Canon 5D MK4

D.P. said:
What is it canon have the Nikon don't?:confused:
Nikon have a 70-300, 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D, 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4.0, 300mm f/4.0 and f2.8 (and even f/2.0), 400mm f/2.8, 500/600/800mm primes, affordable 200-400mm f/4.0, 80-400mm f/5.6 plus multiplier older generations of all of these at lower prices.
Moreover, the Nikon equivalents are typically a fair whack cheaper.

Sure, canon have 400mm f/5.6 but the 300mm with 1.4TC is a great performing combo. Canon also have a very expensive 400mm f/4.0 DO which is an interesting lens but hardly mainstream or a must have lens.
Click to expand...

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G - Not the greatest IQ.

Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 - A £4.8K lens? Stretching the meaning of affordable.

80-200mm f/2.8 - Not bad at all.. only thing I dislike is the front rotating element.

In all honesty though, seems like the gap isn't as gapy as I originally thought. I'm no brand whore and I'll go with whatever meets my wants/needs. I appreciate the enlightenment.. now get out, you Nikon lover ;)

a1ex2001 said:
Massive exaggeration of the situation, canon still have massive market share, yes they do need to step up but it's not twist or bust time hell if they start to notice a serious sales drop they could just buy Sony sensors and instantly match nikons performance like they've just done with a compact I forget the name!
Click to expand...

I don't think it is an exaggeration. They have a massive market share at the moment, yes, but what will happen if they don't step up? They can't just pump out a new product over night if it fails to match or beat its rivals. I can't imagine Canon adopting Sony sensors. I think they are too proud to do that with their current management direction.
 
The 70-300mm VR is just as good if not better than the canon version, in fact it compares nicely with the 70-300L up to 200mm (the canon all is sharper at 300mm and built much better). Put this way it copes perfectly well on my D800 and is just as sharp as my 70-200mm f/2.8 up to 200mm. It looses it sharpness slightly going beyond 200mm but remains perfectly capable for its price. Profesionals use the lens all the time, it is not sharpness that is the drawback but aperture in low light.

The front element of the 80-200mm doesn't rotate.I owned one and regret selling it for the70-200Vr, the 80-200 was sharper and focused just as fast.

The 200-400mm may seem expensive but it is half the price of canon.
I listed it to be complete because I can only think of 2 tele lenses canon sell the Nikon don't (400mm f/5.6 and f/4.0 DO). It was actually canon that was missing a 200-400 f/4.0 for about 30 years now.
Actually I can add a third, canon 70-300mm DO.

I didn't want to be confrontational but I was perplexed at how someone could think there are seriously more canon tele options available. The other myth banded about is the price of Nikon lenses, they are actually much cheaper than canon for the most part.
 
Last edited:
As I do a lot of low-light stuff I'd love to have reliable 5 stop push-ability, but I think that's more of a boon to enthusiasts than pros- if I was regularly needing to push shots by 5 stops then I'd be looking at my technique.

If I was going to move to full frame I'd be seriously looking at Nikon, but as it stands currently I just couldn't give up my 70-200 f2.8 mkII. Apart from it's performance I'll happily admit I love the colour, the feel, the red ring and everything about it. It's a joy to own and use.

The wife recently mentioned that I wasn't using my DSLR lenses and I should think about selling them. I gave her a look that instantly ended that conversation. (She's right though).
 
I'd love to go FF now but just cannot justify the cost while changing my EFS 17-55 for a 24-70 at the same time. I think I will have to wait for the MK4 to then buy a new MK3 when they start to get cleared. Which will still be 50 times better than the 50D I'm dragging along with. I do think about switching and have many times but don't think for me the expense and losses is worth the gains.
 
CGrieves said:
As I do a lot of low-light stuff I'd love to have reliable 5 stop push-ability, but I think that's more of a boon to enthusiasts than pros- if I was regularly needing to push shots by 5 stops then I'd be looking at my technique.

If I was going to move to full frame I'd be seriously looking at Nikon, but as it stands currently I just couldn't give up my 70-200 f2.8 mkII. Apart from it's performance I'll happily admit I love the colour, the feel, the red ring and everything about it. It's a joy to own and use.

The wife recently mentioned that I wasn't using my DSLR lenses and I should think about selling them. I gave her a look that instantly ended that conversation. (She's right though).
Click to expand...

High dynamic range sensors aren't actually that useful for low-light stuff- DR is inversely proportional to ISO so unless you low light stuff is tripod based then you wont see much benefits. The only possible advantage is purposely underexposing to lower ISO and pushing in post but this is effectively what raising the ISO does so there isn't an immediate gain unless you hit some other artificial limit (e.g. some camera have an auto ISO that only goes to 3200/6400, if you want to use auto-ISO but for high values then underexposing and boosting in post is one solution.

No the real gain for high DR sensors is trying to replicate what the eye can see or what the natural world is presenting. Because of the way human's perceive a scene (sacadic scanning and local contrast) we have a very high DR, something north of 20-22 stops. Scenes in nature light a sunset can be 24-28 stops (and much more in some situations, e.g. including full sun).
A high DR sensor makes it easier to capture such scenes in a single exposure.


The other advantage is that it is great tool for rescuing failed flashes or other exposure issues when the photo really counts and you can't go back and do a double take. I was at a friend's wedding recently and took my D800 (coincidentally both the pro togs were shooting D800's as well). As the bride walked into the church there was obviously very strong back-lighting. I had dialed in 2 stops of compensation exposure but the bride was still heavily underexposed (I purposely didn't apply more EC to preserve highlights). In fact, it was really an exposure issue itself but a pure DR issue . There was at least 14 stops difference between the white washed wills outside he church and the church interior/bride shadow. The D800 did a good job of pulling shadows and preventing most of the high light clipping. A camera with less DR would have resulted in more highlights being clipped or much more noise in the shadows (of course a camera with another couple of stops would have been even nicer).

Sure, a fill flash wold have helped balance exposure between the bride and the back ground but that would have still left the church hopeless under exposed. Multiple exposures would have been impose due to subject movement and filters weren't possible due to the geometry.
Tye other choice is then to spot meter for bride and blow the outside to pure white - I hate that kind of look, it is very natural and very digital, or underexpose sufficiently so the background is not too far gone and make some creative silhouette (preferable fo the odd shot but the bridge would not be happy with no balance exposure of her entering the church.


The opposite problem is then presented as the couple left - they stood in the doorway in deep shadow for their kiss but the church walls were brilliant white in the sun. My shot was of the whole scene with the people in the foreground and the confetti flying in to the air , a flash would have been useless. The high DR of the D800 saved the saved
 
D.P. said:
High dynamic range sensors aren't actually that useful for low-light stuff- DR is inversely proportional to ISO so unless you low light stuff is tripod based then you wont see much benefits. The only possible advantage is purposely underexposing to lower ISO and pushing in post but this is effectively what raising the ISO does so there isn't an immediate gain unless you hit some other artificial limit (e.g. some camera have an auto ISO that only goes to 3200/6400, if you want to use auto-ISO but for high values then underexposing and boosting in post is one solution.

No the real gain for high DR sensors is trying to replicate what the eye can see or what the natural world is presenting. Because of the way human's perceive a scene (sacadic scanning and local contrast) we have a very high DR, something north of 20-22 stops. Scenes in nature light a sunset can be 24-28 stops (and much more in some situations, e.g. including full sun).
A high DR sensor makes it easier to capture such scenes in a single exposure.


The other advantage is that it is great tool for rescuing failed flashes or other exposure issues when the photo really counts and you can't go back and do a double take. I was at a friend's wedding recently and took my D800 (coincidentally both the pro togs were shooting D800's as well). As the bride walked into the church there was obviously very strong back-lighting. I had dialed in 2 stops of compensation exposure but the bride was still heavily underexposed (I purposely didn't apply more EC to preserve highlights). In fact, it was really an exposure issue itself but a pure DR issue . There was at least 14 stops difference between the white washed wills outside he church and the church interior/bride shadow. The D800 did a good job of pulling shadows and preventing most of the high light clipping. A camera with less DR would have resulted in more highlights being clipped or much more noise in the shadows (of course a camera with another couple of stops would have been even nicer).

Sure, a fill flash wold have helped balance exposure between the bride and the back ground but that would have still left the church hopeless under exposed. Multiple exposures would have been impose due to subject movement and filters weren't possible due to the geometry.
Tye other choice is then to spot meter for bride and blow the outside to pure white - I hate that kind of look, it is very natural and very digital, or underexpose sufficiently so the background is not too far gone and make some creative silhouette (preferable fo the odd shot but the bridge would not be happy with no balance exposure of her entering the church.


The opposite problem is then presented as the couple left - they stood in the doorway in deep shadow for their kiss but the church walls were brilliant white in the sun. My shot was of the whole scene with the people in the foreground and the confetti flying in to the air , a flash would have been useless. The high DR of the D800 saved the saved
Click to expand...

Yeah I take your point, well explained. I guess the Sony sensor's party trick is the shadow push, but they also seem to have somewhat better noise control.

Still though, another reason not to upgrade! :D

Actually I'm enjoying the Fuji so much from a fun/satisfaction standpoint I may never return to DSLRs anyway. At least the wife can use the 70-200 on her EOS-M....
 
2StepSteve said:
Some rumours are circling that 5D4 test bodies have been sent out to a select few photographers for testing.

I'm helping myself to a large pinch of salt with this rumour.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/eos-5d-mark-iv-testing-has-begun-cr2/
Click to expand...

it is very common. They are always sending bodies out to get feed back. Typvially it means soemthing will appear in the next 12 months but there is no gurnatee.

The Nikon D300 replacement, the mythical D400 has been known to be tests in the wild since 2012 but Nikon has kept having to push back the release for eternity (earthquakes and floods didn't help).

2016 is an Olympics year, Nikon and canon will release a new pro body for that and along with a new 5DMK4 and possibly D900 + D400.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom