and long shutter speed needed), just saying that I find it quite distracting.
That's interesting. I'd assumed the same due to the stretched point light sources in the water, but having reviewed one of my own starry night shots, the same thing had happened there. Great shot anyway.
JoEick: Cool thing to do for the users of the website. Thanks DPR staff for putting this together. There are many talented photographers here who deserve a bit of recognition for their hard work.
I didn't take any keeper photos in 2014, so it will be nice to see what others have done.
In fairness, when I read the comment I thought he was just having a joke, there was a wink at the end after all. Emoticons soften everything... :)
Outdated and inadequate technology, crammed into an unattractive form-factor, with an impenetrable user interface, producing substandard results.
It's almost as if Nikon *want* to fail.
Are you reading about something different?
RicardoPhoto: Considering Canon and Nikon only, as far as I can see the image quality of this camera is better than all the competitors and very close and in some cases superior to Nikon D800 and D610. Of course Canon 1dx, 5dii and 6d have superior image quality. For me in terms of features this camera is only inferior to the 1DX.
Timur Born: The lions shot strikes me as quite wide angle, is it not? How fracking close did the photographer have to get for that shot? Two of the lions are *looking at him*!
The horizon is tilted because of the lower left lion, that is quite nicely aligned, by the way. Either he'd have to cut him off in post or shoot more of nothing in the lower right. Or maybe there was some disturbing object in the lower right that he wanted cut out while keeping the left lion in. Or maybe the whole damn pack noticed him and got up, so he decided to call it a day and save his life?
Who knows... but lions on a rocky beach look pretty wildlife to me. At least I don't see any fences or zoo signs there.
I think he used a drone, which may also explain his troubles with the horizon. I don't think it's a beach though, but it's hard to tell in this infrared image.
shauravraj: Its amazing how people can get unreasonably critical. I am a beginner with no knowledge of photography at all. The grand prize winning picture is informative interesting and only two things jumped out at me "lions on a single rock" and "light rays coming through the cloud." Why are people so concerned about horizon ... what's happening in the cloud, etc. distractions when the main message of the picture is clear.Here is why some people are so critical of the picture:1. Because people are putting on the critical lens that can only see the weakness and not appreciate what is good.2. Because people are driven by conventional knowledge that says "horizon should be straight". And we conceive that the horizon should be precisely straight.3. Because people are unable to produce quality picture despite their "senior photographer" status.I think we should elevate above our subjective interpretations and appreciate the work and focus on creative criticism. I apologize if I offended anyone
I think we need to keep an eye on the context here.
This is the discussion section under the Wildlife Photographer of the Year WINNING photos. The Lions shot was the grand title winner. I'm not aware of anyone saying that it is a poor image, merely that it seems a little flawed for a shot that has won so big a prize.
In answer to your points:1) These images were submitted to a competition. Competition judging is a critical process, otherwise they'd all be winners. The posts below are simply disagreeing with the result of this critical process.2) If you think the image is better without the straight horizon, that's fine. It's just that others disagree and think it detracts from the image. I don't think they disagree due to not being able to see past "conventional" beliefs though, I think that's their genuine opinion. 3) The picture stands or falls on its own merit.
I'd be thrilled to have taken that lions shot, I just wouldn't expect it to win WPotY.
InTheMist: Someone will come along and criticize.
When they do, look at their gallery first.
Today's rational fallacy is Ad Hominem:
shutterbud: This is a beautifully-made camera with wonderful AF, good ergonomics and a sensor waay behind the times- an APS-C flagship from the biggest gun struggling to compete with u4/3 in IQ? Come on! The fact is, many photographers do NOT shoot BIF or F1 cars and for them, this camera is too compromised, despite the loveliness. The benefits from Canon's back-catalogue of parts do nothing to improve many shots. I like the idea of this camera and IQ is 'good enough', but I would never spend so much money on something so big that I know will give me inferior IQ in most circumstances to a Nikon D5300. A GH4, XT1 or A7 offer far more benefits to more photographers than this "Second Flagship". I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is a real shame Canon didn't use a Sony sensor. If they had used the D7000 sensor, this would be King of the Crop. Sadly, it merely confirms what many have suspected for a long time. Canon tech is not improving. This is bizarre
To give my view on the point that Matt and Shutterbud disagree on, I think the problem is that as well as being a horse for a certain course, this is also Canon's flagship APSC camera. Some users expect Canon to provide a great APSC body with great IQ, and they expect to pay for it. They want it to be good for BIF and sports, but also as good as the Nikons/Sonys/m43s etc when shooting landscapes. Given the price, this may not be too much to ask.
Terapixel: I'm just a still shooter, so that 85% is way lower when video is not taken into account, below 84%. So for just still shooters Fuji X-T1/ Samsung NX-1 is more interesting (not talking about Bokeh).
This is why if you're thinking of buying the camera it's best to read the whole review and play with the test scenes. A score will always be subjective.
Earthlight: Imagine if Canon came out with a 36 mp sensor ...by stitching two of their venerable 18 mp APS-C sensors together. That would show them! :)
Someone from Canon just wrote that down and got himself a promotion...
Although these are definitely high quality photos, they aren't quite the standard I was expecting for WPOTY.
To save a bit of time: 1) No, I don't think I could do better.2) No, I didn't enter.
maxnimo: From the samples I conclude that the camera has a lot of noise under ISO 800, and the photographer is a bit too addicted to wide angle lenses.
I have a picture of Michael Jackson in a cinema that I've been saving for this moment...
Donnie G: Over 1,000 comments and counting. Alright whiners, keep those clicks ah-coming. You're selling more cameras for Canon with your constant moaning and groaning than the company ever could by itself because controversy sells products too. Don't take my word for it, just ask Apple. Ha ha ha, LOL. Brilliant campaign Canon! :)
Controversy sometimes sells products. Ridicule never does.
YESSS!!! A marketing campaign! I've been dying for them to release one of those so that I can use it to finally replace my 7D. It's been a long wait Canon, but you came through.
They've put the 70D sensor in the 5DIV...
cgarrard: Funny all the comments about the image quality. The greatness of this camera hasn't been nor will it be its amazing sensor quality. It's about the form factor surrounding the chip, and its lens, etc. Maybe Sony's 20mp 1" chip would have been a better choice for all of you complaining? Or even better, maybe Panasonic should have gone back to a 1 1/6.5" size chip instead and called it the LX9.
You seem to have answered your own question there cgarrard, people appear to be disappointed as (from these test shots alone), it appears to be outperformed by smaller and cheaper cameras. This isn't rocket science. Nobody (else) is worried about whether or not the quality is "acceptable", they're just not going to waste money on it if indeed it does turn out to be poorer quality than something smaller and cheaper.