# NEW Canon 80D



## Overread

Canon EOS 80D updates Dual Pixel AF, bumps resolution with 24MP sensor

Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D

A new middle of the range crop sensor from Canon! Making a lot of noise about their new AF system, various improvements in other areas, a 24mp sensor, new AF engines in the kit lens with an optional motorized external video AF system. Built in GPS is also now included. 

Not as much noise on the sensor though - (yeah fantastic pun ) and might be a bit before we hear about its performance ,but being middle ranged its unlikely to be vastly different to the 7DMII


----------



## DB_Cro

It'll be my next camera body if high ISO is comparable to the 7D markII.
If not, I'll have to save up for the 7.

Considering the resolution went up, I'm not expecting the ISO to be great.


----------



## jaomul

Camera specs getting better all the time, that looks great if you don't need the 7dii. I'm sure the sensor is likely the same as the 760d models


----------



## DB_Cro

Higher ISO is my no.1 priority, everything else these bring (750,760,70,7d) along with that is great, I could use 
more FPS of course then my T2i, but if the 80D shares the sensor with the 750-760D (which mpix count suggests)
it'll be worse in high-ISO then the 70D.

These are small differences but still.. compare to the T2i, T6i/s (750-760) seem to go about 1/3 stop better clean.
70D is another third.
7D markII is another third.

I really need as much as I can get without going FF.


----------



## runnah

I feel like both sides are just taking incremental baby steps in each "new" model.

Part of me wonders how many of these "new" models use the same hardware with only minor software improvements. Its amazing to see what Magic Lantern can do to unlock the full potential of a camera by removing all the marketing limits put in by the manufacturers.


----------



## spiralout462

I already have this one.  It may be called the 760d/T6s?

The new compacts they announced are more intriguing to me.  Along with new lens technology, which sounds great on paper!


----------



## spiralout462

runnah said:


> I feel like both sides are just taking incremental baby steps in each "new" model.
> 
> Part of me wonders how many of these "new" models use the same hardware with only minor software improvements. Its amazing to see what Magic Lantern can do to unlock the full potential of a camera by removing all the marketing limits put in by the manufacturers.



Does Magic Lantern benefit still shooters?


----------



## Braineack

Specs seem like a year or two behind the curve...


----------



## runnah

spiralout462 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like both sides are just taking incremental baby steps in each "new" model.
> 
> Part of me wonders how many of these "new" models use the same hardware with only minor software improvements. Its amazing to see what Magic Lantern can do to unlock the full potential of a camera by removing all the marketing limits put in by the manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Magic Lantern benefit still shooters?
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## DB_Cro

runnah said:


> I feel like both sides are just taking incremental baby steps in each "new" model.
> 
> Part of me wonders how many of these "new" models use the same hardware with only minor software improvements. Its amazing to see what Magic Lantern can do to unlock the full potential of a camera by removing all the marketing limits put in by the manufacturers.



Speaking of same, or mostly same hardware.. they've been doing this for years.
The T2i (550D) when it came out was a rather nice improvement over the T1i/500D.
This was 4-5 years ago and they were stuck at that level up until recently (750/760 and 70/7dm2).

All the Rebel bodies since between T2i and T6i used the same sensor and had the exact same image quality
while Nikon was pushing up. The D3200 already owns them all, the D3300 was even better then that.

And then they put out the 70D with it's focusing issues and basically a 1/3 of improvement in high iso over the
18mpix bodies.. while Nikon was WAY over  1 stop better. 

I really wish they'd wake up.
I've been suggesting Nikons to people for years now, and regreting buying the T2i in the first place.

I would have been happy with the D7200 now which is a lot cheaper then the 7D markII..


----------



## nerwin

Does it have ADD?


----------



## Overread

It seems odd - Canon seems to be ruling in most areas barring the sensor ISO noise performance; whilst Nikon and the others are ruling there mostly because they are buying sony sensors because Sony threw stupid money at developing them so they could break into the market itself. 

Honestly if Canon were to buy just 1 Sony sensor into their system they'd likely make a huge killing in the market. But for some reason they want to stick inhouse which is great; but it seems that they can't just can't crack the sensor tech (or they have but can't crack it without infringing on copyright of the sony design). 

In general anything that isn't top line is incremental. Even then each model to model is generally incremental - you have to skip a generation to see a bigger gain in specifications.


----------



## JacaRanda

Overread said:


> It seems odd - Canon seems to be ruling in most areas barring the sensor ISO noise performance; whilst Nikon and the others are ruling there mostly because they are buying sony sensors because Sony threw stupid money at developing them so they could break into the market itself.
> 
> Honestly if Canon were to buy just 1 Sony sensor into their system they'd likely make a huge killing in the market. But for some reason they want to stick inhouse which is great; but it seems that they can't just can't crack the sensor tech (or they have but can't crack it without infringing on copyright of the sony design).
> 
> In general anything that isn't top line is incremental. Even then each model to model is generally incremental - you have to skip a generation to see a bigger gain in specifications.



^^This is what I wonder about also.  If you are number one (correct me if I'm wrong), why change your model, or why not do as you mentioned - buy Sony sensors?  

Side note.  Every since Nerwin posted something about seeing mostly Nikon cameras on television, I have been more aware of things.  I have overwhelming seen Canon cameras on most of the shows I watch, similarly to seeing them overwhelmingly while out and about shooting nature.  

Something does not jive.  Are we being punked (Canon owners)?  It's hard for me to believe that all the big white lens owners I see regularly, can't afford to switch, or are too lazy to switch, if the differences were significant enough.

I'm already considering upgrading Wifey's 70d to the 80d.  I MUST BE CRAZY!


----------



## coastalconn

There is a lot if interweb chirping that the 1dx2 and 80d are using a new sensor with ADC on the sensor. There are reports that the 1dx2 can push 5 stops and people are claiming a 2-3 stop advantage in shadows when pushed over the 1dx..  Maybe Canon has finally gained some ground.. We will have to see what the likes of dxomark report..


----------



## runnah

Overread said:


> It seems odd - Canon seems to be ruling in most areas barring the sensor ISO noise performance; whilst Nikon and the others are ruling there mostly because they are buying sony sensors because Sony threw stupid money at developing them so they could break into the market itself.
> 
> Honestly if Canon were to buy just 1 Sony sensor into their system they'd likely make a huge killing in the market. But for some reason they want to stick inhouse which is great; but it seems that they can't just can't crack the sensor tech (or they have but can't crack it without infringing on copyright of the sony design).
> 
> In general anything that isn't top line is incremental. Even then each model to model is generally incremental - you have to skip a generation to see a bigger gain in specifications.



I blame the Japanese. Seriously. In following various japanese companies throughout various form (motorsport, electronics, cameras etc...) I've noticed that most companies will go down in flames before they admit they made a mistake or need to change something. Honda for example has their ass handed to them this year in F1 because they refused to accept that their design wasn't the best despite the fact that the British engineer's said it was so. Same with Subaru, at one point they were the best in the world in rallying, but the series's specs changed and Subaru refused to adapt their design so they pulled out of the sport. And so on, Sony is constantly digging their heels in and sticking to a format despite the drawbacks.


----------



## spiralout462

All I know is, I really enjoy all 5 of My Canon cameras.  I have never felt that my sensor is not good enough.  Even if it wasn't,  the way they fit my hands and perform in the field (where it really counts) is paramount.  Besides, we got the best glass, right?


----------



## Derrel

I stopped by dPreview this AM and read their first-look and commentary on the new Canon 80D. Looks like a pretty good upgrade over the older 70D, with a number of better features, better video capabilities, and hopefully a better sensor than the level they've been iterating for several years now. The motorized zooming add-on device with the two-speed settings and then variable control in levels 1 and 2 looks interesting I suppose. Their NEW KIND of focusing motor sounds very interesting in the new 18-135 lens iteration. Having 45 all cross-type AF squares, plus apparently much better Live VIew focusing, all the basic subsystems sound like they've been updated over the 70D. It sounds to me like a pretty good D7200 competitor, and probably will keep people (enthusiasts, prosumer types,etc) trending upward, over the new Rebel T6 models.


----------



## DB_Cro

If they nailed iso6400 at the level of 7d markII, it'll be my next camera body.


----------



## Jared L.

DB_Cro said:


> It'll be my next camera body if high ISO is comparable to the 7D markII.
> If not, I'll have to save up for the 7.
> 
> Considering the resolution went up, I'm not expecting the ISO to be great.


Same for me. I'm looking at the 80D and lowlight and high ISO is just about everything to me. If the 80D isn't very good I'm gonna go cheap and either get the Panasonic Lumix G7 or the previous Canon 70D.


----------



## robbins.photo

JacaRanda said:


> Something does not jive.  Are we being punked (Canon owners)?  It's hard for me to believe that all the big white lens owners I see regularly, can't afford to switch, or are too lazy to switch, if the differences were significant enough.
> 
> I'm already considering upgrading Wifey's 70d to the 80d.  I MUST BE CRAZY!



Ok Jaca, you caught us.  Yup, your being punked.  Truth is the Universe works on exactly the same rules as High School, all you Canon guys are in the chess club, us Nikon folks are pretty much the band geeks and the popular kids all shoot Pentax or Sony and snicker at the rest of us.  

Lol

Seriously though, odds are good you could switch all your equipment to Nikon tomorrow, I could dump all my Nikon gear and switch over to Canon and if we both posted pictures without telling anyone else we switched I doubt anyone would notice.  I originally invested in the Nikon system because at the time I purchased my first DSLR the Nikons that were in my price range had slightly better stats in the specific areas I cared about most, so that's the system I chose.  Once I invested in Nikon, well switching to Canon for me now would be an expensive proposition, so unless Canon could offer me something way beyond what my current Nikon gear can accomplish, it just wouldn't make much sense.

I'm sure that this is much the same for you with Canon, not much point in switching to Nikon for you at this stage because there isn't anything that they offer that is light years ahead of what you already have on hand.


----------



## DB_Cro

Jared L. said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be my next camera body if high ISO is comparable to the 7D markII.
> If not, I'll have to save up for the 7.
> 
> Considering the resolution went up, I'm not expecting the ISO to be great.
> 
> 
> 
> Same for me. I'm looking at the 80D and lowlight and high ISO is just about everything to me. If the 80D isn't very good I'm gonna go cheap and either get the Panasonic Lumix G7 or the previous Canon 70D.
Click to expand...


Thankfully 7D markII's are showing up cheaper and/or used from time to time.
While not as good as 6D in high ISO, it's still a lot better then my T2i.


----------



## JacaRanda

robbins.photo said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something does not jive.  Are we being punked (Canon owners)?  It's hard for me to believe that all the big white lens owners I see regularly, can't afford to switch, or are too lazy to switch, if the differences were significant enough.
> 
> I'm already considering upgrading Wifey's 70d to the 80d.  I MUST BE CRAZY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Jaca, you caught us.  Yup, your being punked.  Truth is the Universe works on exactly the same rules as High School, all you Canon guys are in the chess club, us Nikon folks are pretty much the band geeks and the popular kids all shoot Pentax or Sony and snicker at the rest of us.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Seriously though, odds are good you could switch all your equipment to Nikon tomorrow, I could dump all my Nikon gear and switch over to Canon and if we both posted pictures without telling anyone else we switched I doubt anyone would notice.  I originally invested in the Nikon system because at the time I purchased my first DSLR the Nikons that were in my price range had slightly better stats in the specific areas I cared about most, so that's the system I chose.  Once I invested in Nikon, well switching to Canon for me now would be an expensive proposition, so unless Canon could offer me something way beyond what my current Nikon gear can accomplish, it just wouldn't make much sense.
> 
> I'm sure that this is much the same for you with Canon, not much point in switching to Nikon for you at this stage because there isn't anything that they offer that is light years ahead of what you already have on hand.
Click to expand...


Okay, I need a funny and an agree button.   WB Mr. Rob Benzzz.


----------



## beagle100

DB_Cro said:


> Jared L. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be my next camera body if high ISO is comparable to the 7D markII.
> vious Canon 70D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully 7D markII's are showing up cheaper and/or used from time to time.
> While not as good as 6D in high ISO, it's still a lot better then my T2i.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> full frame is definitely better (but cost more $$)
Click to expand...


----------



## donny1963

Overread said:


> Canon EOS 80D updates Dual Pixel AF, bumps resolution with 24MP sensor
> 
> Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D
> 
> A new middle of the range crop sensor from Canon! Making a lot of noise about their new AF system, various improvements in other areas, a 24mp sensor, new AF engines in the kit lens with an optional motorized external video AF system. Built in GPS is also now included.
> 
> Not as much noise on the sensor though - (yeah fantastic pun ) and might be a bit before we hear about its performance ,but being middle ranged its unlikely to be vastly different to the 7DMII



I'm really disappointed in the new Canon 80D,  the only very little in improvements vs the Canon 70D wich you can get for around $650.00 if you shop around.
This New Canon 80D is around $1200.00 which is totally ridiculous,  not worth even close to that range of price. Not for an APS-C  camera..
for the same price you can get a Nikon D610 with accessories, and that camera is a much better camera, better dynamic range better sensor, same MP,  and you can use Full Frame Sensor Lenses on it which are much better then APS-C lenses for the most part.
Yes it may do video better, but 99% of the reason you would buy a camera is for the Still Photography, if your mainly a video person then go out and get a HD video Camera.
you can get a  Panasonic HC-MDH2 AVCHD Shoulder Mount Camcorder that does just as good a job as the Canon 80D and cost less.
Not Worth it, the Canon 80D is not with the price they are asking no way in hell, and it's not all that much of an improvement from the 70D to justify the cost.
And megapixels are not as big of a deal as people make it out to be the difference between 20 MP and 24 MP is not even noticeable though the human eye, you would not see the difference, yeah 8 mp vs 16 mp is a big difference but not 4 mp , and Megapixels is not the primary feature that has to do with your image quality.

A full frame sensor vs a crop sensor will always put out much better image quality. And better lenses quality for the full frame sensor camera's.

If i see any one in the camera store buying an 80D i would be tempted to say are you stupid or something, what would you rather have a aps-c crop sensor camera or a full fame sensor camera for the same price with accessories with it?  Come on are people stupid or something?
Panasonic HC-MDH2 AVCHD Shoulder Mount Camcorder - Fumfie.com


----------



## coastalconn

Not every wants or needs a full frame camera.


----------



## DB_Cro

coastalconn said:


> Not every wants or needs a full frame camera.



Exactly.
I would, of course, want the 1DX, but with the 7D markII and 6D at about the same price locally, the 7 is better for 90%
of the stuff I shoot, and I don't even do the obvious ones (wildlife/birds and sports). I'd love to have the 6 sensor for some
stuff, but for everything else, the 7D is better for me.


----------



## donny1963

coastalconn said:


> Not every wants or needs a full frame camera.


Really?? that's your thinking?   ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
Yeah ok..       Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.

Ok so you buy the 70D   for half the price  and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels  and better AF performance,  oh goody ....
Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.


first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for  4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.

Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....

You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely,  Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..

The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.

The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D


While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.

With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.

While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.

where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.

But not quite


----------



## spiralout462

^^^ I don't want, or need a full frame sensor.


----------



## coastalconn

donny1963 said:


> Really?? that's your thinking?   ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
> Yeah ok..       Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.


Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds.  Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100.  I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me.  Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc


donny1963 said:


> Ok so you buy the 70D   for half the price  and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels  and better AF performance,  oh goody ....
> Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
> It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.


The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass.  You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera.  The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon. 


donny1963 said:


> first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for  4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
> Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
> You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely,  Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
> The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
> It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.


I personally could care less about MP.  If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon.  Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system.  Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.


donny1963 said:


> The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D


Not if the D610 misses your subject.


donny1963 said:


> While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
> Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
> With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
> have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
> For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
> subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
> especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
> While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
> it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
> where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
> But not quite


You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame.  The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price.  Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2?  Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage.  So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you.  Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them.  Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera.  Peace


----------



## DB_Cro

+1, because of the cropping my 200 2.8 becomes over 300 2.8, and I need that often for events I shoot.
Even with unlimited funds, I'd still go buy the 7D markII tomorrow because I NEED that for most of my work.

I'd get a FF camera too because that's better suitable for some of it, but if I had to choose one, hi-end crop 
(regardless of brand, D7200 is good enough for me already)  body is what I'd buy, especially on the Nikon 
side with the amazing D500.


----------



## coastalconn

DB_Cro said:


> +1, because of the cropping my 200 2.8 becomes over 300 2.8, and I need that often for events I shoot.
> Even with unlimited funds, I'd still go buy the 7D markII tomorrow because I NEED that for most of my work.
> 
> I'd get a FF camera too because that's better suitable for some of it, but if I had to choose one, hi-end crop
> (regardless of brand, D7200 is good enough for me already)  body is what I'd buy, especially on the Nikon
> side with the amazing D500.


I was thinking about this thread this morning as I was photographing my favorite hawk eating a duck.  I took this with my lowly 7dm2.  It is cropped to 2791x3855 or about 10.7 MP.  If I had a D610 the image would only be about 2000x2750 or about 5.5 MP.  If I went to print at 200 DPI The 7dm2 would give me a 19x16 vs 14x10.  So as I said earlier, I don't want or need a full frame camera.. 



George Jr with Ruddy Duck 3_13 1 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr


----------



## DB_Cro

Amazing shot and a great point.

Also:


----------



## Derrel

For telephoto work, or close-ups, meaning shooting small physical areas of the world or fairly close-in three-dimensional objects, it seems to me that the sweetest spot for *image quality and for achieving a good amount of depth of field per angle of view* is...APS-C...the smaller sensor size means that for a specific picture height, like say a 0.6 meter high, tight shot of say a red fox or a coyote, that the most advantageous camera format for DOF and for high-resolution is...a smaller-than-FF size sensor, so you can get that tight framing AND have a little extra DOF to cover focus errors and to get a few extra inches into crisp, clear focus...at longer distances, APS-C does NOT give the strong subject/background separation that APS-C does, the NFL Football Game type look, with one running back or receiver with the football, and then the background totally,totally de-focused and wayyyy blurred out, but has a bit more-recognizable background.

IN-STUDIO is where APS-C really falls down for people work...with the actual physical sizes of muslin backdrops, and the 9-foot-wide size of seamless paper, APS-C makes it so that group photos, horizontal photos, bring the photographer down into the 30,33,34,35 mm focal length range a lot, same on "tall" or Full-length portraits; inside an average room, or a typical photo studio type place, the smaller APS-C sensor has one really UGLY quality: it gives TOO MUCH depth of field, and the backgrounds all look quite a bit more in-focus than with FX or larger formats...the f/7.1 or so f/stop most studio flashes will deliver, and the f/7.1 to f/11 f/stop you actually will REQUIRE to get say a 2-deep family group into focus means that the focus band that extends BEHIND the subject is amply deep to bring the background into recognizable focus....you can literally SEE wrinkles in a seamless, or literally see the muslin's texture, and so on if photos were made with an APS-C or m4/3 camera.

High-end street and candid shooters understand that the deeeeeep DOF that m4/3 delivers is a huge advantage when they want to get that deep DOF, everything in-focus look from across a table and all the way to the back of a cafe. For that matter, the iPhone and Galaxy with almost infinite, hyperfocal DOF from 3 feet to Infinity are fabulous tools for getting EVERYTHING in crisp focus, even with their 3.5mm focal length lenses wide-open at f/2.5.

Once an APS-C camera gets to about 6 meter focusing distance, the DOF increase line graphed out drives upward incredibly rapidly. With something like an 85mm lens at 6 meters, APS-C can barely make the background un-recognizable. With a shorter lens, like say 50mm, at 6 meters, the backgrounds will be exceptionally "recognizable" and it is virtually impossible to blow-out the background. Some shooters want MORE depth of field, others want MINIMAL depth of field, and in different situations, more is better, and in others, less DOF is better.

The way the two formats work is quite different, depending on the angle of view used, meaning mostly the focal length: at the wider angles of view, APS-C and m4/3 make it possible to get fairly deep depth of field, which can be an advantage for documenting reality, but not so advantageous if you want to "separate" people from their surroundings though shallow DOF. I think APS-C sucks for studio type work. Just too much in-focus when the field of view indoors is even seven feet across or 7 feet tall...

But slap on a 300, 400, or 500 or any of those with its 1.4x converter, and that extra DOF with that "TIGHT" field-of view angle....damn...what's a negative for moderate magnification angles of view at 6-40 feet becomes a major, major BONUS for birds, animals, motocross, track and field, soccer, ocean and coastal shooting at long ranges, being able to get hyperfocal Depth of field with a 135mm lens in real situations,etc..


----------



## donny1963

coastalconn said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? that's your thinking?   ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
> Yeah ok..       Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds.  Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100.  I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me.  Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so you buy the 70D   for half the price  and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels  and better AF performance,  oh goody ....
> Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
> It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass.  You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera.  The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for  4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
> Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
> You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely,  Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
> The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
> It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally could care less about MP.  If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon.  Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system.  Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the D610 misses your subject.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
> Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
> With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
> have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
> For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
> subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
> especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
> While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
> it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
> where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
> But not quite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame.  The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price.  Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2?  Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage.  So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you.  Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them.  Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera.  Peace
Click to expand...

the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto  but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality


----------



## DB_Cro

donny1963 said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? that's your thinking?   ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
> Yeah ok..       Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds.  Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100.  I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me.  Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so you buy the 70D   for half the price  and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels  and better AF performance,  oh goody ....
> Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
> It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass.  You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera.  The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for  4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
> Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
> You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely,  Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
> The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
> It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally could care less about MP.  If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon.  Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system.  Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the D610 misses your subject.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
> Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
> With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
> have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
> For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
> subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
> especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
> While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
> it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
> where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
> But not quite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame.  The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price.  Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2?  Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage.  So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you.  Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them.  Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera.  Peace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto  but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality
Click to expand...


We're all aware that FF is better if you can fill a frame with your subject without cropping.
It was mentioned by a few of us.

There's a big difference in price beween a 70-200 (which is over 300mm on 1.6x crop) and a 300 prime or a 400 prime (even a F/5.6).


----------



## donny1963

DB_Cro said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? that's your thinking?   ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
> Yeah ok..       Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds.  Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100.  I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me.  Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so you buy the 70D   for half the price  and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels  and better AF performance,  oh goody ....
> Maybe at the time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
> It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass.  You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera.  The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for  4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
> Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
> You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely,  Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
> The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
> It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally could care less about MP.  If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon.  Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system.  Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the D610 misses your subject.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
> Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
> With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
> have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
> For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
> subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
> especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
> While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
> it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
> where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
> But not quite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame.  The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price.  Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2?  Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage.  So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you.  Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them.  Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera.  Peace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto  but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're all aware that FF is better if you can fill a frame with your subject without cropping.
> It was mentioned by a few of us.
> 
> There's a big difference in price beween a 70-200 (which is over 300mm on 1.6x crop) and a 300 prime or a 400 prime (even a F/5.6).
Click to expand...

if every one is aware, then why would any one argue the fact of it?
my point was the canon 80D vs the Nikon D610 they are around the same price and my point was your better off getting the Nikon D610 for the money the D610 can do everything the Canon 80D can + more and better.. with the exception to video..


----------



## DB_Cro

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.

And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
to crop.

And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.

I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.

Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.

*EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.

Why aren't you using medium format?*


----------



## coastalconn

donny1963 said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? that's your thinking?   ok i'll take the shittier APS-C camera for $1200.00 even tho i could have a much better full frame camera..
> Yeah ok..       Ok, so lets say some one who is in the market for a canon Camera but doesn't want full frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that is really my thinking, but what do I know, I only photograph birds.  Let's see, when I still shot Nikon I had a D7100 and a D800 and guess what, as much as I loved the D800, I sold it because it offered no advantages to me over a D7100.  I have also shot with a D600/D610, sorry to say crop sensors are better for me.  Oh and a D3s, D7200, D300 D7200, etc
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so you buy the 70D   for half the price  and your getting basically the same camera the only difference is the 80D has 4 more Megapixels  and better AF performance,  oh goody ....
> Maybe time some one might not want the full frame camera but if he / she really gets into photography and enjoys it and wants to take it a step further they would need to upgrade to a full frame sensor, which again is going to cost money, Why not pay the $1200.00 and get a full frame sensor even tho your not going to take advantage if it right away you will want to later on.
> It's not a smart way to spend your money buying the Canon 80D, when you can get a full frame sensor Camera, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The smart move to take your photography forward would be better glass.  You are also comparing an end of life product which was essentially announced in Sept 2012, granted they slapped that "10" on there a year later, but essentially the same camera.  The 80D hasn't even been tested yet and Canon has moved to a new chip with ADC which could possibly increase DR very close to that of Nikon.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off 4 more megapixels is not going to justify paying $600.00 more for the camera for  4 more megapixels is not going to be that much of a difference.
> Many People believe image quality is all about megapixels but that is not true, at all....
> You shouldn’t ignore megapixel counts entirely,  Many people confuse high megapixel counts with indicators of how good a camera’s image quality will be, but in reality it’s simply a measure of how large you can view, resize, or print an image without seeing a noticeable decrease in resolution. Megapixels translate to image size, not image quality..
> The sensor in a DLSR is the equivalent of what used to be film in a 35mm camera. The senor is exposed to the available light when you click your shutter speed.
> It and other components capture and store this data. Because it's the sensor that's capturing and storing your images, this is the most important spec you'll want to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally could care less about MP.  If the sensor was the most important thing, no one would be shooting Canon any longer as Nikon/Sony sensors smoke Canon.  Personally I only see the camera as a tool that is part of a system.  Things like lens selection, build quality, AF, ergonomics and speed have to all be looked at equally, in my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon D610 is the larger full frame sensor, the Canon 80D is the smaller cropped sensor. which means the Nikon D610 will always produce better image quality then the Canon 80D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the D610 misses your subject.
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While smaller sensors struggle with capturing enough light, larger sensors are able to accommodate lower light situations.
> Another advantage is having better control of depth of field.
> With a larger sensor, you can more readily render an out-of-focus background behind your subject. APS-C sensors, however,
> have one common disadvantage, and that's crop factor. Crop factor refers to how a lens is magnified when attached to APS-C-based cameras.
> For example, if you use a 28mm lens, it would be magnified to look like a 45mm lens. In other words,
> subjects are zoomed in a little bit more. While this isn't such a big deal, you should be aware of it,
> especially if you're a landscape photographer who takes a lot of wide images.
> While a good 28mm lens would look wide enough on a 35mm film or full frame camera,
> it might be insufficient on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.
> where the Nikon D610 is the same exact megapixels as the Canon 80D, the Nikon will still produce higher quality images, because the sensor is almost twice the size.
> But not quite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have done very good here spewing the Nikon mantra of you must shoot full frame.  The questions you should really be asking is how dare Nikon release a $2000 D500 when you can but a D750 for less, or even a D610 for half the price.  Or perhaps why is Canon releasing the 80D at the same price as the 7DM2?  Personally I think the crop factor is an advantage.  So just remember before you stand up on that soap box, not everyone shoots the same way as you.  Maybe some people can't afford full frame lenses so crop works better for them.  Maybe people like me have a 500 F4 and don't want to slap an extender on it so you can get the same field of view as crop camera.  Peace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the reason why the crop sensor is working or seems to work better for you is because when you use a crop sensor vs full frame your getting more close up telephoto  but if you get a lens that zooms closer you will get what your looking for and with better quality
Click to expand...

 In case you missed it I have a 500 F4, there is no zoom. If I had a full frame then I would either need a 1.4x extender and then there would be no advantage as I would loose 1 stop of ISO, have slightly slower AF and a slight reduction in image quality.. The other option is an 800 F5.6 which I shot for a month and again I loose 1 stop of light and at 10# it is just front heavy enough that I didn't enjoy shooting with it..

I'm getting everything I want image quality wise by the way, not sure what your reference was to? And also thinking about it further by saying "just get a lens that zooms in closer" we are on completely different levels.. Best of luck with your full frame mission you are on..


----------



## DarkShadow

After Looking through the viewfinder with 600mm on a FF vs crop body, the crop wins all day long for wildlife or sports for the perceived FOV reach. As good as crop sensors have gotten with low noise and image quality its not a huge difference. I think its when you need to maximize the shallow DOF and wide angle lenses or shoot at ridiculously high ISO in low light the FF pulls out In front. One thing for sure is that both formats can produce crappy images and outstanding images depending on who is driving.

I see both formats as tools, you by the right tool for the job.


----------



## DB_Cro

DarkShadow said:


> I see both formats as tools, you by the right tool for the job.



..and this is what a lot of people don't understand.

They use a APS-C body with the 18-55 kit lens for a year, then buy a FF body with a few high-end lenses and are blown
away by the difference even if they have no idea what they're doing. Obvious conclusion is - APS-C sux. D'oh.


----------



## Braineack

donny1963 said:


> if every one is aware, then why would any one argue the fact of it?
> my point was the canon 80D vs the Nikon D610 they are around the same price and my point was your better off getting the Nikon D610 for the money the D610 can do everything the Canon 80D can + more and better.. with the exception to video..



I'd rather have a D500 over a D610 if I was shooting sports/wildlife.

I'd rather have the D610 for almost every other situation.


----------



## donny1963

DB_Cro said:


> I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
> Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.
> 
> And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
> that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
> lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
> to crop.
> 
> And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
> All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.
> 
> I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
> my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.
> 
> Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.
> 
> *EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.
> 
> Why aren't you using medium format?*


Well I was stating the Nikon d610 because I'm a Nikon guy I have the Nikon D810 that I got cheaply but you could get a cannon 6D thats full frame and onlt $1200.00 or so that would be better for you


----------



## donny1963

Braineack said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if every one is aware, then why would any one argue the fact of it?
> my point was the canon 80D vs the Nikon D610 they are around the same price and my point was your better off getting the Nikon D610 for the money the D610 can do everything the Canon 80D can + more and better.. with the exception to video..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have a D500 over a D610 if I was shooting sports/wildlife.
> 
> I'd rather have the D610 for almost every other situation.
Click to expand...

 I have the d610 for back up i shoot portraits and landscape the d610 is wonderfull for landscape.. but I love my D810 that camera is phenomenal


----------



## DB_Cro

donny1963 said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
> Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.
> 
> And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
> that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
> lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
> to crop.
> 
> And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
> All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.
> 
> I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
> my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.
> 
> Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.
> 
> *EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.
> 
> Why aren't you using medium format?*
> 
> 
> 
> Well I was stating the Nikon d610 because I'm a Nikon guy I have the Nikon D810 that I got cheaply but you could get a cannon 6D thats full frame and onlt $1200.00 or so that would be better for you
Click to expand...


No, it wouldn't be better for me, 7D markII would be better for me.
Are you reading what people are writing?
Do you not understand it?


----------



## donny1963

DB_Cro said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
> Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.
> 
> And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
> that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
> lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
> to crop.
> 
> And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
> All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.
> 
> I'd gladly use a D610 when shooting portraits, I KNOW that it'll do better then any APS-C, but I rarely do that,
> my job is every other kind of fast paced events where I'd benefit more from D7200 or D500 then D610 or D750.
> 
> Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.
> 
> *EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.
> 
> Why aren't you using medium format?*
> 
> 
> 
> Well I was stating the Nikon d610 because I'm a Nikon guy I have the Nikon D810 that I got cheaply but you could get a cannon 6D thats full frame and onlt $1200.00 or so that would be better for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't be better for me, 7D markII would be better for me.
> Are you reading what people are writing?
> Do you not understand it?
Click to expand...

No i missed. That.. I was just talking in terms of pricing..  The 7d tho would be more money i think


----------



## DB_Cro

It's about the same here, irrelevant since full frame is a disadvantage for the type of work that I do in 70-80% of the situations.


----------



## beagle100

DB_Cro said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
> Anyways, I have $2000 in Canon lenses, buying the Nikon for me would be a lot more expensive for me now.
> 
> And again, I'd rather have a higher end crop body that gives me better AF, more FPS and other stuff
> that makes sure I don't miss a shot shooting stuff that can't be missed and repeated, and also, again, my 200mm
> lens is over 300mm on the crop body which is enough reach for me while 200mm on FF wouldn't be and I'd have
> to crop.
> 
> And again, sport, wildlife, bird shooters etc.. can't you see it from the other perspective?
> All of us shooting APS-C KNOW what full frame does better, and it's NOT better for everything and everyone.
> 
> 
> Watch the Z. Arias video that I posted if you haven't.
> 
> *EDIT: Someone shooting medium format could say the same things about FF that you're saying about APS-C.
> 
> Why aren't you using medium format?*
> 
> 
> 
> ou
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't be better for me, 7D markII would be better for me.
> Are you reading what people are writing?
> Do you not understand it?
Click to expand...


the 7D2 could be better in some situations but probably more expensive


----------



## DB_Cro

It costs the same here.
Writing same things 3 times seems normal for this thread.

Also, 2 out of 3 lenses I own aren't for full frame anyways.
It's actually cheaper then.


----------



## coastalconn

Here in the US the 7dm2 with a pro 100 printer and some other stuff is 1199 after rebate Canon 7D Mark II  which is the same price as the 80D body only at launch.  Hadn't really thought about it, but unless Canon really does have new sensor tech and the DR is 14+ stops, not sure why people would pick the 80D over the 7dm2.  Either that or Canon is dumping off the 7dm2 as quickly as possible to replace it with a 7d3 that has new sensor tech and an AF system that actually works?


----------



## DB_Cro

coastalconn said:


> not sure why people would pick the 80D over the 7dm2



Video.


----------



## zombiesniper

coastalconn said:


> Here in the US the 7dm2 with a pro 100 printer and some other stuff is 1199 after rebate Canon 7D Mark II  which is the same price as the 80D body only at launch.  Hadn't really thought about it, but unless Canon really does have new sensor tech and the DR is 14+ stops, not sure why people would pick the 80D over the 7dm2.  Either that or Canon is dumping off the 7dm2 as quickly as possible to replace it with a 7d3 that has new sensor tech and an AF system that actually works?



Agreed and never even thought about a 7dm3.
That would explain the inflated price of the 80D.


----------



## JacaRanda

coastalconn said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> +1, because of the cropping my 200 2.8 becomes over 300 2.8, and I need that often for events I shoot.
> Even with unlimited funds, I'd still go buy the 7D markII tomorrow because I NEED that for most of my work.
> 
> I'd get a FF camera too because that's better suitable for some of it, but if I had to choose one, hi-end crop
> (regardless of brand, D7200 is good enough for me already)  body is what I'd buy, especially on the Nikon
> side with the amazing D500.
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this thread this morning as I was photographing my favorite hawk eating a duck.  I took this with my lowly 7dm2.  It is cropped to 2791x3855 or about 10.7 MP.  If I had a D610 the image would only be about 2000x2750 or about 5.5 MP.  If I went to print at 200 DPI The 7dm2 would give me a 19x16 vs 14x10.  So as I said earlier, I don't want or need a full frame camera..
> 
> 
> 
> George Jr with Ruddy Duck 3_13 1 by Kristofer Rowe, on Flickr
Click to expand...


YOU'RE KILLING ME LARRY!


----------



## robbins.photo

JacaRanda said:


> YOU'RE KILLING ME LARRY!



Larry, stop that.  Get off your brother Jaca.  You boys settle down.  Don't make me stop the car and come back there.


----------



## JacaRanda

robbins.photo said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'RE KILLING ME LARRY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry, stop that.  Get off your brother Jaca.  You boys settle down.  Don't make me stop the car and come back there.
Click to expand...


It really had something to do with flatulence yet to circulate to the front seats.


----------



## robbins.photo

JacaRanda said:


> It really had something to do with flatulence yet to circulate to the front seats.



Sigh..  doesn't it always?   Lol


----------



## TallDude

I'm sure some have seen (at least 6,810 views) this video summing up the 80D release. The host makes a pun about the irony that 80D and A.D.D. sound the same. Maybe Canon has a little when it comes to understanding the current market.


----------



## Derrel

The 80D's price is in no way "inflated". jeeze...

EVERY new enthusiast body comes out at $1199 to $1299 nowadays. That gives the manufacturer some extra profit margin, and keeps the supply in line with the demand, and ensures that if you really WANT that new camera, that you pay the full, introductory price. After the early initial demand drops, then the price drops. The Nikon D7100 was once a $1299 camera...a couple months ago, I saw a big batch of factory refurbished models being let go at $498. The Canon-brand end-of-life signal is the bundling of the camera with one of those Canon printers and a rebate.

EVERY Canon, EVERY Nikon begins its run at full-bore introductory pricing. Later, rebates are typically used, instead of price reductions. Rebates must be redeemed, paperwork must be completed and dealers and the camera makers get higher actual revenues,whereas price reductions COST money for the dealers and the camera makers by lowering the amount of money that the good sell for. A $200 rebate that goes un-claimed means there's an extra $200 in it on the retail end!

So, NO, the 80D's price is NOT in any way imaginable "inflated". You want a low price? You buy a model of camera that is one model back, or two models back, or one model back but refurbished.


----------



## Overread

Also 70D owners are not the target market for the 80D. In general you have to skip a generation for a major update to your camera if you're going model to model within the same line. The upgrade for the 70D owners is the 7DMII. 

Heck even in the 1D world many skip a generation; although the slower turnaround of models sometimes makes them cave earlier; whilst lower lines get updated very regularly so there's less pain in waiting.


----------



## Derrel

As the video in post 56 shows--this segment is very much geared toward specifications and capabilities; the buyers in this, specific category are people who want certain feature sets. When I read through the dPreview first-look piece, it became immediately clear to me that this new 80D has a major emphasis on video-centric features. The high-end consumer camera, the serious enthusiast's camera, the prosumer camera du joure--however one wants to look at the $1199-$1399 camera models of the past few years, *that camera slo*t is one that appeals to people who really want to use their cameras, often to do more than one thing. Today, there are many people who want good stills and decent video, or they want a good, capable video camera that uses Canon EF mount lenses. The younger 20- and 30-something set, the people that make videos for YouTube, the people who like stills, who also want to shoot video...the 80D has improved on some important video needs. The serious enthusiast likes a state of the art camera; the prosumer is a buyer who almost always upgrades every generation and he MUST HAVE the latest specifications and he MUST have the latest, most cutting-edge technology. Many people misunderstand *the prosumer*; the prosumer is the quintessential early upgrader, he is the quintessential serial early adopter of any new technology, like the dual-pixel AF, or the motorized zoom. This price slot is a big area of emphasis for prosumer buyers.

Camera buyers segment in to some predictable groups. All the camera makers know this. The 80D's emphasis on improved video features and a new configurable, power zoom concept,a new zoom lens for the power system or for hand-operated zooming and for stills, with a basically silent focusing motor, and in-lens stabilization. Added microphone inputs...this is a must-have camera for the lower end of the video creation amateur market, for the younger, less-affluent video crowd who wants to have a DUAL-duty video and stills or stills and video camera that is affordable. YEAH--it is $1199 today...but in a few years, one will likely be able to snap one up for $799 brand new. AND THAT is the way the d-slr business has been working for some time now: when the 80D is old-hat, it will still be an incredible asset to the Canon brand line-up in APS-C. All good things come to those who wait. Want one cheap? WAIT.


----------



## TallDude

I rarely buy anything new unless it's a great deal. I have 5 Canon mount lenses, so I'm already partially vested ( in EF as well). My current subject is mostly indoor sports. I used to be hung up on FPS. I wasted a lot of post time deleting useless shots. As I've improved my ability to frame, compose, and pick my spots, my editing time was greatly reduced. With the 80D's improved 42 AF  X-points, built-in WiFi, a modest 7fps, and higher ISO range, it would be a nice move-up from my T2i. That being said, I will definitely buy more glass before I upgrade my body. So the 80D is definitely something I'd consider. I've been eyeing the 7DmII for a while and still consider it my move-up body. I'm a photo hobbyist, so I don't mind waiting for a good deal.


----------



## DB_Cro

TallDude said:


> I rarely buy anything new unless it's a great deal. I have 5 Canon mount lenses, so I'm already partially vested ( in EF as well). My current subject is mostly indoor sports. I used to be hung up on FPS. I wasted a lot of post time deleting useless shots. As I've improved my ability to frame, compose, and pick my spots, my editing time was greatly reduced. With the 80D's improved 42 AF  X-points, built-in WiFi, a modest 7fps, and higher ISO range, it would be a nice move-up from my T2i. That being said, I will definitely buy more glass before I upgrade my body. So the 80D is definitely something I'd consider. I've been eyeing the 7DmII for a while and still consider it my move-up body. I'm a photo hobbyist, so I don't mind waiting for a good deal.



I'm in the same boat but 7d markII still seems like a better choice to me, but I'll probably pick the one 
that does better in high ISO (which will still likely be the 7d markII). If they're about the same, I'd get
the 80D because of the higher resolution.

Then again.. I'd like to have the extra safety of 2 card slots.. :-/
Nevermind. :-/


----------



## beagle100

TallDude said:


> I rarely buy anything new unless it's a great deal. I have 5 Canon mount lenses, so I'm already partially vested ( in EF as well). My current subject is mostly indoor sports. I used to be hung up on FPS. I wasted a lot of post time deleting useless shots. As I've improved my ability to frame, compose, and pick my spots, my editing time was greatly reduced. With the 80D's improved 42 AF  X-points, built-in WiFi, a modest 7fps, and higher ISO range, it would be a nice move-up from my T2i. That being said, I will definitely buy more glass before I upgrade my body. So the 80D is definitely something I'd consider. I've been eyeing the 7DmII for a while and still consider it my move-up body. I'm a photo hobbyist, so I don't mind waiting for a good deal.



go for the good deal 
(the "pixels" keep getting smaller and smaller !)


----------



## DB_Cro

The only thing that would get me to consider 80D rather then 7D markII is better high ISO performance, and I'm not
holding my breath since they went up in megapixel count which usually makes the high ISO performance worse
(all other things being equal).

The 750D/760D (T6i/T6s) use a 24mpix sensor and while it's better in low light then previous 18mpix rebels (and 60D/7D),
70D is still better then all of them, and 7D markII is better then all of them once again.


----------



## Overread

Generally speaking the ISO noise performance always improves; although sometimes the improvement is small if the MP value goes up. In general I'd rather like to see MP level off for a while; if just to let noise performance catch up and because its getting silly how big RAW files are to store in the computer.

Give us a little time without the MP war - have an ISO, dynamic range, FPS, or something else war for a bit


----------



## DB_Cro

Yes! I agree! Nikon is a good example of MPIX going up along with high ISO performance but Canon has been slacking 
in that department for 5 years now so that's why I'm worried. If 80D doesn't outperform 7D markII in high ISO, or let's 
say.. it does about the same.. then 24mpix over 20mpix might be something worth looking into.

Then again, I'd want them to make a 7d markIII that stays at 20 or even goes back to 18 if they could pull off high ISO
performance of the D500 or something as sick as that. I'd rather have a clean 3200 then few mpix more.


----------



## Overread

I'd like to see clean 6400


----------



## robbins.photo

Overread said:


> I'd like to see clean 6400



That would be nice - 6400 is as high as I shoot on my D7100, it's pretty much the point at which any higher and the noise just gets too extreme.  But it's not exactly clean at 6400.. just livable.. lol


----------



## DB_Cro

Overread said:


> I'd like to see clean 6400



We all would but.. that's more of a Sony A7S II territory I'm affraid.


----------



## DB_Cro

robbins.photo said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see clean 6400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be nice - 6400 is as high as I shoot on my D7100, it's pretty much the point at which any higher and the noise just gets too extreme.  But it's not exactly clean at 6400.. just livable.. lol
Click to expand...


6400 on D7200 (haven't seen 7100) is definitely more then usable, and the only Canon APS-C that can do 6400 usable is 7D markII IMHO, and it's still worse.


----------



## robbins.photo

DB_Cro said:


> 6400 on D7200 (haven't seen 7100) is definitely more then usable, and the only Canon APS-C that can do 6400 usable is 7D markII IMHO, and it's still worse.



Never shot a 7d Mk II so couldn't really offer an opinion there.  For the most part I've been pretty happy with the 7100 though,  This was shot at 6400 on my D7100:




1081 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr


----------



## DB_Cro

That's very nice.
And it's a really old body right now, Canon needs to get their **** together.
I can't wait to see D500 stuff.

EDIT: Looked at a few more images, seems like the 6400 on D7100 is a bit better then 3200 on my T2i. Oh well.


----------



## robbins.photo

DB_Cro said:


> That's very nice.
> And it's a really old body right now, Canon needs to get their **** together.
> I can't wait to see D500 stuff.



I can't speak for Canon of course but I think they might have figured, well, if you want better lowlight then upgrade to full frame.  Of course good lowlight in an APS-C is one of the things that drew me to Nikon in the first place, always been happy with my choice.


----------



## DB_Cro

robbins.photo said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very nice.
> And it's a really old body right now, Canon needs to get their **** together.
> I can't wait to see D500 stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for Canon of course but I think they might have figured, well, if you want better lowlight then upgrade to full frame.  Of course good lowlight in an APS-C is one of the things that drew me to Nikon in the first place, always been happy with my choice.
Click to expand...


It's almost the same difference when you compare FF bodies, again the Nikon is miles ahead with the last gen sensors.
6D isn't bad at all and the higher end 5D is actually worse then 6D, FFS.


----------



## spiralout462

I can use ISO6400 on my T6s more often than I could on the last Gen 18mp sensor.   Still not ideal but perfectly acceptable for most applications.


----------



## DB_Cro

spiralout462 said:


> I can use ISO6400 on my T6s more often than I could on the last Gen 18mp sensor.   Still not ideal but perfectly acceptable for most applications.



Really? 
I took maybe 3-4 shots at 6400 on my 18mpix, it's horrible.
3200 is ok if it's not pitch black around me.


----------



## spiralout462

T6s has the new 24mp sensor.  A little better than the previous 18mpx that was used for years.  Sorry,  probably didn't word that right.


----------



## DB_Cro

spiralout462 said:


> T6s has the new 24mp sensor.  A little better than the previous 18mpx that was used for years.  Sorry,  probably didn't word that right.



I understood what you said, I know about all the newer sensors, I'm just commenting on how bad the 18mpix is.
70D is better then T6s says DXOMark, if only a bit tho.


----------



## stephenwithph

So from what I have been reading so far on this thread, many of you would not recommend me buying the 80D over 70D especially if I am tight on budget? And it's not worth purchasing the newest technology as 70D would do great of a video work as the 80D?


----------



## Overread

The 80D will be better no argument there. 

However at launch the 80D will have a high price, inflated over its expected market position. Furthermore if you're limited on budget there is a lot more to get other than the camera to get a good video setup (esp for DSLR video). AS such a very capable body like the 70D is an ideal option as it will get a lower price as the 80D hits the market; furthermore its only a generation back so it won't be a night and day difference between the two.


----------



## robbins.photo

stephenwithph said:


> So from what I have been reading so far on this thread, many of you would not recommend me buying the 80D over 70D especially if I am tight on budget? And it's not worth purchasing the newest technology as 70D would do great of a video work as the 80D?



Honestly if it were me?  I'd wait until after the 80d was released.

Then check ebay for all the used 70d listings at drastically reduced prices.


----------



## DB_Cro

The only way I'd skip the 80D was if I already owned the 70D.


----------



## beagle100

stephenwithph said:


> So from what I have been reading so far on this thread, many of you would not recommend me buying the 80D over 70D especially if I am tight on budget? And it's not worth purchasing the newest technology as 70D would do great of a video work as the 80D?



If you really want full frame get the *refurbished* 6D


----------



## stephenwithph

beagle100 said:


> stephenwithph said:
> 
> 
> 
> So from what I have been reading so far on this thread, many of you would not recommend me buying the 80D over 70D especially if I am tight on budget? And it's not worth purchasing the newest technology as 70D would do great of a video work as the 80D?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want full frame get the *refurbished* 6D
Click to expand...


No, I don't want full frame. In fact I am actually selling my 6D.



DB_Cro said:


> The only way I'd skip the 80D was if I already owned the 70D.



Hmm... I don't own 70D yet... so I guess I will wait for a kit price to go down a bit for 80D then...!! MORE WAITING!


----------



## stephenwithph

DB_Cro said:


> The only thing that would get me to consider 80D rather then 7D markII is better high ISO performance, and I'm not
> holding my breath since they went up in megapixel count which usually makes the high ISO performance worse
> (all other things being equal).
> 
> The 750D/760D (T6i/T6s) use a 24mpix sensor and while it's better in low light then previous 18mpix rebels (and 60D/7D),
> 70D is still better then all of them, and 7D markII is better then all of them once again.



Looks like the canon 80D did improve on the low ISO. However, I am not sure how it still compares to 7D Mark II though.

Showing dynamism: EOS 80D breaks new ground for Canon low ISO DR


----------



## Overread

Ohhh that's looking very fancy! 
Be neat to see what other tests show! Makes me excited for a 7DMIII!


----------



## JacaRanda

stephenwithph said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that would get me to consider 80D rather then 7D markII is better high ISO performance, and I'm not
> holding my breath since they went up in megapixel count which usually makes the high ISO performance worse
> (all other things being equal).
> 
> The 750D/760D (T6i/T6s) use a 24mpix sensor and while it's better in low light then previous 18mpix rebels (and 60D/7D),
> 70D is still better then all of them, and 7D markII is better then all of them once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the canon 80D did improve on the low ISO. However, I am not sure how it still compares to 7D Mark II though.
> 
> Showing dynamism: EOS 80D breaks new ground for Canon low ISO DR
Click to expand...


Oh boy.  I had the nerve to read through the comments.  OMG, why do I do that???  Well, because I no longer watch the Kardashians or The Bachelor or Real & Chance or Flava Flav......


----------



## Derrel

Yeah...I went there and made a screen capture of the models they suggested comparing...

Progress, but still lagging way behind.


----------



## Overread

Id say whilst not at sony sensor level its still a significant gain. Plus it appears to be on the right track so suggests canon might well catch up.


----------



## robbins.photo

JacaRanda said:


> Oh boy.  I had the nerve to read through the comments.  OMG, why do I do that???  Well, because I no longer watch the Kardashians or The Bachelor or Real & Chance or Flava Flav......



I have to admit, I miss Flava.  Not many people I know can pull off the alarm clock on a chain around your neck look.  Gotta give the guy props for that if nothing else.


----------



## Solarflare

I congratulate Canon for finally keeping up with Sony/Nikon.




Derrel said:


> Yeah...I went there and made a screen capture of the models they suggested comparing...
> 
> Progress, but still lagging way behind.


 Oh come on, dont be a spoilsport. I dont use DxOMark anymore, but according to them, when it comes to dynamic range, the D7200 is beating even my trusty D750, and getting very close to the leading D810.

If Canon can offer this kind of performance in all their new cameras, they're back into the game.


----------



## JacaRanda

I read that Canon and Nikon flip flop on being #1.  Does anyone know the last year Nikon was #1? 
Wondering with the sensor technology debates as they are, how long will it take for Nikon to be #1 again.   Figured there would be charts all over the web.


----------



## stephenwithph

Finally pull the trigger and got the 80D. Excited to play around with it and I will let you know how pictures turn out.


----------



## TallDude

The passion for the latest in Canon lore, has been vicariously satisfied..... Thank you. "I want to try?" That's what I you's to say to my older brother. 
I'd buy one as well, but I'm currently between funds.


----------



## Overread

I'm eager to hear how the 80D sensor performs; I've a feeling that based on those early test results it should be a marked improvement on the earlier crop sensor camera from Canon. If that be the case it speaks well of a new 7DMIII in time being a good release


----------



## JacaRanda

JacaRanda said:


> I read that Canon and Nikon flip flop on being #1.  Does anyone know the last year Nikon was #1?
> Wondering with the sensor technology debates as they are, how long will it take for Nikon to be #1 again.   Figured there would be charts all over the web.



Nobody knows?  I am surprised.   Help please (just for general knowledge).
Would it not make sense that Nikon would become number 1 again soon, or are there too many other factors?


----------



## nbsunshine

I went from the Rebel T3i to the 80D and am extremely happy with it.  I feel it suits me and my new business perfectly  my vote is yes lol...I already had a couple Sigma and Canon lenses, so I didn't want to switch brands at this time...no $$ yet


----------



## beagle100

I'm waiting for the 6D2


----------



## donny1963

Derrel said:


> View attachment 118185
> 
> Yeah...I went there and made a screen capture of the models they suggested comparing...
> 
> Progress, but still lagging way behind.



Most Nikon Camera's Compared to Canon, has much less noise, better dynamic rage as well.
It took some time for Canon to get back in the game to compete with Nikon, but finally did it with the new  Canon 5DS, at 50MP..
But still rather go with Nikon vs Canon.


----------



## donny1963

JacaRanda said:


> I read that Canon and Nikon flip flop on being #1.  Does anyone know the last year Nikon was #1?
> Wondering with the sensor technology debates as they are, how long will it take for Nikon to be #1 again.   Figured there would be charts all over the web.



Yeah Nikon has been #1 for the past few years, until this year, when Canon  finally did it with the new Canon 5DS, at 50MP.. it beats the Nikon D810
But still rather go with Nikon vs Canon.


----------



## Overread

Sometimes Canon rules - sometimes Nikon rules - the only loser is your wallet


----------



## donny1963

Overread said:


> Sometimes Canon rules - sometimes Nikon rules - the only loser is your wallet



Both Nikon & Canon are great brands,  they both compete against one another they have been for years, but they are the 2 top brands still.

The way i see it,  choosing between either Nikon Or Canon is not so much quality or performance anymore because they both perform great, it's really a matter of what you want to do, and also part being familiar with it's operations (controls) what your use to, and also the way specific features of the camera work.
So really it's a matter of preference these days between the 2,   But one note , i have to admit,  Canon has been and still a bit ahead of Nikon in the availability in the quality of lenses, for instance the Canon 70-200 Lens is slightly better then the one you can get for Nikon.


----------



## beagle100

donny1963 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes Canon rules - sometimes Nikon rules - the only loser is your wallet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Nikon & Canon are great brands,  they both compete against one another they have been for years, but they are the 2 top brands still.
> The way i see it,  choosing between either Nikon Or Canon is not so much quality or performance anymore because they both perform great, it's really a matter of what you want to do, and also part being familiar with it's operations (controls) what your use to, and also the way specific features of the camera work.
> So really it's a matter of preference these days between the 2,   But one note , i have to admit,  Canon has been and still a bit ahead of Nikon in the availability in the quality of lenses, for instance the Canon 70-200 Lens is slightly better then the one you can get for Nikon.
Click to expand...



I agree, Canon has better "IQ" image quality, megapixels (in some models)  and a better and cheaper lens selection but Nikon can still be an option for some people ---  as well as Sony for mirrorless cameras


----------



## donny1963

beagle100 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes Canon rules - sometimes Nikon rules - the only loser is your wallet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Nikon & Canon are great brands,  they both compete against one another they have been for years, but they are the 2 top brands still.
> The way i see it,  choosing between either Nikon Or Canon is not so much quality or performance anymore because they both perform great, it's really a matter of what you want to do, and also part being familiar with it's operations (controls) what your use to, and also the way specific features of the camera work.
> So really it's a matter of preference these days between the 2,   But one note , i have to admit,  Canon has been and still a bit ahead of Nikon in the availability in the quality of lenses, for instance the Canon 70-200 Lens is slightly better then the one you can get for Nikon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Canon has better "IQ" image quality, megapixels (in some models)  and a better and cheaper lens selection but Nikon can still be an option for some people ---  as well as Sony for mirrorless cameras
Click to expand...

actually there is only 1 canon model that beats the Nikon models so far and that is the  Canon 5DS, at 50MP, all the other canon models are at 24 MP not 35 which Nikon's D810 is


----------



## robbins.photo

beagle100 said:


> I agree, Canon has better "IQ" image quality, megapixels (in some models)  and a better and cheaper lens selection but Nikon can still be an option for some people ---  as well as Sony for mirrorless cameras



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:

Fstoppers Reviews The Canon 5DsR, Sony A7RII, and Nikon D810 | Fstoppers

Canon makes some fine cameras, of that there is no doubt.  Really the biggest difference in final results will be determined by the skill and knowledge of the photographer, not by whether or not they are shooting with a Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.

If I were to switch to Canon tomorrow and not tell anyone, then post shots without EXIF I doubt most people would even notice.  Likewise if some of the folks here shooting Canon were to do the same and switch to Nikon, it's doubtful anyone would know unless they announced it publicly.


----------



## 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..







 






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?


----------



## robbins.photo

donny1963 said:


> 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

robbins.photo said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


----------



## robbins.photo

donny1963 said:


> 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

robbins.photo said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

donny1963 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...

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

donny1963 said:


> 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


----------

