Canon plays catch up to Nikon - still a ways to go...

[Mgoldman]

Looks like Canon has finally made a major step forward in their attempt to catch up in a nearly decade long challenge to match the dynamic range performance of Nikon /Sony.

Where as Canon's across the board have been rated at 11.7 or so, the larger the number the better the camera's capability to capture the full range of detail - Nikon's (with their Sony processor on the chip sensors) have been rated in the mid 14's! What this equates to is the ability to take very high contrast shots and both preserve and, notably, recover detail without introducing significant noise.

The difference between the new 80D vs all other Canons (from the 5D Mark III, the 6D, the 7D all the way down to the 20D) is significant. Unfortunately - it's not on par with Nikon's D7200. And still - the Nikon D750 blows the rest away.

Here's hoping the $1,500 plus premium on the yet unannounced Canon 5D Mark IV gets an even better boost!

Here's a nice visual comparison:
(Of note, more the magnifier box over the wine bottles)

From DP Review:
"As you can see, the 80D is contributing less noise to its images than the 70D did, and this difference will be evident when you try to pull shadows up. It isn't quite a match for the (year old) Nikon D7200...."


http://www.dpreview.com/news/7168986...non-low-iso-dr



/Mitch

[bigbassloyd]

My perception - Nikon users screw up the exposure frequently, thus requiring more editing leeway.



Loyd L.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

My perception - Nikon users screw up the exposure frequently, thus requiring more editing leeway.



Loyd L.

Begs the question - what if you were to put a Nikon in the hands of a Canon guy?

/Mitch

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Begs the question - what if you were to put a Nikon in the hands of a Canon guy?

/Mitch

For one thing, he'd probably get a lot of shots that he missed with his Canon, because he couldn't get the damn thing turned on quickly enough. The very first time I picked up a Canon DSLR, I was astounded to find that the ON-OFF switch is located on side opposite the grip. You can't "draw and get the safety off" with one hand.

Beyond that, I just wanna know why the blue skies in so many Canon photos have a reddish tinge to them. As I browse each day's RP postings, I can always tell an image shot with a Canon.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by KevinM

I just wanna know why the blue skies in so many Canon photos have a reddish tinge to them. As I browse each day's RP postings, I can always tell an image shot with a Canon.

I'll need to create a Photoshop NIKON action /macro to correct mine, lol.

/Mitch

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by KevinM

For one thing, he'd probably get a lot of shots that he missed with his Canon, because he couldn't get the damn thing turned on quickly enough. The very first time I picked up a Canon DSLR, I was astounded to find that the ON-OFF switch is located on side opposite the grip. You can't "draw and get the safety off" with one hand.

Wait, this is a problem with some people?

[Noct Foamer]

Too late. Nikon has already released the D500, a DX camera that also beats this new Canon in DR.


Kent in SD

[magicman_841]

Why are you guys arguing?

Signed, a Sony shooter.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Begs the question - what if you were to put a Nikon in the hands of a Canon guy?

/Mitch

I'd do just as well holding a rock. Started on a Canon, stayed with a Canon, and a Nikon confuses me.

Loyd L.

[troy12n]

You all will go broke chasing the technology trends. Get a used 40d and shoot away.

[Noct Foamer]

Originally Posted by troy12n

You all will go broke chasing the technology trends. Get a used 40d and shoot away.

He does have a point. Money is often better spent on travel. I'm taking more interesting photos with a c. 1983 Nikon F3T than I would if at home with a Nikon D5 (at ten times the cost.)


Kent in SD

[troy12n]

Seriously, I own a 40d and 5d mark 1, I have a bunch of good glass too. I bought all this stuff years ago. Honestly except for batteries, I have not bought any gear in probably 5 years. I'm no Danneman or Flannery though.

Unless you want to shoot a bunch of low-light stuff and "need" high IQ at high ISO, money is wasted on camera bodies.

Or travel

Or life...

[troy12n]

Also, if you need ISO 200,000 or whatever the hell they have nowadays, maybe consider the fact that maybe it's a good idea to just sit that one out and try another day!

[Noct Foamer]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Also, if you need ISO 200,000 or whatever the hell they have nowadays, maybe consider the fact that maybe it's a good idea to just sit that one out and try another day!

Almost all of my night shots are made with ISO 800. And a few flash of course. I'm often surprised what I can do with just $400 worth of lighting.


Kent in SD

[wds]

Originally Posted by magicman_841

Why are you guys arguing?

Signed, a Sony shooter.

I shoot Sony's too, but I use a 12-gauge.

[Mgoldman]

Considering the amount of time we invest in taking our photographs, as well as the processing of the images - why would anyone want their equipment to be the limiting factor?

I can think of two reasons - funds and specific photographic interests.

If you only shoot while the sun is shinning, or use a flash - the dynamic range is not much of a factor in choosing Nikon vs Canon.

It basically come down to how comfortble you are with the shortcomings of your current camera - focus points, focus spread, frames per second, high ISO performance, megapixel size, dynamic range, battery life, size, wieght, WIFI, GPS, ect...

If you like taking contrasty low light images - as I do, then Nikon seems to have the clear advantage. The fact that you can get better images (currently) with a much lower priced Nikon vs a Canon is something worth considering when chosing your first camera or upgrading to your next.

As someone heavily invested in Canon gear - my fingers are pessimistically crossed on seeing a much improved 5D Mark IV. The results reflected above in the link to the image comparisons with the new Canon 80D reflect an improvement but not to the level I'd have expected after years of playing image quality catch up to Nikon - and then there's the expected premium in cost - though, sure - the extra fps and additional 6 MP have thier appeal.

/Mitch

[KevinM]

Hi Mitch,

Take a walk on the other side. Wait until the forecast is for crappy weather. Go rent a D750 and the 24-120mm f/4 VR and go shoot some NEC stuff. Put the resulting images through your normal process and see if the grass is that much greener in my lawn than yours. If you can get past the fact that Adobe murders Nikon raw files, you probably will find at least some dynamic range improvements with the D750 over the 5DIII. The $64,000 question is whether those improvements can make you forget any camera features you might lose....and you might lose some, and is it worth selling off a full bag of L-glass at a loss and re-buying Nikkor equivalents?

My guess is that the latter question is one you're going to ask yourself forever if you don't do it. If you do do it, you might kick yourself for all of the $$$ you've lost in the process of converting, but you may be happier in the long-run.

[Mgoldman]

That it is finally better (after years and years), it might be good enough, when considering the other less important features such as 9 fps (Good for fast moving Acelas and rods down shots) and 28 MP - good for cropping shots (and a bit like gaining extra zoom on my zoom lenses). Still, $3,500 (less the sale of my 5D Mark III purchased reconditioned) is a lot of money for good enough!

Hopefully, there will be a similar improvement from 80D to 5D Mark IV as there is from D7200 to D750.

Next... the transition from PC to MAC, lol.....

/Mitch