19 October 2014, Sunday top
Aha! Here's a real-world Nikon versus Canon technical comparison: these two files pit both the camera, sensor and lens against each other as complete systems.
As I see the files, the Nikon system clearly wins due to higher camera resolution, but this will change when the Canon 5D Mark IV comes out, probably in spring 2015. Both 16-35mm lenses are extraordinary, so the real limitation comes down to each camera and its internal image processing algorithms and JPG encoders. The iPhone can't compete here; it can't replace a DSLR when we need ultra-wide lenses and high saturation in very low light with long exposures.
Do note that the light changed between these two shots; I wasn't actually planning this as a technical comparison until after I shot these and noticed I had shot the same thing with both systems and their competitive lenses.
Of course I wrote 10 years ago that technical quality is only a small part of overall camera quality; ergonomics and actually being able to get the right shot quickly are far more important than technical minutiae. While amateurs worry for weeks spliting pixels, pros need to worry about getting the right pixels in the first place (the right shot), as opposed to worrying about splitting fractions of the wrong pixels. No one cares if a boring photo is sharp, and great photos don't have to be sharp.
What really impresses me here is how identical the two images look. Each has the colors and saturations and everything all jacked-up to my personal preferences, and lo and behold, the two final out-of-the-camera images above look identical. How about that? The only difference is the light changing and the far wood on the left being lit more or less brightly. Sure, one file has a few more pixels, but that doesn't matter unless you're printing at at least 6 feet (2 meters) wide and then looking at the prints from as close as you're looking at this screen. If printing only 4 feet (2.5 meters) wide, resolution won't matter. Even my Apple 30" Cinema Display on which I compose all this only has 4 only megapixels, and all the rest of the pixels are thrown away in order to display these images on any electronic display! A typical display, phone or tablet has only one megapixel, and the other 21 or 35 megapixels are thrown away when displaying higher resolution images.
I greatly prefer the handling of my Canon 5D Mark III, but Canon makes no practical do-everything 28-300mm lens as does Nikon. Canon's 28-300 is a $2,500 monster too heavy to carry everywhere as a do-everything lens.
After shooting the barn, we ended our Yosemite tour.
Dave and I headed over the hill to Bridgeport, where we met the next group for our Eastern Sierra tour. We headed up to the scary abandoned mine.
I shot at f/22 to emphasize the sunstar.
The full resolution image is sharp edge-to-edge, and it's shot wide-open at f/2.8. This is what makes this Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L so extraordinary. Of course the depth of field is only about a foot at this distance, so not everything is in focus. I shot at f/2.8 to blur the hills behind and make the trees pop out from the background to make the gallery-sized print three-dimensional. The bark on all the trees at the focussed distance are all razor-sharp. A zoom can't do this; it won't be as sharp in the corners, and stopped down won't throw the background as out of focus to make the image as three-dimensional.
That's all for today. NEXT ->> 20 October 2014, Monday