Canon 5D MK4

Rojin said:
The D810 looked interesting with improved AF and a smaller RAW format. It's only sRAW though (9MP?!), why they didn't have an option around 22MP I don't know. Base ISO of 64 is interesting.
Click to expand...

The sRAW is pointless though, you are much better off using 12 bit compressed RAW- you get better quality and the full 36MP. If you really want small images then shoot JPEG. The same goes on the canon, sRAW just doesn't make sense.
If you want a 22MP image then you can shoot in the 1.2x crop mode and still get a better DR and high ISO performance than the 54MK3 and get 24MP images out at nearly 6 FPS (and that is on the D800)
 
Vertigo1 said:
As I've said before, I really don't see this being the case myself.

Customers in the market for a 5D3 or D800 or other body in that price range are very likely to already have a decent investment in one system.

Whilst the D800 obviously has a megapixel advantage, I think the percentage of people who are already invested in Canon but who are prepared to switch systems completely to get the higher resolution sensor will be incredibly small and certainly not enough to make any appreciably dent in Canon's bottom line.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people shoot landscape or needing an all in one nature setup switched. Many were already using the Nikon 14-24mm on an adapter anyway.

Canon went from being the MP king and having the cameras of choice for landscape, wildlife and studio to having no competitive model. Resolution of their 1D series actually decreased. There was little for the landscape togs or anyone needing pixel density at FF to do apart from switch camps, canon left them no option.

You see on forums like DPreview quite a few people switched or added the D800.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I personally know a friend who refused to get the D800 due to the pixel size, he thinks the 5D3 is his perfect camera.

I know another who went for the Nikon DF over the D800.
Click to expand...

People that do this normally come from a position of ignorance. Having extra pixels doesn't cost you anything these days (early sensors had a small costs in high ISO, but no longer), it only comes with advantages in detail and flexibility, even if down sampled. Arguments about memory cards and storage are laughable really- between the time the 12MP D700 was released and the D800 was released average memory and disk prices had decreased a greater value per GB. Were people complaining at the 12MP cameras that were relative much more expensive on storage?

It is a wholly unsustainable position, the next iteration of cameras will all be in the 40-50MP range for the high resolution bodies, 30MP+ will be the new low resolution body. 1D/D5 bodies might be 24mp, but affordable prosumer bodies will be much higher.
 
D.P. said:
People that do this normally come from a position of ignorance. Having extra pixels doesn't cost you anything these days (early sensors had a small costs in high ISO, but no longer), it only comes with advantages in detail and flexibility, even if down sampled. Arguments about memory cards and storage are laughable really- between the time the 12MP D700 was released and the D800 was released average memory and disk prices had decreased a greater value per GB. Were people complaining at the 12MP cameras that were relative much more expensive on storage?

It is a wholly unsustainable position, the next iteration of cameras will all be in the 40-50MP range for the high resolution bodies, 30MP+ will be the new low resolution body. 1D/D5 bodies might be 24mp, but affordable prosumer bodies will be much higher.
Click to expand...

Before you starting to call people ignorant...these 2 are not exactly lacking in IT knowledge, the argument about memory size they all know full well, same as all camera tech info. Both of them were once upon a time, full time IT consultants. They are doing it on more than pixel counts, but that is one of the reasons.
 
D.P. said:
The sRAW is pointless though, you are much better off using 12 bit compressed RAW- you get better quality and the full 36MP. If you really want small images then shoot JPEG. The same goes on the canon, sRAW just doesn't make sense.
If you want a 22MP image then you can shoot in the 1.2x crop mode and still get a better DR and high ISO performance than the 54MK3 and get 24MP images out at nearly 6 FPS (and that is on the D800)
Click to expand...

Shoot jpeg, really that's your answer?
 
D.P. said:
People that do this normally come from a position of ignorance. Having extra pixels doesn't cost you anything these days (early sensors had a small costs in high ISO, but no longer), it only comes with advantages in detail and flexibility, even if down sampled. Arguments about memory cards and storage are laughable really- between the time the 12MP D700 was released and the D800 was released average memory and disk prices had decreased a greater value per GB. Were people complaining at the 12MP cameras that were relative much more expensive on storage?

It is a wholly unsustainable position, the next iteration of cameras will all be in the 40-50MP range for the high resolution bodies, 30MP+ will be the new low resolution body. 1D/D5 bodies might be 24mp, but affordable prosumer bodies will be much higher.
Click to expand...

The above is a position of ignorance. A wedding tog shoots far more shots than a consumer, why spring for the storage space when it is not required? Being able to crop is irrelevant for most as well as you compose your shots in camera. Then you get onto processing which again is a much faster workflow with smaller files. These may not be concerns of yours, but being ignorant of the concerns of others doesn't make your view correct for everyone.
 
D.P. said:
Plenty of people shoot landscape or needing an all in one nature setup switched. Many were already using the Nikon 14-24mm on an adapter anyway.

Canon went from being the MP king and having the cameras of choice for landscape, wildlife and studio to having no competitive model. Resolution of their 1D series actually decreased. There was little for the landscape togs or anyone needing pixel density at FF to do apart from switch camps, canon left them no option.

You see on forums like DPreview quite a few people switched or added the D800.
Click to expand...

Funny how their "no competitive model" is managing fine outselling the D800?
 
jonneymendoza said:
o dear.

Seriously How can some think TP forums is more childish?
Click to expand...

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
 
Rojin said:
Funny how their "no competitive model" is managing fine outselling the D800?
Click to expand...

Comparing sales figures is pointless. Cheap point and shoots outsell any medium format cameras? More people take photos with an iPhone than a 5dmk3 so the iPhone must be better right?
 
Rojin said:
Shoot jpeg, really that's your answer?
Click to expand...

Shooting jpegs is fine, like many professional sports and photo journalists do! But I didn't say that was your only option.
12 bit compressed NEF gives smimilar sizes and better quality, and you can shoot in 1.2x crop and still get better image quality than the 5DMK3 while still having more resolution.

The sRAW options are stupid because the file sizes are as big as a 12bit compressed NEF but offer far less quality so are utterly pointless. Nikon added it as a checkbox feature when comparing canon models, they are useless and to be avoided at all costs.

RAW files are monochromatic- downsampling without demosaicing first is not possible. So color interpolation has to be done first and the color information stored in the sRAW so you have gone from saving say 12 or 14bits single channel monochromatic RAW to whatever bits (11 in Nikon sRAW) per 3 colour channels. So reduce pixel size by 4 times and colour information increases by 3 times. Great. And since you have to add the colour channels the camera white balance and tone curves get applied, so it is much like processing JPEG anyway.

As I said, Pointless. Use 12but compressed RAW, much higher quality. And if you really want small sizes and are willing for tone curves and WB to be applied like sRAW, shoot jpegs like many pros do.
 
Rojin said:
The above is a position of ignorance. A wedding tog shoots far more shots than a consumer, why spring for the storage space when it is not required? Being able to crop is irrelevant for most as well as you compose your shots in camera. Then you get onto processing which again is a much faster workflow with smaller files. These may not be concerns of yours, but being ignorant of the concerns of others doesn't make your view correct for everyone.
Click to expand...

I've never mentioned anything about wedding photographers?


The RAws can be downsampled when converting to DNG. Heck even saving them as DNGs in the first place will save a huge amount. The file size difference between the 22MP 5Dmk3 and 36MP D800 is completely inconsequential to workflow or costs.

No, you are coming from a position of ignorance here. Cropping is still important even for wedding togs, actually more important than pretty much any other field because you don't have time to change lenses. I can take a photo with my 24-70 attached where ideally I would have needed my 70-700 It without time to change lenses cropping the 70mm shot is often preferable to forgoing the shot altogether.
Lastly, There is very little difference in processing speed at all. A lot of noise by canon owners or people with ancient machines. I don't notice any speed difference between processing 12MP D90 photos or 36MP D800 photos on my 4 year old iMac. Only when exporting do you see a differce, and that is a slow process regardless.
 
mrk said:
Did I just read that people should shoot jpeg instead of RAW?
Click to expand...

No, you read that if you really want tiny file sizes and don't care about WB or tone curves then shooting JPEG is preferable to shooting sRAW and is the reason why many professional sports togs and PJs shoot JPEG over any kind of RAW (and is a large reason why many pros used earlier Canon DSLRs because the Nikon OOC jpegs sucked back then, while canons were excellent)

Of course you can read what you want but the facts spell out something different.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
I'm sorry that you can't handle the facts.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/05/21/what-exactly-is-the-new-nikon-sraw-file-format.aspx/
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom