TheChefs: To me (personal opinion) he looks like he's trying to copy Nick Brandt with not much else to add. The photos are just to similar (the lion) and 1 decade later. I also think he can't touch Nick's outstanding composition.
Actually, Nick Brandt is well-known for using a hybrid process. He shoots film and prints digitally.
Beautiful pictures, here. Very unique, intensely vivid style.
I agree completely with this opinion piece. Once again, in the world of consumer choices, lines have been drawn that certain kinds of people feel the need to sit behind and jeer at the other side. Other, more sensible people, carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each system, and to them the arbitrary dividing line becomes increasingly ridiculous-looking and irrelevant. This opinion encapsulates that sensible mindset nicely.
Whether a camera has a mirror or not isn't really something I care about. I care mostly about putting the best glass in front of the best sensor. After that, ergonomics, battery life, and autofocus are priorities of mine. Some mirrorless cameras win after weighing all of these factors against my priorities, some DSLRs win. Other buyers will have different priorities. The tribalism on display in the forums, meanwhile, is often laughably aribtrary and totalitarian "ALL DSLRS ARE DEAD" or "ALL MIRRORLESS SUCK".
zsedcft: The problem with this is that a D810 with a 600mm lens would look better, take less time and have more actual resolution than this. This is not me being a Nikon fanboy, it is the truth unfortunately. If they had used a higher resolution medium format back the result would have been even better. Also, if you take a picture of a fairly plain scene, don't screw up one of the only features in the image (the cable car). I don't think that anyone would have begrudged them a little bit of clone stamp to clean it up.
Sorry to be so negative, but these guys were just doing it for Canon's publicity. Sometimes people knock it out of the park with PR stunts, this is not one of those times.
I agree that Nikon gear would, in general, be better for this sort of work, but I think that a D7200 with a 600mm lens would be better than a D810. No AA filter and much higher pixel density (54 mp FF equivalent, vs 50 mp FF equivalent for the Canon 70D (albeit mushy from AA filter and bad noise reduction from a noisy sensor) and 36 mp for the D810.
Pop a Van Diemen 1:1 macro on this camera and it would be a great black and white film scanner for your Leica MP or, with a bit of stitching, classic Hassy/Rollei black and white 120 frames. 24 mp without Bayer array = about 4000 ppi.
Just a Photographer: This is what people should call Full Frame.35mm is just another format... ;)
It's not quite full frame 645. The 80mp and 60mp are very close, though. As sensor prices come down, I'm looking forward to full frame 6x7. All medium format digital is glorious, though.
johnsmith404: A 400$ lens on a camera that costs almost 10x as much? And DPR still claims they're not biased against Canon.
But still, considering a square sensor with 6x6mp = 36mp vs 7x7mp = 49mp there is only a 16.66% increase in horizontal/lateral resolution. In the shots the moire in the 5DR S image has almost the same period as the D810 showing how negligible the difference in sampling frequency is in reality. On top of that the moire seems a tad worse in the Canon and a sharper lens would possibly have made it even worse.
Basically, the new Canon is producing almost the same res. as Nikons that are several years old now. Anybody who claims to be able to detect 16% resolution increase in a print with his naked eyes is a liar. Nice to see Canon finally catch up but as a Canon user I'd rather prefer to see them lead again...
"Anybody who claims to be able to detect 16% resolution increase in a print with his naked eyes is a liar."
Depends on the size of the print, the quality of the print, the paper, the viewing distance, the eyes of the viewer, the detail in the scene itself. While in most common situations you're likely right, there are times when the difference between 102 lp/mm and 121 lp/mm is readily apparent in a print at certain enlargements.
jonby: Yes the high ISO is significantly better than I was expecting. Dynamic range still appears to be lower than the 645Z and D810 - we'll get a better idea when DPR do their DR and ISO equivalence tests. But nevertheless, this is pretty impressive - a great camera for those wanting more detail who already have good Canon glass.
I agree with this completely and have found it to be true in my own experience, but I also genuinely wonder why it is true. In principle, to shoot at a higher ISO and get the same exposure, you have to increase the shutter speed or close the aperture - a process that should in principle simulate a poorly lit environment, right? What am I missing? Is it really just a matter of the color response of the sensor to artificial light in a poorly-lit environment?
Holy moiré, Batman! Seriously, 50 mp is not enough to avoid aliasing with 135 format sensors. Sure, it's easy enough to avoid in real-world shooting most of the time, but I'm glad Canon are still providing a model with an OLPF. I wish Nikon had a version of the D810 with an OLPF. Until sensels are 2-3 microns and smaller, the lack of an AA filter is a marketing gimmick.
cpkuntz: Does this camera have an AA filter? I couldn't find that in the review. Looks like a great product from Samsung.
Good news, thanks for the info!
Does this camera have an AA filter? I couldn't find that in the review. Looks like a great product from Samsung.
Why do kids like junk? You can get a Nikon FM2 for $200, or an FE for $100.
Timmbits: I can't beging to imagine what I would do with 50MP. what print sizes do you need to go in order to even make this interesting?
I have 20MP on my Samsung, and it's already large file sizes and plenty of resolution.
imho, we need larger photosites. BSI on all sensors. higher sensitivities. improved DR.
5DS allows 30" x 20" prints at 300 dpi. Agree we need more DR, but I'll take more resolution, too, please. I like big, high quality prints. And yes, higher quality prints (300 dpi) that are large gives a wow factor not usually possible with 35mm format digital. 24x36" at 300 dpi would be wonderful.
HowaboutRAW: did #1 really have to be cliché softcore?
Talk about projection. The woman is in a relaxed posed. I see nothing sexual at all about this. When middle aged men look at a photo of a young woman and immediately associate it with sexual passion, or think it "odd" or somehow inappropriate to post on a photography web site, this is what feminists and younger people are talking about when we refer to a cluelessness bordering on a sense of sexual propriety. It's also just plain creepy.
I've never heard of this problem. Glad I bought a D810 for good IQ rather than a Sony.
cpkuntz: Typical Canon dull colors, plastic skin, mushy details, and blown highlights. In 2012 these sensors were badly beaten. Now they are embarrassing.
If trolling consists of being honest about differences in image quality across brands, there are a lot of trolls, both among people making comments at dpreview as well as the scores of professional and enthusiasts photographers who are no longer willing to accept second-rate image quality from Canon when so many better options are now available. I am dual system user. I like my Canon gear, and have a lot more of it than Nikon gear. I want Canon to catch up with the rest of the pack in image quality. Making excuses and false justifications for a company not providing the products that consumers are asking for is no way forward. Canon users in denial - who refuse to accept that Canon is far behind - are the ones the executives at Canon are counting on to keep buying gear. I will accept many compromises, but I won't compromise on image quality - not when far cheaper cameras are now available that are so much better. Pity you can't defend Canon without resorting to name-calling.
A survey doesn't decide on objective matters of image quality. I'm sure some people like Canon skin tones since it smooths out blemishes, I suppose. I prefer skin to look like skin. Show me portraits from Canon with the tonality and texture of these portraits and I might be convinced. This photographer uses a D800.
Typical Canon dull colors, plastic skin, mushy details, and blown highlights. In 2012 these sensors were badly beaten. Now they are embarrassing.
To those claiming that film is "crap", I offer this modern working photographer as one of many possible rebuttals. I prefer digital for my hobby most of the time, but I like film, too.
cpkuntz: Apple has always had insufferable advertisements, but at least the company behind them makes products meeting contemporary standards of quality. They don't put Intel 150 MHz 486 processors in their iPad. Canon still puts ancient sensors in full frame cameras, leading to the laughable situation in which entry-level crop cameras from everyone else have better IQ than Canon's $3000-$7000 pro cameras.
Here is a list of crop sensor cameras that beat all three of Canon's current full frame bodies (6D, 5D Mark III, 1DX:
Nikon D5200Nikon D5300Nikon D7100Nikon D3300Pentax K-5 IISony A77 IISony A6000Pentax K-5 IIs