Is there hope with Canon???

[mRobi]

does canon planing to release something good? im canon user for 5 years now and i am at the stage where i'm starting to consider transfering to nikon... they whiped the floor with canon in last year or so...and while canon is releasing crap like 100d nikon release d7100 crop body that has better sensor then 5dmkiii... i am realist so i know i would be satisfied with any full frame body and i know that my skills are the most important thing here but after all i feel naive going to canon full frame when there is nikon at the same price range with much stronger and better sensor and image quality. 
Is there any hope for canon??? help me 🙂

i think this is a good rant to discuss cause i bet i'm not only one who thinks like that, and changing system is not easy choice to make...

[hsbn]

Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows. You can rent a NIkon body/lens for a weekend to try out. If it pleases you more, switch.

[Skirball]

+1 to HSBN’s comment.

Although I have frustrations with Canon and their inability to be an innovator in the camera body field, I remind myself that cameras and lenses are just tools to my artwork.  It’s easy to get caught up in specs but it’s rare that these manifest into noticeable compromises in the final artwork.  Mostly it’s just something for people on the internet to complain about.

But your comment on the D7100 is intriguing.  Are you just referring to megapixels or the dynamic range.  Personally, I’m glad the megapixel war is finally coming to a close (sort of).  But yes, it’s sad that most Nikon sensors are pushing close to 2 stops more DR than the Canon equivalents.  However, I don’t think it comes into play as much as our minds and the internet would leave us to believe.

[richardansley]

BS...Nikon is kicking ass...any professional landscape shooter that knows the score would agree... and it DOES make a difference. Higher pixel counts result in better resolution for enlarged prints.

[mRobi]

in a way i agree...the results are seen on photographs of landscape that require dynamic range...

[fyigmo63]

I agree with richardhansley and others about Canon and landscape photography.  One of the reasons I prefer Canon to Nikon or other manufacturers is that Canon sensors shoot into the red and near infrared while Nikon's sensors shoot more toward the blue and ultraviolet.  That's one of the reasons why Nikons, Olympus, etc., will produce "hot spots" when shooting photos with infrared filters that ruin those shots, and also why Canon cameras produce warmer colors when shooting landscapes.  For landscape photography, which is my preference, I'll stick with Canon.

[TCampbell]

Ummm  no.

The high pixel count Nikon cameras wouldn't be very useful for landscape photography.  To understand why, you need to know about diffraction limits.

Light isn't technically a "beam" or "ray".  It's a wave.  It does not tecnically focus to a fine point.  It focuses to something called an "Airy Disk" ("Airy" is the name of the astronomer who discovered the phenomena -- not a reference to the stuff we breathe.)  The size of the disk depends on several factors, but one of them is the size of the aperture opening on the lens.  Given that a single pinpoint of light isn't really pinpoint -- but rather covers some area, the question then becomes how large is the area and how small is the photo-site on the camera sensor?

A Nikon D7100 with 24.1 MP on an APS-C sensor has a "pixel" size of about 3.7 microns.  It starts to suffer from diffraction at f/5.6 and fully by the time it's at f/8.4.   That's a REAL problem if you're a landscape photographer.  A landscape photographer is not going to shoot at f/5.6 so they can duck under the diffraction limits.

The 5D III, on the other hand, with a 22.3 MP full-frame sensor as a "pixel" size of about 6.2 microns.  It wont start to notice the effects of diffraction until f/9.3 (well after the D7100 is fully limited) and fully at f/14.

These are laws of physics... no clever engineering or outstanding optics get around this (the physics are based on "perfect" optics.)

There's a big misunderstanding in photographer that if a little of something is good, then more of something must be even better... that's simply not true.  Improving sensor resolution will improve image quality, but only to a point.  

You can read a good article on diffraction limits here:  http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

[chikung]

I have read canon reviews by nikon lovers and they admit that the Canon eos 5d mark iii is better in many ways than their Nikon competitors...

Have you looked at Canon 5d?

[richardansley]

Tim,

Good information, diffraction is a phenomenon every landscape photographer needs to understand, but I must respectfully disagree...at least in the case of the Nikon D800.

There is a good reason why professionals such as Tom Till and Marc Adamus switched to the D800 (from Canon 5D Mark ll and lll). Marc's favorite F stop is 13 (and above). Tom often shoots at 16 -22. Also, a semi-pro, James Neeley, is an avid D800 shooter and he often shoots at f16 and higher (view his file specs on Flickr), as I do. Look at their work and tell me they are not getting superior resolution with no diffration issues.

The only reason I haven't switched already is because I keep thinking Canon WILL soon release a higher pixel body...instead, they announce the new 70D...well woopty-doo, just another high-end point-and-shoot to me!

Happy Trails, Richard

[TCampbell]

There's a rumor that Canon may go for one... but a lot of photographers were also upset with Nikon for coming out with a high megapixel body. I've read a few wedding photographers who only shoot RAW and weren't very happy with Nikon for it.

As for the landscape photographers using f/13... they're definitely getting diffraction issues even if they don't know it. At f/22 they're getting it and it's not subtle.

Most people don't use the full resolution of their camera. Images presented on the Internet are always too small ... if you make a very large gallery sized print then you'll see it. Mostly what you'll see is that the camera is no better than a lower resolution camera. If they back off the f-stop to something below the diffraction levels -- say f/5.6 -- then they wouldn't see it.

Keep in mind that diffraction is based on laws of physics which assume perfect optics... you CANNOT get around. There's no such thing as "this camera is so good that it doesn't have diffraction issues." When the math says you have them... you have them. The math and physics of the problem are extremely well understood and do not lie.

The only way around the issue is to use a physically larger sensor and, on a related note... physically larger optics (lookup Dawes' Limit -- which is another limiting factor.)