Why Canon need a new sensor with low read out noise

Started Apr 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
Keith Z Leonard Veteran Member • Posts: 6,114
Re: Why Canon need a new sensor with low read out noise

ak1999 wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I don't know about "on the attack", maybe some are, seems more like it's simple, if you don't like the tool you can use a different tool.  It certainly isn't helping you at all to simply complain about a tool that isn't doing the job for you.

Why should you work around a tool limitation??  This one actually made me laugh, because ALL TOOLS HAVE LIMITATIONS!  I won't be trying to fling a 4x8 sheet of 3/4 plywood onto my PM2000 to cut it in 1/2, it's a limitation of one of the world's finer table saws.  I won't try to fit a Euro cross cut table saw in my shop, it's a limitation of the space in my shop.  I won't turn off every light in the house in the middle of the night and try and take photographs with ANY camera, there are limitations to all of these tools.  If you don't like a limitation of a tool you have and one is available without that constraint, seems like a good idea to go buy it if you have the cash.

Of course every tool have limitations.

If you thought that there is some people who believe otherwise then you probably think that your are smarter than what you really are.

Yes, I understood that, thanks, I don't need to measure my intellect, that has already been done for me, I'm confident in the findings (rather high).  My opinion of you is lowering though.

FYI, I was using both Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800 and my comment about 5D3 was in relation to D800 perfomance which is this thread is about anyway.

Yes, I read that you owned a D800 and sold it, you stated that, so it wasn't new information.  My understanding from your previous posts is that you no longer have a D800 and miss it, thus my suggestion that rather than missing it and piling on in an already overly discussed topic that you simply stop missing it and buy it again.

I have to do more PP on 5D3 files to get shadow area rendition close to what I was getting on my D800.

This would imply that you can achieve the same results but one requires more work, is that true in your findings?  I would have thought that the "limitations" meant it would be impossible to create the same images, as 1 camera has 11.7 stops of DR and the other 14.4 (according to DXO, the favorite measurement site of all things Nikon).  Obviously if you shoot HDR this hardly matters, but if you are talking about extracting the most DR out of a single image to 24bit via tone mapping it's impossible to get the same results.  How close do you think you get? (genuinely interested)

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 400D +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow