Canon 5D MK4

redline said:
Dear god, what a bunch of numpties :mad: do you have any idea how pathetic you sound?... Go out and improve your skills in the 'art' of photography instead of wasting your time trying to score points over differences that mean so little... I mean, no one has managed to take a decent picture with any of these cameras have they?... or any digital camera over the past ten years....... oh wait a minute :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly, I'm annoyed with myself at getting drawn in yet again. So I apologise and won't continue to fan the fire. Raymond called it early on in the thread to be honest!
 
Data straight from canon:
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/eos_qt_small_raw_images_article.htmlp

RAW: 22.1MP saves as 27.1MB
mRAW: 10.5MP saves as 19.1MB

So half the number of pixels still requires 70% of the storage space of the original RAW.
Not sure if canon allows 12 bit or compressed RAW but that will make the file sizes far smaller for the original RAW but won't affect the mRAW.
Going from 14bits to 12 bits reduced file size but 15% and only has marginal effects in the deep shadows! much less than the sRAW options. Going lossless compressed reduces sizes by 40% with zero affects on IQ. Going lossy compressed gives images 50% smaller.

12bit compressed RAWs from the D800 are only 30MB, so very similar to the standard canon output, I assume on canon you can save 12bit RAWs as well

If I was a canon 5dmk3 shooter I would much prefer to shoot 12but RAWs at 22MP than the mRAW which would only be about 15% smaller but half the resolution and reduced colour quality.
 
Last edited:
Rojin said:
I'm sorry that you have lost credibility as far as I am concerned. It never bothered me that you're a Nikon fan, it gives more amusement than anything else. Your straw man arguments are now tiresome and it's a shame that you like to selectively pick and continue to ignore those that have different requirements from yourself.

Time to move on, I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

What a strange attitude.:rolleyes:

You seem to think downsampled RAWs are important features.
I have presented plenty of reasoning with evidence why they are to be avoided and you act like a child because you hate to be proven wrong with evidence.

My post above was made before I read this, and sic e it contains factual information I will leave it for others so perhaps they won't make the mistake of using may mRAW/sRAW options.
 
Just one last thing :D You're fixating on MB but continue to ignore the pixel size reduction benefits as well. It is a fact that many professional Canon shooters do use the reduced formats when shooting events/weddings etc. purely because they do not need the larger file sizes (MB and pixel). Now off course we know that you think all Canon shoppers are idiots, me especially :D but there were also plenty of D700 who also just don't need to be shooting at 36MP. You don't have to look far on the inherent to find examples of both.

For me, I never had the need for the smaller RAW formats although I shot a lot of jpegs when shooting football tournaments (horrid experience to be honest!). If I did go the D810 route I'd consider the 12bit route that you've highlighted. I'm not a volume shooter anymore though, this discussion all stemmed from your reply to Raymond's post which I think wasn't fair in considering those users requirements and arbitrarily deciding they hadn't considered their situation correctly based on your opinion.
 
Rojin said:
I took the bait sorry, I shall not continue this old ground yet again.

TP is a whole new level, it's becoming the UK's DP! :D

All I'm saying is that individual users needs are all different. Also cameras are just tools, I shoot Fuji more than anything at the moment and I'm quite interested in the D810 and even a Sony A7 at the moment.

Personally I will be very surprised if Canon bring out a class leading sensor, I just don't see it happening. It will likely be strong again at high ISO but give ground at low ISO. Canon may have changed their focus, it'll be interesting to esher they bring. Of course they will be bring out something amazing the day after I sell all gear to move to Nikon, Fuji or Sony :D
Click to expand...

dont know what TP forum or threads you visit but im an active member there and i have yet to see kids arguing over gear.

This thread reminded me why i dont really dive into this section of the forum..
 
jonneymendoza said:
dont know what TP forum or threads you visit but im an active member there and i have yet to see kids arguing over gear.

This thread reminded me why i dont really dive into this section of the forum..
Click to expand...

Yeah I've seen you on there.. and AV :)

In fairness for the last year I've only kept an eye on the Film, Sports and For Sale areas as I've mainly been using FM. So if it's not bad as it was so much the better.
 
jonneymendoza said:
dont know what TP forum or threads you visit but im an active member there and i have yet to see kids arguing over gear.

This thread reminded me why i dont really dive into this section of the forum..
Click to expand...

From my observations, in the past 2 years it has always been

D.P. and An Exception battling for Nikon, spewing every links, charts and articles under the sun and everyone else saying you should care more about the art instead.

Rinse and repeat.

I never see this kind of thing on any other forum...funnily enough, I don't see D.P. and An Exception on there...:p

Raymond Lin said:
Let's stop there now before this turn into one of those mine is better than yours exercise.
Click to expand...

Yawn.
 
Last edited:
Funny how I get called a Nikon Fanboy in this thread despite tha fact that all I have done is said a new Nikon camera is not particularly interesting (just an s model but Nikon has changed their naming system), that a new feature it has is pointless and should be avoided (with substantial evidence to backup the claim) and said that Canon don't have a high resolution high DR camera body that competes against the D800 (which is a fact). Not that latter is not the same as saying the the 5DMK3 is not as god ad the D800 - I never said that, for all I care the 5DMK3 could be far better than the D800 but 22MP < 36MP. That is just basic math.

I have never said anything negative about Canon or the 5Dmk3 or anything like the 5DMK3 is bad because of resolution etc. People have interpreted what they want to read to fulfill their own personal bias.


The fact is I believe the 5DMK3 is a fantastic camera, well rounded, excellent autofocus and features with the a sensor that has plenty of resolution for many tasks. Does anyone REQUIRE 36MP for a wedding, NO, but then 22MP is also not needed. 12MP is plenty for standard event shooting for the size of prints typically needed (heck, even 4-6MP is sufficient for many).
However that is irreverent to the point I made that there is a significant market for high resolution sensors which Canon currently doesn't provide an option for, despite being leaders in high resolution sensors until recently. Be it anyone needing to print very large (studio, landscape, commercial etc.) or more commonly people needing pixel density. Do I need 36MP images, no, not really but I do need as many pixels as possible covering the feathers of an osprey catching a fish. 36Mp is a very low pixel density and gives significantly less detail than a 24MP APS-C sensor which have been proven to be extremely effective if you avoid kit lenses. That equates to 56MP in FF terms and even then that is a very low pixel density compared to many of the mirrorless cameras.

Then there is the actual technical details of imaging. Sampling theory dictates that if you want to accurately replicate an analogue signal then you need to sample at twice the nyquist frequency. Ultimately this means that if you want a very high quality 12 MP image you ideally want to photograph it at twice the linear frequency - so 48MP (2x horizontal and 2x vertical) in total. And that is ignoring effects of the Bayer filter - the actual colour spatial frequency is recorded at a much lower resolution and interpolated across.


The same theory is why 4K cameras are getting so popular - you record the image at twice the linear frequency of a 1080P display so when downsampling you get much better 1080p content.




Anyway, like it or not higher resolution cameras are coming to both Nikon and Canon, 42-56MP FF sensor have been tested by many under NDA from both companies. You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it wont happen or you can realize that adding additional resolution has many benefits as long as there is no impact on IQ (which there isn't with modern sensors), even if your ultimate display resolution will be much less.

it is important to see the facts that storage costs are so much cheaper now than when the earlier DSLRs were released that 50MP is really nothing at all to be concerned about.
When I purchased my 6MP D70 I could only afford 1GB CF card (512Mb were still common). My HD was 80GB and I had 512MB memory.

10 years later my camera resolution has increased only 6x (and APS-C a mere 4x). My HD is 25X larger, my system memory is 16x greater 9and I only have 8GB which gets swamped with VM) and I can easily afford 32GB CF cards so have at least 32x the memory card space.
So where exactly is the problem? Even 100MP would be easier and cheaper to handle these days! And that is comparing an entry level camera from 2004 to a top end camera now. Canon had released the 16MP FF 1DsmkII back in 2004 so camera resolution has only increased around 2.25X yet computers have increased storage capacity by 16-32X in the same period.

Cameras have a long way to go - being on the 50MP high res models!
 
The phenomena you are witnessing is psychological fanboy projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

We are all infallible, and we all have tribalistic tendencies to some degree. That can have us prefer X brand over Y even if logically it's idiotic. Where it crosses the line though imo, is when people insult others with no provocation. It's particularly tiresome when there is an absence of witt, which would otherwise provide a source of amusement and/or even respect as a consolation.
 
And said:
So are you saying Canon have no competitive cameras?
Click to expand...

Just want to clarify the following.

Are you asking, is DP saying Canon have no competitive camera's (in general).
Or that Canon have no competitive camera's in relation to landscape, wildlife and studio with the assumption megapixels are a high priority specification in those genres that Canon cannot currently match?
 
If I needed to print large (no matter what I shoot), I'd most likely either have a D800/E or if I wanted to use a wider range of lenses an A7r. Going MF is a tad pricey!

Personally I rarely print above 15x10, so even a 24MP camera exceeds my needs.
 
And said:
So are you saying Canon have no competitive cameras?
Click to expand...

Yes, they have no camera capable of high resolution images compared with their 2 competitors, Nikon and Sony. Thus they aren't competitive in that market segment.
That is not the same thing as saying Canon don't have competitive cameras or the 5dmk3 is not competitive against the D800. And I never said such things!:mad:
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
If I was a photog with those requirements then I would be using medium format.
Click to expand...

Wrong answer - you wont find any telephoto lenses for MF that will give a pixel advantage over a D800. MF is mostly useless for wildlife.
MF maybe desirable over 35mm for things like landscape but it comes at a high price, large size and big weight with limited options. Not everyone has deep pockets to throw 50K at a hobby, a D800 and FF lenses cost a fraction of a MF setup.

and the same logic can be applied to most of photography - If you want to shoot wedding photography with shallow DoF then you need to shoot MF. But for some reason people don't! I wonder why that could be ....

A completely hollow argument I'm afraid.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom