I had to think about this for a day or so, but don't really understand it. Why is it a problem that a 15yr old gets a really good and expensive camera? Is it because he would be a better photog if he starts with a lesser camera? Or is it just because his daddy has more money? Or is it that the pro's really credit more to their gear than they think, and feel uncomfortable when hobbyists start buying "their" pro camera's?
One thing is for sure: I wouldn't have mind to get this level camera when I was 15
ciao!
Nick.
It's like buying your son/daughter a ferrari for their first car, to learn to drive in. Sure, it is technically a fantastic car - but not only is it likely to make learning to drive difficult, everything that makes it an amazing car will be lost on a learner driver.
In practical terms, it also a bloody big camera! Not really gonna encourage you to carry it around everywhere and learn how to use it...
Not that I'd recommend it for a starter camera, but it will let him take good photos, once he's good enough Who knows, maybe he's got an artistic eye. I know a few 15 yr olds that take competent photos with DSLRs (there are some here on DGrin), the only difference is that this guy's dad is willing to pay big bucks.
I do agree that it won't encourage taking it everywhere and shooting everything, which is how most people become good.
It's like buying your son/daughter a ferrari for their first car, to learn to drive in. Sure, it is technically a fantastic car - but not only is it likely to make learning to drive, everything that makes it an amazing car will be lost on a learner driver.
Ah... we first have to suffer lesser camera's before we can appreciate the technology in the high end gear :-) Okay, but how about future camera's... won't they get even more sophisticated or even revolutionary new technology? The kid will appreciate that after suffering the, then obsolete, tech in the 1D4!
Does a good camera equal a harder-to-master camera? Are top DSLR's made more difficult to operate than entry level DSLR's? What is the real reason we buy entry level gear for ones first camera... might it just simply be a budget driven decision?
I guess I have too many questions
ciao!
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
My daughter is looking to buy her first DSLR and I wish to give her some advice. The choice will be between the Canon 60D and the Nikon D7000. She will be photographing children and maternity. Have any of you considered the above options if you were buying your first DSLR based on today's technology? Any other choices?
Thanks.
John
I will be watching this thread John as I have been looking at these 2 camera a bit. I am really hesitant where Sony is headed!
Ron
"The question is not what you look at, but what you see". Henry David Thoreau
I've got a D7000, came from a D40 and before that film with a Canon AE-1 program and some other film stuff before. I have got to say that the D7000 leaves me wanting for nothing. I do lots of night low light stuff too. I have a few friends that have Canons and one with a 60D. Ya know what, good for them. I do know that if all my stuff was stolen tomorrow I would not bat an eye at replacing it with a D7000 again. If the 60D works for you, great, not gonna hear me saying one or the other is the best, just what works for me. Guess I have been around long enough and seen enough magazines from a bunch of different hobbies saying XYZ is the best to only see that sink into oblivion. (ask me about my last scuba regulator that was rated the best that I have had nothing but problems with). The mags are paid geeks way to often.
Hope you can find a camera that works great!!! Lots of them do.
Luckily I have a brother who shoots canon so I've always been able to compare cameras. That said, the canon vs nikon arguments have always seemed dumb to me. The technology will always get better. The pictures will always get sharper and faster.
The biggest difference for me personally has much more to do with ergonomics than anything else. I LOVE nikon's menu/button system and layout. Every time I have the 5D in my hands, it feels pretty much backwards to me. Even the stupid canon meter is backwards in the view finder.
I LOVE the feel of cheap nikon bodies. Small but sure. The first time I picked up a cheap canon body (T2i, I think it was), it felt like a plastic toy. Again, subjective but objectively, all of these cameras are just tools.
Would you buy a John Deer tractor over a Cub Cadet? WHO CARES. They both cut grass. So yeah, who cares. Get what you like because you like it. The technology will continue to get better... will your skillset? THAT is a much more important question. The competition is nice for capitalism and better products at cheaper prices
DXO measures the D7000 sensor beats the 60D in RAW just about every way till sunday
In fact surprisingly the D7000 sensor beats out the D700 sensor in a few points!
The DXO is a joke!
Even a cheap Canon Rebel had better ISO performance and image quality than the Nikon D90 ! - and that was coming SOOC !
The DXO is a joke!
Even a cheap Canon Rebel had better ISO performance and image quality than the Nikon D90 ! - and that was coming SOOC !
DXOMark is not a joke. It uses DXO software to process RAW files from different cameras and they do allow "normalized" data measurement to an 8" x 10" sized print, to give a more even comparison of printed image output (as opposed to the pixel measurement only.) They only measure RAW file output and "only" from their own software. If you use different RAW processing or if you shoot to JPG you will not experience their results.
These 2 differences make DXOMark a valuable but unique site for camera image data comparisons. Trying to compare their results directly to other sites is a lesson in frustration, because no one else measures the same way. Instead you need to use DXOMark as an additional source to other camera-image sites.
Most importantly, I encourage everyone not to compare cameras by what they are not. Rather, it's more important to compare cameras by what they can do for you in your particular situation of needs and desires.
I can only conclude that either the Nikon sensors are far, far beyond Canon sensor technology, or the DXO method of testing somehow better suits Nikon sensors. I can't see any pro photog using Canon if DXO is the final truth about sensor quality.
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
I can only conclude that either the Nikon sensors are far, far beyond Canon sensor technology, or the DXO method of testing somehow better suits Nikon sensors. I can't see any pro photog using Canon if DXO is the final truth about sensor quality.
cheers,
Nick.
You are assuming a couple of things:
1. That the DXO differences are meaningful in real world situations.
2. That sensor quality trumps all other considerations (ergonomics, features, lens quality and availability, etc.)
3. That Pros drop all their equipment and rush out to buy the next best thing, even if it means abandoning their entire infrastructure of equipment. (Hint: only hobbyists can afford to do that.)
1. That the DXO differences are meaningful in real world situations.
2. That sensor quality trumps all other considerations (ergonomics, features, lens quality and availability, etc.)
3. That Pros drop all their equipment and rush out to buy the next best thing, even if it means abandoning their entire infrastructure of equipment. (Hint: only hobbyists can afford to do that.)
You're right - DXO is valid, but it's not the only factor. It would be like buying a car based on fuel economy alone. If I did that, I'd have trouble driving my family of six + pets anywhere since the most fuel efficient vehicles won't accommodate all of us. You have to look at the full package and measure against your need. Not everyones needs are the same.
I've enjoyed this thread and the lack of common sense displayed from time to time. Nikon vs. Cannon discussions rarely result in anything healthy. dunno
I am beginning to believe that the "hobbyists" are just spoiled by marketing and the internets these days.
:cry
I recently met someone that says his dad is buying him a Canon 1D4, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, 24-70mm.... For his first camera! and he's................ only 15 years old!
I want to believe he's talking out of his ass, but somehow I believe him.
can you give me is # maybe next week he'll want to trade it for a really cool skate board!!!
wish i owned that package
to the OP ....either would be excellent i would think .....think lenses for the future
1. That the DXO differences are meaningful in real world situations.
From what I understand of DXO, they compare sensors based on how prints in real world differ... so yes, I assume DXO differences are indeed meaningful in real world situations, unlike other very technical differences that do not show in prints etc.
2. That sensor quality trumps all other considerations (ergonomics, features, lens quality and availability, etc.)
Sensor is just one factor like (I think) everybody on this forum understands. However, things like menu structure are mentioned all the time while I never before read anything about this huge difference in sensor quality.
3. That Pros drop all their equipment and rush out to buy the next best thing, even if it means abandoning their entire infrastructure of equipment. (Hint: only hobbyists can afford to do that.)
Okay, let me rephrase then: if the sensor quality difference is indeed this big, while all the rest of the features are either comparable or easily adapted to, why would a new generation of professionals who did not invest into equipment yet choose for the lesser quality results in prints?
I know I push this a bit far for pro users because the differences between top of the line camera's of both brands are small, but there are many pro's who use say a 7D, and DXO (if they are correct) shows a humiliating defeat of the 7D sensor (score 66) vs the D7000 (score 80). I don't think this has been discussed much if at all and for me it's a bigger factor than not liking the menu of one or the other brand.
Would I trade in my 7D for a D7000? No way
ciao!
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
... I can only conclude that either the Nikon sensors are far, far beyond Canon sensor technology, or the DXO method of testing somehow better suits Nikon sensors. I can't see any pro photog using Canon if DXO is the final truth about sensor quality.
cheers,
Nick.
If you were to explore a bit further you would find that the Pentax K-5 leads the Nikon D7000 in terms of high-ISO random noise (SNR) and in terms of high-ISO dynamic range (DR).
Perhaps you should conclude that everyone should be buying Pentax K-5 dSLRs?
The truth is that "yes", the camera and imager manufacturers have figured a way to "fudge the figures" in their favor, knowing now that users actually look at these charts of data hoping for help in their selection of cameras.
The human eyesight system is less sensitive to detail loss in the deepest shadows, but very sensitive to any noise in those regions. Manufacturers are exploiting that trait to promote both the SNR and DR figures.
What Nikon and Pentax and Sony are doing with their D7000, K-5 and a580 (respectively, they all use the same, or very similar, Sony imager) is to tweak the RAW image before it gets recorded to a file. Specifically, they all use noise reduction and masking technique to get the darkest hues and tones as noise free as possible. Canon is simply not using as much noise reduction in these same regions, although it's clear that the latest cameras are all using this technique to some degree over just a few years ago.
The practical implications are improved RAW noise and DR figures, but at the expense of underexposure recovery. In other words, make sure not to underexpose with the latest cameras because there is less detail information to recover in the deepest shadows.
"But ziggy, I recover underexposed images all the time with my (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, ...) and I don't see any problems?" Of course you can still recover from "some" underexposure, but the deepest shadow areas are affected.
In practical terms, there is not so much difference between the images produced by all of the afore mentioned cameras, including the Canon 60D. The reason is that while Canon is not doing as much noise reduction as the Sony-imager-based cameras in a similar class, they are doing enough to produce pleasing images.
Of course, 6 years from now all cameras will be able to produce SNR and DR figures that make these figures look sad. I don't recommend that anyone wait that long for another camera purchase because you will miss a lot of greatness from all of these manufacturers in the mean time.
Most excellent post, Ziggy. Personally I would rather have my camera err on the side of less RAW noise reduction as noise reduction is almost always accompanied by detail reduction.
The truth is that "yes", the camera and imager manufacturers have figured a way to "fudge the figures" in their favor, knowing now that users actually look at these charts of data hoping for help in their selection of cameras.
[...]
What Nikon and Pentax and Sony are doing with their D7000, K-5 and a580 (respectively, they all use the same, or very similar, Sony imager) is to tweak the RAW image before it gets recorded to a file. Specifically, they all use noise reduction and masking technique to get the darkest hues and tones as noise free as possible. Canon is simply not using as much noise reduction in these same regions, although it's clear that the latest cameras are all using this technique to some degree over just a few years ago.
Great post Ziggy! Today, I learned that raw files are actually already processed in camera (I thought they were.. well, raw) and that comparisons of raw data are thus not conclusive.
I don't think I was alone in not knowing this
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Y trouble driving my family of six + pets anywhere since the most fuel efficient vehicles won't accommodate all of us. You have to look at the full package and measure against your need. Not everyones needs are the same.
I've enjoyed this thread and the lack of common sense displayed from time to time. Nikon vs. Cannon discussions rarely result in anything healthy.
Actually DXO is a joke, just look on a forum like http://photography-on-the.net/forum where people own both systems. Or join a photography club where you go on a photowalk and people with different cameras are photographing at the exact same subject. Nikons users look at the Canon pics and say, why are your pics better?
Priceless !
I was about to point out that it's $6100 (not that it really matters), but I thought I'd check just in case. When did it go up!?! Wow.
3. That Pros drop all their equipment and rush out to buy the next best thing, even if it means abandoning their entire infrastructure of equipment. (Hint: only hobbyists can afford to do that.)
Um, pros do that. When Nikon had delays with the D2X, pros were threatening to switch to Canon. Some did. When the D3 came out, a bunch of pros switched to that from the 1D3. If they had waited a year they could have had the ISO of the 5DII, 1Ds3, and later the 1D4 and future cameras. Pros do this a lot. It's like their current camera is useless now that the new model from the other brand is out. They can't wait 6 months. Not all of them, just some of them. Quite a few, actually. Just watch the buy and sell forums on fredmiranda.
Only pros can afford to do that Oh, and rich hobbyists
Actually DXO is a joke, just look on a forum like http://photography-on-the.net/forum where people own both systems. Or join a photography club where you go on a photowalk and people with different cameras are photographing at the exact same subject. Nikons users look at the Canon pics and say, why are your pics better?
Priceless !
You know what, I once shot a wedding along side another photographer that shoots with Canon. When ever I saw his photos on his camera, I would think to myself, " Crap, his photos look perfect!".
A week later, I get a call from him, "Hey, I need your help, I screwed up on my photos. I need you help"
At first I thought he just kinda, sorta wasn't perfect. But when he did come over and showed me his.. I gotta say that they were HORRIBLE. Nothing like what I saw on the back of his camera. Tons of noise, under exposed, skin tones looked plastic like and some banding.
So, lesson learned, never get envious of your canon buddies. As they're probably struggling to get the perfect IQ too.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
You know what, I once shot a wedding along side another photographer that shoots with Canon. When ever I saw his photos on his camera, I would think to myself, " Crap, his photos look perfect!".
A week later, I get a call from him, "Hey, I need your help, I screwed up on my photos. I need you help"
At first I thought he just kinda, sorta wasn't perfect. But when he did come over and showed me his.. I gotta say that they were HORRIBLE. Nothing like what I saw on the back of his camera. Tons of noise, under exposed, skin tones looked plastic like and some banding.
So, lesson learned, never get envious of your canon buddies. As they're probably struggling to get the perfect IQ too.
Ditto. I post-process about ten thousand images a month, both Canon and Nikon, and I have to say the differences between the two are so negligible in the real world, I just laugh when people argue so strongly about buying one brand or the other for it's "image quality"...
Honestly, the differences in PERSONAL PREFERENCE are going to be much greater when it comes to the look of colors, or the quality of noise. And personally, I do find Nikon NEF files to be much easier to work with, (in Lightroom at least) although the 5D "classic" certainly did produce some gorgeous JPG files. (Not as much of a fan of their newer 21 megapixel sensor, unfortunately...)
Just my personal experience and opinionated opinion,
=Matt=
Somebody did a test with the amount of noise reduction applied in RAW files for various cameras.. I am not sure about the link.
At ISO 800 and above there is indeed some noise reduction applied in RAW files even when NR is set to off.
You know what, I once shot a wedding along side another photographer that shoots with Canon. When ever I saw his photos on his camera, I would think to myself, " Crap, his photos look perfect!".
A week later, I get a call from him, "Hey, I need your help, I screwed up on my photos. I need you help"
At first I thought he just kinda, sorta wasn't perfect. But when he did come over and showed me his.. I gotta say that they were HORRIBLE. Nothing like what I saw on the back of his camera. Tons of noise, under exposed, skin tones looked plastic like and some banding.
So, lesson learned, never get envious of your canon buddies. As they're probably struggling to get the perfect IQ too.
Or join a photography club where you go on a photowalk and people with different cameras are photographing at the exact same subject. Nikons users look at the Canon pics and say, why are your pics better?
Priceless !
Why do you like the 5D files better than the mk2? I'd think the newer sensor would have better colors. I don't know if this is the case or not, but generally I've found that the colors from newer sensors are warmer/more natural/more pleasing than the older sensors (as in, say, 1Ds or D1X). Maybe it's just a matter of resolution?
Comments
It's like buying your son/daughter a ferrari for their first car, to learn to drive in. Sure, it is technically a fantastic car - but not only is it likely to make learning to drive difficult, everything that makes it an amazing car will be lost on a learner driver.
In practical terms, it also a bloody big camera! Not really gonna encourage you to carry it around everywhere and learn how to use it...
The D7000 get's a 1% lower score on that site - hardly a huge "case closed" difference
I do agree that it won't encourage taking it everywhere and shooting everything, which is how most people become good.
And yes, I do believe him as well.
Enjoy
FYI: There is the occasional use of vulgar language in these videos.
Ah... we first have to suffer lesser camera's before we can appreciate the technology in the high end gear :-) Okay, but how about future camera's... won't they get even more sophisticated or even revolutionary new technology? The kid will appreciate that after suffering the, then obsolete, tech in the 1D4!
Does a good camera equal a harder-to-master camera? Are top DSLR's made more difficult to operate than entry level DSLR's? What is the real reason we buy entry level gear for ones first camera... might it just simply be a budget driven decision?
I guess I have too many questions
ciao!
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Ron
http://ront.smugmug.com/
Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
I will be watching this thread John as I have been looking at these 2 camera a bit. I am really hesitant where Sony is headed!
Ron
http://ront.smugmug.com/
Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
Hope you can find a camera that works great!!! Lots of them do.
^ That has been my path.
AE1 -> 1DMKIII -> 7D -> 5DMKII
^ That's my brother's path.
Luckily I have a brother who shoots canon so I've always been able to compare cameras. That said, the canon vs nikon arguments have always seemed dumb to me. The technology will always get better. The pictures will always get sharper and faster.
The biggest difference for me personally has much more to do with ergonomics than anything else. I LOVE nikon's menu/button system and layout. Every time I have the 5D in my hands, it feels pretty much backwards to me. Even the stupid canon meter is backwards in the view finder.
I LOVE the feel of cheap nikon bodies. Small but sure. The first time I picked up a cheap canon body (T2i, I think it was), it felt like a plastic toy. Again, subjective but objectively, all of these cameras are just tools.
Would you buy a John Deer tractor over a Cub Cadet? WHO CARES. They both cut grass. So yeah, who cares. Get what you like because you like it. The technology will continue to get better... will your skillset? THAT is a much more important question. The competition is nice for capitalism and better products at cheaper prices
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/663|0/(appareil2)/680|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon
DXO measures the D7000 sensor beats the 60D in RAW just about every way till sunday
In fact surprisingly the D7000 sensor beats out the D700 sensor in a few points!
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
The DXO is a joke!
Even a cheap Canon Rebel had better ISO performance and image quality than the Nikon D90 ! - and that was coming SOOC !
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
DXOMark is not a joke. It uses DXO software to process RAW files from different cameras and they do allow "normalized" data measurement to an 8" x 10" sized print, to give a more even comparison of printed image output (as opposed to the pixel measurement only.) They only measure RAW file output and "only" from their own software. If you use different RAW processing or if you shoot to JPG you will not experience their results.
These 2 differences make DXOMark a valuable but unique site for camera image data comparisons. Trying to compare their results directly to other sites is a lesson in frustration, because no one else measures the same way. Instead you need to use DXOMark as an additional source to other camera-image sites.
Most importantly, I encourage everyone not to compare cameras by what they are not. Rather, it's more important to compare cameras by what they can do for you in your particular situation of needs and desires.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Considering Ziggy's post that DXO is a valid score/comparison method, I find even more surprising results:
- D7000 beats 7D
- D7000 beats 5Dmk2
- D7000 beats 1Dmk4
- D7000 equals 1DsMk3 exactly ($1,300 Nikon equals $7,100 Canon!)
I can only conclude that either the Nikon sensors are far, far beyond Canon sensor technology, or the DXO method of testing somehow better suits Nikon sensors. I can't see any pro photog using Canon if DXO is the final truth about sensor quality.
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
You are assuming a couple of things:
1. That the DXO differences are meaningful in real world situations.
2. That sensor quality trumps all other considerations (ergonomics, features, lens quality and availability, etc.)
3. That Pros drop all their equipment and rush out to buy the next best thing, even if it means abandoning their entire infrastructure of equipment. (Hint: only hobbyists can afford to do that.)
You're right - DXO is valid, but it's not the only factor. It would be like buying a car based on fuel economy alone. If I did that, I'd have trouble driving my family of six + pets anywhere since the most fuel efficient vehicles won't accommodate all of us. You have to look at the full package and measure against your need. Not everyones needs are the same.
I've enjoyed this thread and the lack of common sense displayed from time to time. Nikon vs. Cannon discussions rarely result in anything healthy.
wish i owned that package
to the OP ....either would be excellent i would think .....think lenses for the future
Sensor is just one factor like (I think) everybody on this forum understands. However, things like menu structure are mentioned all the time while I never before read anything about this huge difference in sensor quality.
Okay, let me rephrase then: if the sensor quality difference is indeed this big, while all the rest of the features are either comparable or easily adapted to, why would a new generation of professionals who did not invest into equipment yet choose for the lesser quality results in prints?
I know I push this a bit far for pro users because the differences between top of the line camera's of both brands are small, but there are many pro's who use say a 7D, and DXO (if they are correct) shows a humiliating defeat of the 7D sensor (score 66) vs the D7000 (score 80). I don't think this has been discussed much if at all and for me it's a bigger factor than not liking the menu of one or the other brand.
Would I trade in my 7D for a D7000? No way
ciao!
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Careful there, I know ziggy personally and that's not quite what he said. Plus the DXOMark results are subject to interpretation.
If you were to explore a bit further you would find that the Pentax K-5 leads the Nikon D7000 in terms of high-ISO random noise (SNR) and in terms of high-ISO dynamic range (DR).
Perhaps you should conclude that everyone should be buying Pentax K-5 dSLRs?
The truth is that "yes", the camera and imager manufacturers have figured a way to "fudge the figures" in their favor, knowing now that users actually look at these charts of data hoping for help in their selection of cameras.
The human eyesight system is less sensitive to detail loss in the deepest shadows, but very sensitive to any noise in those regions. Manufacturers are exploiting that trait to promote both the SNR and DR figures.
What Nikon and Pentax and Sony are doing with their D7000, K-5 and a580 (respectively, they all use the same, or very similar, Sony imager) is to tweak the RAW image before it gets recorded to a file. Specifically, they all use noise reduction and masking technique to get the darkest hues and tones as noise free as possible. Canon is simply not using as much noise reduction in these same regions, although it's clear that the latest cameras are all using this technique to some degree over just a few years ago.
The practical implications are improved RAW noise and DR figures, but at the expense of underexposure recovery. In other words, make sure not to underexpose with the latest cameras because there is less detail information to recover in the deepest shadows.
"But ziggy, I recover underexposed images all the time with my (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, ...) and I don't see any problems?" Of course you can still recover from "some" underexposure, but the deepest shadow areas are affected.
In practical terms, there is not so much difference between the images produced by all of the afore mentioned cameras, including the Canon 60D. The reason is that while Canon is not doing as much noise reduction as the Sony-imager-based cameras in a similar class, they are doing enough to produce pleasing images.
Of course, 6 years from now all cameras will be able to produce SNR and DR figures that make these figures look sad. I don't recommend that anyone wait that long for another camera purchase because you will miss a lot of greatness from all of these manufacturers in the mean time.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Link to my Smugmug site
Great post Ziggy! Today, I learned that raw files are actually already processed in camera (I thought they were.. well, raw) and that comparisons of raw data are thus not conclusive.
I don't think I was alone in not knowing this
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Actually DXO is a joke, just look on a forum like
http://photography-on-the.net/forum where people own both systems. Or join a photography club where you go on a photowalk and people with different cameras are photographing at the exact same subject. Nikons users look at the Canon pics and say, why are your pics better?
Priceless !
I was about to point out that it's $6100 (not that it really matters), but I thought I'd check just in case. When did it go up!?!
Um, pros do that. When Nikon had delays with the D2X, pros were threatening to switch to Canon. Some did. When the D3 came out, a bunch of pros switched to that from the 1D3. If they had waited a year they could have had the ISO of the 5DII, 1Ds3, and later the 1D4 and future cameras. Pros do this a lot. It's like their current camera is useless now that the new model from the other brand is out. They can't wait 6 months. Not all of them, just some of them. Quite a few, actually. Just watch the buy and sell forums on fredmiranda.
Only pros can afford to do that
You know what, I once shot a wedding along side another photographer that shoots with Canon. When ever I saw his photos on his camera, I would think to myself, " Crap, his photos look perfect!".
A week later, I get a call from him, "Hey, I need your help, I screwed up on my photos. I need you help"
At first I thought he just kinda, sorta wasn't perfect. But when he did come over and showed me his.. I gotta say that they were HORRIBLE. Nothing like what I saw on the back of his camera. Tons of noise, under exposed, skin tones looked plastic like and some banding.
So, lesson learned, never get envious of your canon buddies. As they're probably struggling to get the perfect IQ too.
Honestly, the differences in PERSONAL PREFERENCE are going to be much greater when it comes to the look of colors, or the quality of noise. And personally, I do find Nikon NEF files to be much easier to work with, (in Lightroom at least) although the 5D "classic" certainly did produce some gorgeous JPG files. (Not as much of a fan of their newer 21 megapixel sensor, unfortunately...)
Just my personal experience and opinionated opinion,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
At ISO 800 and above there is indeed some noise reduction applied in RAW files even when NR is set to off.
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
Why do you like the 5D files better than the mk2? I'd think the newer sensor would have better colors. I don't know if this is the case or not, but generally I've found that the colors from newer sensors are warmer/more natural/more pleasing than the older sensors (as in, say, 1Ds or D1X). Maybe it's just a matter of resolution?