NEW Canon 80D

[robbins.photo]

YOU SAID"
Ok, so to clear a few things up here, Canon does not have superior "IQ" in the vast majority of cameras when compared with their Nikon equivalents. It's the other way around.

Canon has recently released a 50 MP camera, but the body itself is $3500 so it's not exactly targeted at your average user. You might also wish to note that despite it's high MP rating it does not deliver better overall IQ in most situations, at least according to most of the reviews I've seen:"




Your Completely wrong on that, Let me tell you how i researched this and what made me do it.
I was shooting with Canon, and i been doing portrait and weddings with it, the 5D Mark III using my Holy Trinity of lenses,
The Canon 10-24 the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens Which is my fav lens..
When i discovered about Nikon having better dynamic range and more MP i thought about trading in all my canon lenses and gear and just Go Nikon and get better overall Image Quality and sharpness. Becuase the truth is.

If you compair the Canon 5Dmark III 24MP camera, Vs the Nikon D800E 36MP camera.
with the 24-70 lens the canan gets 18 P-MP but the Nikon it's 21 P-MP
With the T 24-70 for canan you get 18 P-MP Nikon it's 23 P-MP
With the 600 F4 for Canon you get 20 P-MP but Nikon you get 24 P-MP
and the Tamron 24-70 that is one of my fav lenses and there is a substantial
diference in MP 18 MP vs 23 MP
So in that perspective the Nikon with that lens is giving you about 25% more detail, and 50% more pixels with the Nikon.
So the Nikon Bodies are better, because they use better sony sensors..

With the Canon and with my most favorite lens the Canon 70-200 f2.8 with image stabilization
If you measure the effective focal Length, it ends up being about 70-195 MM at headshot range,
when taking a portrait, So Dxomark measures the sharpness of it when attached to the 5D mark III a at about 21 MP, 5d mark III is a 24 mp camera.

But wait!!!


But with the Nikon the effective focal range is 60-130 MM.
Which is a huge diference from 70-200
so if i want to get the same subject size i need to move like 75% closer to my subject.
you don't have the same working distance..
It also means your not getting as much compression of the facial features, or as much backgroud blur

with Nikon using that lens on the D800E your getting 27 P-MP so that's about 30% more detail then canon..

But my problem is, you can't get to the same focal length with Nikon like you can with canon.

and as far as i'm concerned i can't sacrifice that 200 MM.
About 70% of my shots with that lens is at that 200 MM, so that is a huge problem for me.
That means i can't replace that canon 70-200 with the nikon version..
I'm out of luck there.

that lens at the 200 Range is a key element for doing my wedding photography using full frame..
and if you look at DXOMARK's measurements that range is a ****.. I'm losing all the good sharpness, it's in the RED!!!
So then i thought i could solve this by picking up the 200MM 2.8 Prime, but that doesn't excist for Nikon..

So that is how i realized that, Yes Canon's Lenses give you better sharpness and IQ then the Nikon lenses do overall, because i checked that out on many of the lenses, and my holy trinity of lenses all the Canon's Lenses in that trinity which is what i use, is better then the Nikon versions..


Here is a picture Canon Vs Nikon 70-200 lens sharpness measurements..




View attachment 126837 View attachment 126838




And that is why i mentioned earlier about using Kit lenses, some one stated that kit lenses are great, but here is why i stay away from them and why you do lose quality of what your camera is capable of..
if use a Nikon D7100 and get a Nikon 18-55 Kit lens vs the Sigma 18-35 1.8 your going to see a huge difference in IQ, hands down..
Who ever said that Kit lenses can produce just as good IQ as the higher quality more expensive lenses is foolish to say that, look at the DXOMARK Measurements, Green is good, RED is BAD!! where do you see any good in that kit lens? Pretty much no where on that spectrum does that kit lens 18-55 show any green, it's mostly red and orange with a bit of yellow..
Try and tell me that 18-55 can compete with that sigma 18-35 art lens?

View attachment 126839 View attachment 126840

I said nothing about kit lenses at all, no clue where that came from. As for the rest, all zoom lenses, and yes that includes those made by canon, are subject to focus breathing. Granted the nikkor 70-200mm vrii is a heavy breather, but the 134 you mention applies at a focus distance of like 1.4m as I recall. As the focus distance increases so does your effective focal length. Same thing happens with all zooms, though not all of them breath as heavily. The tamron 70-200mm vc is pretty close in numbers to the canon from what I understand. So sorry but the argument simply doesn't hold water.

Look, canon makes a great camera and some nice lenses and for some folks depending on what they do canon would make a better choice than Nikon. The reverse is also true, for some folks Nikon is a better choice. But no one is served by misinformation.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[donny1963]

YOU SAID"
Ok, so to clear a few things up here, Canon does not have superior "IQ" in the vast majority of cameras when compared with their Nikon equivalents. It's the other way around.

Canon has recently released a 50 MP camera, but the body itself is $3500 so it's not exactly targeted at your average user. You might also wish to note that despite it's high MP rating it does not deliver better overall IQ in most situations, at least according to most of the reviews I've seen:"




Your Completely wrong on that, Let me tell you how i researched this and what made me do it.
I was shooting with Canon, and i been doing portrait and weddings with it, the 5D Mark III using my Holy Trinity of lenses,
The Canon 10-24 the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens Which is my fav lens..
When i discovered about Nikon having better dynamic range and more MP i thought about trading in all my canon lenses and gear and just Go Nikon and get better overall Image Quality and sharpness. Becuase the truth is.

If you compair the Canon 5Dmark III 24MP camera, Vs the Nikon D800E 36MP camera.
with the 24-70 lens the canan gets 18 P-MP but the Nikon it's 21 P-MP
With the T 24-70 for canan you get 18 P-MP Nikon it's 23 P-MP
With the 600 F4 for Canon you get 20 P-MP but Nikon you get 24 P-MP
and the Tamron 24-70 that is one of my fav lenses and there is a substantial
diference in MP 18 MP vs 23 MP
So in that perspective the Nikon with that lens is giving you about 25% more detail, and 50% more pixels with the Nikon.
So the Nikon Bodies are better, because they use better sony sensors..

With the Canon and with my most favorite lens the Canon 70-200 f2.8 with image stabilization
If you measure the effective focal Length, it ends up being about 70-195 MM at headshot range,
when taking a portrait, So Dxomark measures the sharpness of it when attached to the 5D mark III a at about 21 MP, 5d mark III is a 24 mp camera.

But wait!!!


But with the Nikon the effective focal range is 60-130 MM.
Which is a huge diference from 70-200
so if i want to get the same subject size i need to move like 75% closer to my subject.
you don't have the same working distance..
It also means your not getting as much compression of the facial features, or as much backgroud blur

with Nikon using that lens on the D800E your getting 27 P-MP so that's about 30% more detail then canon..

But my problem is, you can't get to the same focal length with Nikon like you can with canon.

and as far as i'm concerned i can't sacrifice that 200 MM.
About 70% of my shots with that lens is at that 200 MM, so that is a huge problem for me.
That means i can't replace that canon 70-200 with the nikon version..
I'm out of luck there.

that lens at the 200 Range is a key element for doing my wedding photography using full frame..
and if you look at DXOMARK's measurements that range is a ****.. I'm losing all the good sharpness, it's in the RED!!!
So then i thought i could solve this by picking up the 200MM 2.8 Prime, but that doesn't excist for Nikon..

So that is how i realized that, Yes Canon's Lenses give you better sharpness and IQ then the Nikon lenses do overall, because i checked that out on many of the lenses, and my holy trinity of lenses all the Canon's Lenses in that trinity which is what i use, is better then the Nikon versions..


Here is a picture Canon Vs Nikon 70-200 lens sharpness measurements..




View attachment 126837 View attachment 126838




And that is why i mentioned earlier about using Kit lenses, some one stated that kit lenses are great, but here is why i stay away from them and why you do lose quality of what your camera is capable of..
if use a Nikon D7100 and get a Nikon 18-55 Kit lens vs the Sigma 18-35 1.8 your going to see a huge difference in IQ, hands down..
Who ever said that Kit lenses can produce just as good IQ as the higher quality more expensive lenses is foolish to say that, look at the DXOMARK Measurements, Green is good, RED is BAD!! where do you see any good in that kit lens? Pretty much no where on that spectrum does that kit lens 18-55 show any green, it's mostly red and orange with a bit of yellow..
Try and tell me that 18-55 can compete with that sigma 18-35 art lens?

View attachment 126839 View attachment 126840

I said nothing about kit lenses at all, no clue where that came from. As for the rest, all zoom lenses, and yes that includes those made by canon, are subject to focus breathing. Granted the nikkor 70-200mm vrii is a heavy breather, but the 134 you mention applies at a focus distance of like 1.4m as I recall. As the focus distance increases so does your effective focal length. Same thing happens with all zooms, though not all of them breath as heavily. The tamron 70-200mm vc is pretty close in numbers to the canon from what I understand. So sorry but the argument simply doesn't hold water.

It's not misinformation, and my last post does hold all the water, it's right there from DXOMARK ,
the tamron is close in for the focal length but it's not as good or even close to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, that's why that lens is only like $800.00 vs the canon at $2,000.0
That tamron lens you was talking about even close in sharpness as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens

Look, canon makes a great camera and some nice lenses and for some folks depending on what they do canon would make a better choice than Nikon. The reverse is also true, for some folks Nikon is a better choice. But no one is served by misinformation.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

It's not misinformation, and my last post does hold all the water, it's right there from DXOMARK ,
the tamron is close in for the focal length but it's not as good or even close to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, that's why that lens is only like $800.00 vs the canon at $2,000.0
That tamron lens you was talking about even close in sharpness as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
]

No, your argument really doesn't hold water. First, the 134mm effective focal length you mention applies to only one lens, and only af the minimum focus distance of 1.4m. You made sound as if the effective focal length was always 134mm which is BS. You also completely failed to mention that the Canon lens suffers from focus breathing as well, instead you wished the reader to infer that the canon was always 200mm regardless of focus distance. Which, is BS.

Frankly for IQ at 200mm or any other focal length, the D810 is going to out do your MKIII under the same conditions, just as DXOMark indicates. Focus breathing? Well if you know what it is and how to compensate for it, it really isn't that big of a deal. Not too many people shoot a person from 1.4m at 200mm anyway. Not unless your wanting a great closeup of their nostril hair.

Does that mean I think you should rush out and by a D810? Nope. If you like your MKIII keep your MKIII. Knowing how to use your equipment is more important than the equipment itself, and honestly the numbers aside you'd have to pixel peep the crap out of the final results to really be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

[donny1963]

It's not misinformation, and my last post does hold all the water, it's right there from DXOMARK ,
the tamron is close in for the focal length but it's not as good or even close to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, that's why that lens is only like $800.00 vs the canon at $2,000.0
That tamron lens you was talking about even close in sharpness as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
]

No, your argument really doesn't hold water. First, the 134mm effective focal length you mention applies to only one lens, and only af the minimum focus distance of 1.4m. You made sound as if the effective focal length was always 134mm which is BS. You also completely failed to mention that the Canon lens suffers from focus breathing as well, instead you wished the reader to infer that the canon was always 200mm regardless of focus distance. Which, is BS.

Frankly for IQ at 200mm or any other focal length, the D810 is going to out do your MKIII under the same conditions, just as DXOMark indicates. Focus breathing? Well if you know what it is and how to compensate for it, it really isn't that big of a deal. Not too many people shoot a person from 1.4m at 200mm anyway. Not unless your wanting a great closeup of their nostril hair.

Does that mean I think you should rush out and by a D810? Nope. If you like your MKIII keep your MKIII. Knowing how to use your equipment is more important than the equipment itself, and honestly the numbers aside you'd have to pixel peep the crap out of the final results to really be able to tell the difference anyway.

Not true, i'm talking about a head shot or head to shoulders at 200mm, it can't be done with Nikon at 200 MM like the canon and get green quality as dxomark states..
it's all there, focus breathing i know what it is and been aware of it for ages, all that is is, when you change your field of view you would notice it, like going from 2.8 to infinity depending on what lens you would notice the change in focal length , how ever with the 70-200 at 2.8 aperture it focus breathing doesn't matter, i'm not going to take a portrait shot at a wedding at infinity or even at F22, so your not going to see focus breathing with the 70-200 at f2.8 that's nonsense...

 

[robbins.photo]

It's not misinformation, and my last post does hold all the water, it's right there from DXOMARK ,
the tamron is close in for the focal length but it's not as good or even close to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, that's why that lens is only like $800.00 vs the canon at $2,000.0
That tamron lens you was talking about even close in sharpness as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
]

No, your argument really doesn't hold water. First, the 134mm effective focal length you mention applies to only one lens, and only af the minimum focus distance of 1.4m. You made sound as if the effective focal length was always 134mm which is BS. You also completely failed to mention that the Canon lens suffers from focus breathing as well, instead you wished the reader to infer that the canon was always 200mm regardless of focus distance. Which, is BS.

Frankly for IQ at 200mm or any other focal length, the D810 is going to out do your MKIII under the same conditions, just as DXOMark indicates. Focus breathing? Well if you know what it is and how to compensate for it, it really isn't that big of a deal. Not too many people shoot a person from 1.4m at 200mm anyway. Not unless your wanting a great closeup of their nostril hair.

Does that mean I think you should rush out and by a D810? Nope. If you like your MKIII keep your MKIII. Knowing how to use your equipment is more important than the equipment itself, and honestly the numbers aside you'd have to pixel peep the crap out of the final results to really be able to tell the difference anyway.

Not true, i'm talking about a head shot or head to shoulders at 200mm, it can't be done with Nikon at 200 MM like the canon and get green quality as dxomark states..
it's all there, focus breathing i know what it is and been aware of it for ages, all that is is, when you change your field of view you would notice it, like going from 2.8 to infinity depending on what lens you would notice the change in focal length , how ever with the 70-200 at 2.8 aperture it focus breathing doesn't matter, i'm not going to take a portrait shot at a wedding at infinity or even at F22, so your not going to see focus breathing with the 70-200 at f2.8 that's nonsense...

Again, depends entirely on the focus distance, and again the one lens your comparing is only one lens. Look, if you like canon great. Shoot canon and be happy. I'll be happy for you. But the argument your presenting that supposedly proves that all canons have superior iq to all Nikon just doesn't. All it proves is that you really don't understand focus breathing.


Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[beagle100]

YOU SAID"
Your Completely wrong on that, Let me tell you how i researched this and what made me do it.
I was shooting with Canon, and i been doing portrait and weddings with it, the 5D Mark III using my Holy Trinity of lenses,
The Canon 10-24 the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens Which is my fav lens..
If you compair the Canon 5Dmark III 24MP camera, Vs the Nikon D800E 36MP camera.
with the 24-70 lens the canan gets 18 P-MP but the Nikon it's 21 P-MP
With the T 24-70 for canan you get 18 P-MP Nikon it's 23 P-MP
With the 600 F4 for Canon you get 20 P-MP but Nikon you get 24 P-MP
and the Tamron 24-70 that is one of my fav lenses and there is a substantial
diference in MP 18 MP vs 23 MP
S
With the Canon and with my most favorite lens the Canon 70-200 f2.8 with image stabilization
If you measure the effective focal Length, it ends up being about 70-195 MM at headshot range,
when taking a portrait, So Dxomark measures the sharpness of it when attached to the 5D mark III a at about 21 MP, 5d mark III is a 24 mp camera.

But wait!!!


But with the Nikon the effective focal range is 60-130 MM.
Which is a huge diference from 70-200
so if i want to get the same subject size i need to move like 75% closer to my subject.
you don't have the same working distance..
It also means your not getting as much compression of the facial features, or as much backgroud blur

with Nikon using that lens on the D800E your getting 27 P-MP so that's about 30% more detail then canon..

But my problem is, you can't get to the same focal length with Nikon like you can with canon.

and as far as i'm concerned i can't sacrifice that 200 MM.
About 70% of my shots with that lens is at that 200 MM, so that is a huge problem for me.
That means i can't replace that canon 70-200 with the nikon version..
I'm out of luck there.

that lens at the 200 Range is a key element for doing my wedding photography using full frame..
and if you look at DXOMARK's measurements that range is a ****.. I'm losing all the good sharpness, it's in the RED!!!
So then i thought i could solve this by picking up the 200MM 2.8 Prime, but that doesn't excist for Nikon..

So that is how i realized that, Yes Canon's Lenses give you better sharpness and IQ then the Nikon lenses do overall, because i checked that out on many of the lenses, and my holy trinity of lenses all the Canon's Lenses in that trinity which is what i use, is better then the Nikon versions..


Here is a picture Canon Vs Nikon 70-200 lens sharpness measurements..


And that is why i mentioned earlier about using Kit lenses, some one stated that kit lenses are great, but here is why i stay away from them and why you do lose quality of what your camera is capable of..

Who ever said that Kit lenses can produce just as good IQ as the higher quality more expensive lenses is foolish to say that, look at the DXOMARK Measurements, Green is good, RED is BAD!! where do you see any good in that kit lens? Pretty much no where on that spectrum does that kit lens 18-55 show any green, it's mostly red and orange with a bit of yellow..
Try and tell me that 18-55 can compete with that sigma 18-35 art lens?

right, most pros use Canon because of the 'IQ' image quality and the lens selection but the other brands can work just fine