Should I switch brands?

[Buckster]

He's got the information, and you're no longer a camera salesman trying to get a commission, so relax.

If I had a camera salesman spouting all that crap he wouldn't get a sale from me

The mere fact that he's selling digital cameras means he wouldn't get a sale from you, even if he was a deaf mute.

 

[tecboy]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.

eh, maybe, but I have seen images that Nikons can take, particularly at weddings, that Canon simply can't. Want a backlit shot down the aisle, but still to have some shadow detail of the bride and groom? You're going to want every single scrap of dynamic range you can muster. That way you can expose to not blow the highlights, and then in post you can compress the extremes so you get a film like compression of the highlights, but retain shadow detail. Sure, that's one shot, but it's a shot you simply can't get as well with a Canon.

And again, isn't the point of a camera body to give yourself every possible advantage? I just plain don't understand the response of "well, one of the few things that are actually important when it comes to bodies, dynamic range, isn't really *that* big of a deal."

I mean at that point, why don't we just advise the OP to buy a used D90 rig. You *can* still shoot a great wedding with a D90. Or why don't we advise that they shoot with a 5D classic? None of the Canon people seem to be advising that. But you can still shoot a great wedding if you really know what you're doing with a 5D classic. Heck, you could shoot a great wedding with Rebel and a kit lens if you're truly a great photographer, why don't we advise the OP to just buy an entry level body and a kit lens?

Well, I disagree. I have met top professional photographers in person who made stunning photos with 5Dm3 and 5Dm2. They don't have a single complaint about dynamic range.

You disagree with what? You disagree that Nikon has an advantage in dynamic range? You disagree that dynamic range matters?

I worked in a Canon studio for 3 years and own both Canon and Nikon gear personally.

He rented 3Dm2 and shot these images. You go talk to him about dynamic range.
HUDSON CUNEO

 

[fjrabon]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.

eh, maybe, but I have seen images that Nikons can take, particularly at weddings, that Canon simply can't. Want a backlit shot down the aisle, but still to have some shadow detail of the bride and groom? You're going to want every single scrap of dynamic range you can muster. That way you can expose to not blow the highlights, and then in post you can compress the extremes so you get a film like compression of the highlights, but retain shadow detail. Sure, that's one shot, but it's a shot you simply can't get as well with a Canon.

And again, isn't the point of a camera body to give yourself every possible advantage? I just plain don't understand the response of "well, one of the few things that are actually important when it comes to bodies, dynamic range, isn't really *that* big of a deal."

I mean at that point, why don't we just advise the OP to buy a used D90 rig. You *can* still shoot a great wedding with a D90. Or why don't we advise that they shoot with a 5D classic? None of the Canon people seem to be advising that. But you can still shoot a great wedding if you really know what you're doing with a 5D classic. Heck, you could shoot a great wedding with Rebel and a kit lens if you're truly a great photographer, why don't we advise the OP to just buy an entry level body and a kit lens?

Well, I disagree. I have met top professional photographers in person who made stunning photos with 5Dm3 and 5Dm2. They don't have a single complaint about dynamic range.

You disagree with what? You disagree that Nikon has an advantage in dynamic range? You disagree that dynamic range matters?

I worked in a Canon studio for 3 years and own both Canon and Nikon gear personally.

He rented 3Dm2 and shot these images. You go talk to him about dynamic range.
HUDSON CUNEO

One of the most beautiful weddings I've ever seen was shot on a 5D classic. You want to claim that is what everybody should be shooting?
Yes, a great photographer can make any body produced in the last 20 years take great photos. That doesn't mean it's the best option.

Do you think major league baseball players are using the same cleats and glove babe Ruth did?

 

[Bebulamar]

Hey everyone.

I've been a Canon shooter all of my life, starting with film and now digital. I generally get my stuff used and have never focused on having brand new equipment, so I probably have right around $1,000 invested in my current setup, which is obviously a pittance when it comes to photography gear.

My pursuit of photography has grown more serious over the last few years, and now I'm starting to do engagement shoots for friends and have my first wedding lined up for early next year, so I'm starting to give serious consideration to taking that next step toward better gear, especially lenses. My photographic interests generally are portraits, landscapes, and astrophotography.

As far as camera bodies go, the stats (especially from DxO Mark) indicate that the Nikon line has better color depth and exposure range. Canon also seems to just be catching up with Nikon technology regarding AF technology with the 7Dm2 and the 5DS. I guess my question is, will the difference between the actual image output of, say, a D750 really be that much better than a 5D Mark III or a 6D? Or am I just picking nits and should stick with the brand I know?

Yeah switch for a while then switch back. It's fun. A bit costly.

 

[tecboy]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.

eh, maybe, but I have seen images that Nikons can take, particularly at weddings, that Canon simply can't. Want a backlit shot down the aisle, but still to have some shadow detail of the bride and groom? You're going to want every single scrap of dynamic range you can muster. That way you can expose to not blow the highlights, and then in post you can compress the extremes so you get a film like compression of the highlights, but retain shadow detail. Sure, that's one shot, but it's a shot you simply can't get as well with a Canon.

And again, isn't the point of a camera body to give yourself every possible advantage? I just plain don't understand the response of "well, one of the few things that are actually important when it comes to bodies, dynamic range, isn't really *that* big of a deal."

I mean at that point, why don't we just advise the OP to buy a used D90 rig. You *can* still shoot a great wedding with a D90. Or why don't we advise that they shoot with a 5D classic? None of the Canon people seem to be advising that. But you can still shoot a great wedding if you really know what you're doing with a 5D classic. Heck, you could shoot a great wedding with Rebel and a kit lens if you're truly a great photographer, why don't we advise the OP to just buy an entry level body and a kit lens?

Well, I disagree. I have met top professional photographers in person who made stunning photos with 5Dm3 and 5Dm2. They don't have a single complaint about dynamic range.

You disagree with what? You disagree that Nikon has an advantage in dynamic range? You disagree that dynamic range matters?

I worked in a Canon studio for 3 years and own both Canon and Nikon gear personally.

He rented 3Dm2 and shot these images. You go talk to him about dynamic range.
HUDSON CUNEO

One of the most beautiful weddings I've ever seen was shot on a 5D classic. You want to claim that is what everybody should be shooting?
Yes, a great photographer can make any body produced in the last 20 years take great photos. That doesn't mean it's the best option.

Do you think major league baseball players are using the same cleats and glove babe Ruth did?

You are rambling and talking. I don't understand your point.

 

[syaudi]

The simple fact is, that even at base ISO levels, Canon's current sensors suffer from patterned noise problems...this is why Nikon is kicking Canon's ass. There's a small but dedicated group of Canon fans who try their best to argue against simple science, and who continually try to cast doubt on DxO Mark's results. Over and over and over, these guys spend time and effort trying to call into question/discredit/badmouth/slander/libel the efforts of DxO Mark.

Part II - Controlled tests

look at the pictures. Same exact lens, a Zeiss 25mm, used on the two bodies. One sucks when underexposed, or the shadows are recovered. The Sony-made sensor on the other hand, has amazing shadow quality, with virtually no noise. Look at the images, then go look at the DxO Mark scores, and see for yourself.

Oh-and this test? Performed by none other than Fred Miranda himself...a dedicated Canon owner and user. Huh...

People who claim that there is not a well-known, very real, very significant patterned noise problem with Canon's sensors are lying to you. Period. Just LOOK at the images. SEE it with your own two eyes. And then ask yourself, "Why do these guys try sooooo hard to discredit those who dare point out the truth?" Why? Why is that?

Once again...just LOOK. Part II - Controlled tests

I...wasn't even aware that Canon has patterned noise problems. I've had mine for almost a year and I was happily shooting with her until just now when you pointed out patterned noise, which made me go through my vast archive of 1k+ images one by one to find such a thing.
now, I must say, I fell in love with Ari all over again.

to me, the DxO Mark scores and all your silly science talk matter not. if you have to rely on the absolute cutting edge of technology to create even remotely splendid pictures, I highly suggest you pick up economics because, as opposed to creating pleasing images, all you're doing is contributing to the ailing economy 'cause man those things are expensive.
a determined artisan can work around any 'problems' his tools of trade might possess. limitations exist to serve as a platform for creative solutions. cameras are only an extension of the mind and body. a man with a broken piece of charcoal can create art just as fine as those made by a man with a state of the art studio.
what do I care if my sensor has a significant patterned noise problem, if its sensor performance is reportedly lagging behind that of Nikon? show me a man who cares and I'll show you a man who likes to thinks he's hung like a stallion. neigh. (if you're actually that big then that last sentence got tossed out the window)

photography is too subjectively dynamic for the likes of you, you who think a sensor is a key determinant in the quality of a photograph.

I am a Canonite, and I have absolutely no shame in saying I'd enjoy a spin with a D800, if only because I want to push all those little buttons and see what they do; though I really want an a7II/a7s just to mount a Canon 50mm f/0.95 on the thing and feel like a badass. while we're at it I also want to try out a Leica M240, a Hasselblad 500C/500CM, a Mamiya Leaf MD, and a Canon 1Dx.

equipment are just that, equipment. what really matters is how enjoyable each makes the experience of capturing an image.


that being said, Canon and Nikon leapfrog each other like heck. one Canon day comes and another Canon day goes by, and all of a sudden tomorrow is a Nikon day and oh my, it's a holiday in the name of Sony - which passes by, and Canon looms over the horizon upon the next day. please, do wait to toot your brand name horn until your designated day.