sovietdoc
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,142
- Reaction score
- 75
- Location
- rest of the world
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Part II - Controlled tests
No, I am not going to bother to show you all the points where D800 and 5D3 are similar and different, but it doesn't get it's "@$$" handed by D800. They're cameras targeted for different uses. But neither of them are bad.Canon gets its A$$ handed to it by a new Nikon that costs $500 LESS
No, DxO results actually show you what your eyes can't see because their tests are "oh so sensitive" that a person looking at the end photo won't be able to tell a difference, not with these new gen cameras. Maybe in the case of ISO 100 DR with Nikon but that's because the difference is pretty profound. Let's not forget that at higher ISOs D800 does get it's "@$$" handed to it....and the DxO Mark scores prove what our eyes can SEE.
No, I am not a Canon fan. If you want my opinion about the brand I'll give it to you, so that you see what my stand is, although I've stated it here many time before. Canon and Nikon are both very similar brands and both are at the very top. At this particular point in time, I believe that Canon has better glass than Nikon, out of the lenses that I primarily work with (24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85mm f/1.2) therefore the lens dictate the brand for me. Camera body? I could careless. I would actually prefer a D800 myself if I could mount all my Canon glass on it and use built-in lens correction data and AF, but I can't have that. Either way, camera body is worth nothing, it's all about the glass. 5d3 500$ more than D800? Yes, that's BULLcrap. Currently Nikon is doing a better job at making what people want and offering it for a better price. If I was to compare the d800 to 5d3 for what they were, there is a lot more refinement in d800 over d700 than in 5d3 over 5d2. And the new price premium that is now going across ALL Canon's products? I think they're ripping people off for what they're giving them. There ya go. I am not a fan of either brand because I get whatever seems better to me during that particular time frame.Sorry sovietdoc, but when Canon was leading the sensor wars, all we heard from the Canon fans like you was how "awesome" the sensors were;
Now that we are clear on that, I am very hostile against things like DxO, especially when it has been proven wrong a few times in the past. What surprises me is how it's obvious that DxO is biased towards Nikon's products judging from their "real" tests, the fact that of all the companies in the business, the only big optics manufacturer who didn't ever pay for their calibration products is Canon and it's not on their list of partners, yet people quote them as a perfectly legitimate source. Now, why defend DxO when you know that there are some strange results of their tests and the fact that they keep changing their most important test criteria based on what Nikon does best at any given time? Sounds like someone is a Nikon fanboy to me, otherwise why defend this 3rd-party brand.
Yes.since that time, Nikon fired most of its senior executives, replaced them with men who were 20 years younger, and went on a HUGE campaign to win back the professional and serious enthusiast d-slr markets...which is what happened when the D3 revolutionized the pro d-slr market and the D300 embarrassed Canon, with a true semi-professional body that was NOT deliberately crippled [a Canon specialty!], but could meter with EVERY lens Nikon had made since 1977...Nikon decided to leverage its LENS HISTORY, and its 15 year lead in color-aware metering and color-aware, and distance aware flash. Nikon's lead in multi-flash TTL remote flash control meant better flash pictures.Canon kept touting "More MP! More MP! Same old camera, but more MP!"
Yes.The 5D was a good example: a CHEAP camera body, + good sensor, $3,499 at intro, then $3199, then $2999. The D700 OTHOH was like a Baby D3, for $2699 from the get-go. Only 12 MP, but 12 good MP, and a "pro" body. That could FOCUS, unlike the !D Mark III!
Yes, and the only reason there is any progress from Canon's side is because Nikon is kicking them in the balls every now and then. Otherwise we'd be using old-@$$ cameras with minor upgrades for the full price premium. That's what Canon does best.Since 2007, Canon has been falling farther and farther behind the position they HAD HELD since maybe 1996...so, in a decade, Canon lost its supremacy...all I heard a decade ago was how many "white lenses" were on the sidelines at sporting events...then the "it-cannot-focus-right Canon 1D Mark III" debacle dragged on for 18 months...it became pretty obvious that Canon had lost its mojo, and was just regurgitating the same old stuff as fast as they could update the numbers...D30,D60,10D,20D,30D,40D,50D,60D...a new camera every 16-18 months...but basically the SAME OLD chit...with more megapixels...
You like putting words in my mouth? Can you quote where I said that "all the rigorous testing sites are paid off"? I remember only talking about DxO. DPeview does good rigorous testing and I fully agree with their results. Now, are you going to tell me that their testing setup sucks? Because unlike DxO their values for important test criteria always stay constant.So, now that the testing "people", all over the world, are point out Canon's problems, the Canon fanboy types show up, in places like the "Nikon D600!!" thread to whine about how the rigorous testing sites are all "payed off". I find that approach amusing. I smile at it. Soooo grade-school. Losing out to a hungrier, smaller competitor whose MAIN businesses are cameras and optics must suck. Such is life for Canon. But they make a hell of a photocopier! They are #1 in photocopiers!
I am sorry for derailing this thread But it's fun isn't it