Camera Comparison

[Shadowman]

The thoughts on comparison videos could apply to any bit of technology. There is an endless stream of comparison videos and each usually claims to be unbiased in opinion. My thoughts are shouldn't the reviewer simply give the viewers ways to evaluate and leave the scoring out of the equation, let the viewer score the systems on their own either through the examples shown in the video or by allowing the viewer to download samples RAW images? I've done the download method a few times and what I've noticed is that there was very little difference in the RAW captures and the differences, if there were any at all; were only developed as the images were edited and it usually came down to noise and a few times other artifacts of the systems. Thoughts from the group on comparison videos and their usefulness in making the purchasing decision?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWWtTzkfPN0&t=408s

[Manfred M]

John - none of the major players builds a "bad" camera these days and the differences are likely to be seen only under some very specific circumstances in most image making. I don't read or listen to the reviews as they do not affect my choices in any manner and reveal little other than the reviewer's own biases.

What reviewers never seem to cover are things that are actually important to me; ergonomics (most reviewers that mention this don't understand the subject), build quality (again something reviewers have limited understanding of), etc.

As someone who was primarily a travel photographer who did a lot of landscapes and urban landscapes when I first into looking at a DSLR some 8 years ago, there were only two choices; Canon and Nikon. In the intervening 8 years nothing has changed; these are the only two companies that build perspective correcting (shift / tilt) lenses. With the exception of the 24m Samyang lens, the third party options from Schneider-Kreuznach and Hartblei (Zeiss) are simply unaffordable.

Secondly, DSLR cameras are the only ones that have phase detect autofocus. If one understands the physics, this is always going to be faster than contrast detect that mirrorless cameras use simply because the direction of the focus correction is inherent in that design whereas it is not in contrast detect. It is possible that at some point the contrast detect will be so fast that it this limitation is no longer important, but in my testing, I would not use one of these cameras in action photography yet and get the speed and accuracy of phase detect.

Noise, chromatic aberration, veiling flare, sharpening are all things I take care of myself in PP, so I really don't care all that much. In fact the optical coatings in many of my lenses are so good, I can't get lens flare, even if I wanted it.

Dynamic range is pushing 15 stops in a lot of the cameras (at base ISO) and as I do a lot of shooting with studio flash and / or a tripod, I can work at base ISO or close to it for most of my work, so I don't care about the ludicrous ISO levels the cameras claim to have.

[Shadowman]

John - none of the major players builds a "bad" camera these days and the differences are likely to be seen only under some very specific circumstances in most image making. I don't read or listen to the reviews as they do not affect my choices in any manner and reveal little other than the reviewer's own biases.

What reviewers never seem to cover are things that are actually important to me; ergonomics (most reviewers that mention this don't understand the subject), build quality (again something reviewers have limited understanding of), etc.

As someone who was primarily a travel photographer who did a lot of landscapes and urban landscapes when I first into looking at a DSLR some 8 years ago, there were only two choices; Canon and Nikon. In the intervening 8 years nothing has changed; these are the only two companies that build perspective correcting (shift / tilt) lenses. With the exception of the 24m Samyang lens, the third party options from Schneider-Kreuznach and Hartblei (Zeiss) are simply unaffordable.

Secondly, DSLR cameras are the only ones that have phase detect autofocus. If one understands the physics, this is always going to be faster than contrast detect that mirrorless cameras use simply because the direction of the focus correction is inherent in that design whereas it is not in contrast detect. It is possible that at some point the contrast detect will be so fast that it this limitation is no longer important, but in my testing, I would not use one of these cameras in action photography yet and get the speed and accuracy of phase detect.

Noise, chromatic aberration, veiling flare, sharpening are all things I take care of myself in PP, so I really don't care all that much. In fact the optical coatings in many of my lenses are so good, I can't get lens flare, even if I wanted it.

Dynamic range is pushing 15 stops in a lot of the cameras (at base ISO) and as I do a lot of shooting with studio flash and / or a tripod, I can work at base ISO or close to it for most of my work, so I don't care about the ludicrous ISO levels the cameras claim to have.

Manfred,

Thanks for the response, I also noticed that high resolution cameras are flaunted once again where seven to ten years ago photographer gurus were chiding the manufacturer's for creating a MP war when most photographers wanted better lowlight systems, weather-proofing, and as you stated ergonomics that suited the shooter.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Thanks for the response, I also noticed that high resolution cameras are flaunted once again where seven to ten years ago photographer gurus were chiding the manufacturer's for creating a MP war when most photographers wanted better lowlight systems, weather-proofing, and as you stated ergonomics that suited the shooter.

As someone who prints a lot I did not understand the people chiding the MP increase. In fact I would definitely have considered a Pentax, Hasselblad or Fujifilm camera if I were starting right now as they have some amazingly affordable medium format sensors cameras, when compared to the "pro" Hasselblad, Phase One and Leica medium format models. With all the studio shooting I am doing these days, one of those are still on the list if the finances work out for me. There should be some 100MP and 150MP cameras coming out soon with the new sensors that Sony has announced.

Weatherproofing is a nice to have, but something I don't trust (having had a seal fail in a supposedly weather sealed camera body).

Low light performance is still not there (boosting the gain to stupid high levels is not low light performance in my view). I like the approach in the higher end video cameras where the native ISO is quite high and an internal turret of ND filters is used to drop the "sensitivity" for scenes shot in bright light.

[William W]

. . . Thoughts from the group on comparison videos and their usefulness in making the purchasing decision? . . .

For me these are very basic information gathering. Maybe watch one or two as an initial overview.

I have never bought any camera (or lens for that matter) that I haven't held and usually used to some extent before paying the money. Ergonomics and Menu Functionality are especially important to me.

Watching videos and then buying, sight and touch unseen, from online resellers doesn't float my boat.

Mu main comment as to why videos about new cameras are reasonably useless for an ignorant first time buyer, is that the presenter rarely (if ever) refers to the camera's SYSTEM and the pros and cons of it - I mean this comment as an expansion on Manfred's point about the Lenses in the system (Tilt/Shift in Nikon and Canon was his example) - but the Camera SYSTEM can be a wide church, incorporating more than only lenses: even for fixed-fens cameras such as my Fuji X-100s, there are accessories that might sway some purchasers' choices; rarely if ever are ALL the accessories noted or cited in another document in any video review (or written review for that matter).

WW

[rpcrowe]

Ergonomics is, IMO, extremely important. A very simple example is the ease of use (for me anyway) between the xxD and xD Canon DSLR cameras with their two dials to change the shooting parameters and the xxxD and xxxxD cameras which rely on a single dial and menu driven options for changing the parameters. The xxD (such as the 70D or 80D) and xD (such as the 6D or 7D) cameras are far easier and more enjoyable for me to shoot with.

Another of my quirks is that I detest a camera that relies exclusively on an LCD as the viewfinder. I far prefer a camera with an eye level viewfinder and really like that viewfinder be a through the lens version rather than electronic.

Once a person is committed to a family of accessories, especially expensive top-line glass, it is a difficult and expensive proposition to shift brands. As in the dissolution of a marriage, one must have a valid and all encompassing reason to dissolve the relationship between photographer and that photographer's chosen brand. However, if a person only has a basic camera and a kit lens to consider, shifting brands of camera for lesser reasons might make sense and would surely be less of a financial burden

I will paraphrase what a Nikon executive is supposed to have once stated, "If you are shooting with a recent digital camera of any maker and are not getting very good to excellent images, it is your fault, not the camera's fault"

I had a list of things that I wanted to see in a camera and the latest DSLR cameras have come a long way in filling that list.

There is one facet I would really like to see in my DSLR cameras, that is the ability to record a short audio file and to link it to an image or images. I had that capability in an old (1990's era) Olympus bridge camera and I believe that that ability may be present in the top-line Canon DSLR cameras. It would sure beat the heck out of using a pad and pencil or a separate voice recorder for noting details about the subject that is being captured...

Of course, a built-in espresso maker would be nice for those all day tiresome shoots

[Shadowman]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the response, I also spend a bit of time researching, usually create a list of potential candidates and I often go back and review even on the day of purchase. Regarding the comparison videos, the commenter usually seem to lose objectiveness and begin to make statements based on their particular shooting style, such as the *** system has 100 focus points while system *** only has 90, for a first time camera enthusiast numbers can seem attractive when in reality the stat may never become part of the photographer's shooting style; granted 3 focus points compared to 11 is a huge difference.

[Shadowman]

Ergonomics is, IMO, extremely important. A very simple example is the ease of use (for me anyway) between the xxD and xD Canon DSLR cameras with their two dials to change the shooting parameters and the xxxD and xxxxD cameras which rely on a single dial and menu driven options for changing the parameters. The xxD (such as the 70D or 80D) and xD (such as the 6D or 7D) cameras are far easier and more enjoyable for me to shoot with.

I will paraphrase what a Nikon executive is supposed to have once stated, "If you are shooting with a recent digital camera of any maker and are not getting very good to excellent images, it is your fault, not the camera's fault"

Of course, a built-in espresso maker would be nice for those all day tiresome shoots

That Nikon exec quote is a hoot, regarding the ergonomics of a camera, sometimes it doesn't matter until you change your style of shooting, for instance I often read comments about being able to see the camera settings on the top display as being important, it wasn't important to me until I started shooting with a tripod, until then I thought the necessity didn't really matter.

[William W]

. . . the commenter usually seem to lose objectiveness and begin to make statements based on their particular shooting style, such as the *** system has 100 focus points while system *** only has 90, for a first time camera enthusiast numbers can seem attractive when in reality the stat may never become part of the photographer's shooting style . . .

Exactly!

For a novice it is to see why they might assume that the bigger (or smaller) number . . . means "this is a better camera".

[rpcrowe]

Ergonomics can be quite a personal thing. What is ergonomically good for me might not fit someone else.

I can often not realize that there is an ergonomic problem between myself and a piece of gear until I have handled it in real life shooting situations.

As an example, composing my image on an LCD might be quite easy in a store but, is (IMO) quite difficult in a real life shooting situation with bright sun at my back...

In making camera comparisons,websites often grab upon facets that don't necessarily mean anything to some photographers yet might mean a lot to other shutter clickers...

Much is said about the inability of the 6D Mk. ii to shoot 4K video. Well I very seldom shoot video with my DSLR camera but, when I do, I don't need 4k

Much is also said about the 6D Mk. ii only having a single card slot. The 7D Mk. ii has dual slots but, I have never used that option.

Nothing is written about how the user can set up the dual card slots. With the 7D Mk. ii, the SD slot just makes a duplicate of the CF card. IMO, it would be very handy if I could shoot still images on my CF card and shoot video on my SD card. Or, perhaps, shoot RAW + JPEG with RAW copied to one card and JPEG to the other.

IMO. the 7D Mk. ii has a far better auto focus system than does the 6D Mk.ii because the auto focus system of the 6D Mk. ii was borrowed directly from the Canon 80D and thus, the auto focus spot array is crammed into the center of the fame. There are also many other reasons that I like the 7D Mk. ii for shooting action...

The reviewers of the 6D Mark ii keep quoting the original list price of that camera when the street price has fallen by at least 30% or more.

I have not seen a camera comparison between any two cameras that I essentially agree with. However, comparing cameras is necessary. One of the best sites for camera comparisons is the B&H Photo & Video website. Each piece of gear has all the specifications listed. This would let a knowledgeable photographer make an informed decision but, might just be so much gibberish to a prospective less knowledgeable buyer...

[JBW]

I come at this question from a different perspective. A newbie (yes i know hardly a newbie after five years but just last month I purchased my THIRD camera) as well as someone who doesn't have the option of holding a camera and testing it.

Videos are crucial in my process for the purchase of any camera gear. Multiple videos from multiple sources. But AFTER the videos comes CiC. Then back to the videos and then back to CiC and on and on till a decision is reached.

For the long haul expert videos may not be needed but for someone in my position they are a crucial part of the equation.

[Shadowman]

I come at this question from a different perspective. A newbie (yes i know hardly a newbie after five years but just last month I purchased my THIRD camera) as well as someone who doesn't have the option of holding a camera and testing it.

Videos are crucial in my process for the purchase of any camera gear. Multiple videos from multiple sources. But AFTER the videos comes CiC. Then back to the videos and then back to CiC and on and on till a decision is reached.

For the long haul expert videos may not be needed but for someone in my position they are a crucial part of the equation.

Hi Brian,

There are many types of videos showcasing gear, there are marketing videos (usually from the manufacturer), there are how to videos (usually from a pro), and then there are my camera's better than yours (usually by individuals who either claim no affiliation or brand fans) commentators who try to steer you in one direction or other. Sometimes you'll see comparison videos comparing same brand/different models but the biases can sometimes rear its ugly head even then.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

There are many types of videos showcasing gear, there are marketing videos (usually from the manufacturer), there are how to videos (usually from a pro), and then there are my camera's better than yours (usually by individuals who either claim no affiliation or brand fans) commentators who try to steer you in one direction or other. Sometimes you'll see comparison videos comparing same brand/different models but the biases can sometimes rear its ugly head even then.

Rule # 1 nobody is unbiased. Which is why I watch as wide a range of videos and talk to as many people as possible.

[William W]

The recipient of information has bias, also.

Bias is not necessarily a 'bad' thing.

It's useful to know what biases there are at play, in any transaction.

WW

[Manfred M]

Ergonomics can be quite a personal thing. What is ergonomically good for me might not fit someone else.

Actually ergonomics is quite personal. No two people are built the same way, so no camera (or anything else for that matter) will function identically for them. Hand size, finger length, use of eye glasses, etc. are all ergonomic factors that affect how we use our cameras.

Designers typically design for a "target population", which is often dependent on the market itself. There are tables published that list these and many more data for designers to use. A designer targeting a North American market will work to different design parameters than one targeting, say a South Asian target audience. Typically a designer will work so that the devices are suitable from the 5th percentile female (typically around 5 ft / 1.52m tall female to 6'2" / 1.88m tall male in North America). Outside of this range, the operation might be a bit awkward for the users.

I can often not realize that there is an ergonomic problem between myself and a piece of gear until I have handled it in real life shooting situations.

I would say that is true for most of us, although people who are familiar with human biomechanics will probably have a feel for this from images or spec sheets.

[Manfred M]

Rule # 1 nobody is unbiased. Which is why I watch as wide a range of videos and talk to as many people as possible.

Agree 100%. That being said, I am biased towards people who know what they are talking / writing about and unfortunately, there are a lot of self-proclaimed experts out there who sew confusion, rather than clarity. Recommendations from someone who is primarily a portrait photographer (hint - that is what the majority of "professional photographers" are) may not be all that appropriate for someone who is shooting wildlife or landscapes. Photographers who primarily shoot JPEG output (again, likely "pro" event and portrait / wedding photographers) are going to be more concerned about straight-out-of-camera results than someone who primarily shoots in raw.

My biggest complaint is that a lot of the evaluations / tests are based on what is easy to measure, rather than what is, or rather should be, important to photographers.

Finally, we should also be aware that there are "fashions" in photography, just like in any other field. Right now image sharpness is the current fashion (which is easy to test for by the "independent test sites") and that has lead lens designers in certain directions where they have traded off this performance parameter for others. Modern lenses, even relatively inexpensive ones, are incredibly sharp, but give relatively flat, two-dimensional output. This is one reason that a lot of photographers are returning to older lenses (or modern lenses using older designs) that had interesting characteristics, but have sacrificed sharpness to get these results.

[JBW]

Agree 100%. That being said, I am biased towards people who know what they are talking / writing about and unfortunately, there are a lot of self-proclaimed experts out there who sew confusion, rather than clarity. Recommendations from someone who is primarily a portrait photographer (hint - that is what the majority of "professional photographers" are) may not be all that appropriate for someone who is shooting wildlife or landscapes. Photographers who primarily shoot JPEG output (again, likely "pro" event and portrait / wedding photographers) are going to be more concerned about straight-out-of-camera results than someone who primarily shoots in raw.

My biggest complaint is that a lot of the evaluations / tests are based on what is easy to measure, rather than what is, or rather should be, important to photographers.

Finally, we should also be aware that there are "fashions" in photography, just like in any other field. Right now image sharpness is the current fashion (which is easy to test for by the "independent test sites") and that has lead lens designers in certain directions where they have traded off this performance parameter for others. Modern lenses, even relatively inexpensive ones, are incredibly sharp, but give relatively flat, two-dimensional output. This is one reason that a lot of photographers are returning to older lenses (or modern lenses using older designs) that had interesting characteristics, but have sacrificed sharpness to get these results.

And this is why I keep returning to CiC. Seriously well informed people with their own biases who are willing and able to back up their opinions.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred wrote... "Modern lenses, even relatively inexpensive ones, are incredibly sharp, but give relatively flat, two-dimensional output. This is one reason that a lot of photographers are returning to older lenses (or modern lenses using older designs) that had interesting characteristics, but have sacrificed sharpness to get these results."

I have noticed this phenomenon with some older lenses but attributed it to my imagination...

The Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro II (circa 1990) which I received as a gift a relatively short while ago), seems to produce almost 3-D quality in its imagery. This lens is produced on the design of the Angenieux 28-70 f:2.6 AF which was Angenieux’s last still camera zoom, that was targeted towards the pro market (as opposed to cinema lenses in which Angenieux was one of the leading producers). The ATX Pro II is a fairly rare lens and AFIK was sold only on the Japanese market. The version for non-Japanese consumption was the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro which is even a rarer model than mine. There was a later SV designated lens that was produced with cost saving and quality cutting features that is the common 28-70mm f/2.8 Tokina found in the USA.

My lens is quite sharp but, probably not up to the sharpness of modern top-line glass. "Tokina Glow" at 70mm and f/2.8?

I read somewhere that although older top-line lenses (and the Tokina was said to have equaled the Canon and Nikon equivalents in both image quality and price) were plenty sharp enough for general use - they were not quite as sharp as the modern issues such as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L ii. On the other hand, the writer claimed that these older lenses were more forgiving in the area of digital noise.

[NorthernFocus]

...Thoughts from the group on comparison videos and their usefulness in making the purchasing decision?...

Honestly IMO they are of little/no use. Keeping in mind that we each have different needs/desires based on what/how we shoot, here's my perspective.

I've gone full circle in my decision making process about new camera bodies and lenses. As a technical person I look for objective data. Which as you point out is hard to come by. And even when objective/test data is presented one needs to understand the basis of said data(i.e. the methedology used in testing) for it to be useful relative to one's own selection criteria. Finding/understanding said test procedures isn't always easy.

All that said, over time I've found that for a given generation of cameras the differences in performance are so small that they are never the determining factor in my own decisions. The things that make a difference to me typically end up being very practical and require no testing at all. For example fps, buffer capacity, ergonomics/ability to customize buttons, etc.

Similarly for lenses within a given focal length the difference in performance is typically overshadowed by other considerations.

So if I do find any value in review videos/articles it is typically due to comments about features rather than performance.

[rpcrowe]

Another decision parameter in camera choice decisions is the family of accessories available for that camera. However, the problems of lack of OEM lenses and accessories has been greatly mitigated by the very decent third party lenses now available for many cameras as well as the third party flash systems available from Godox (Flashpoint, etc)...

OTOH, you can still (due to the larger number of units sold in the past) find used lenses for Canon and Nikon cameras a bit more readily that for some other brands. But some cameras are able with adapters, are able to use a myriad of lenses both old and new from various manufacturers...

Things are much easier for today's photographer that they were in the days of film or very early digital...