What did you base that opinion on? E.g. 200 f/2 IS
That aside, while DSLR video is currently very limited, I think it's a bit of a game-changer which increases the overall demand for IS to any lens that one would think of using.
What did you base that opinion on? E.g. 200 f/2 IS
That aside, while DSLR video is currently very limited, I think it's a bit of a game-changer which increases the overall demand for IS to any lens that one would think of using.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
The 1Ds3 has great AEB options.
Actually, as you mentioned, Sony's A900 was the breakthrough for full-frame price/resolution. Nearly every move Canon has made with their DSLRs in the last two years has been reactionary to their competitor's models; even then, their feature set is average.
Nikon can and will prove it. Canon and Nikon are on a tit-for-tat release schedule. The 5D2 launched last winter, and the D700x should be here this fall/winter. It will almost assuredly be a much better camera than the 5D2, seeing as Nikon already has a world-class AF system and better photographic feature set in their D700...all they need to do is swap out the sensor. And the smart money says they'll have 1080p24 video as well, solving the last major complaint with the 5D2's video mode.
The only question is whether Canon will sit on their asses for another 3 years selling 5D2s, or react to the competition yet again.
Not according to the specs I've seen wrt to FBB's wants. What did you base your assertion on?
The 5D II came out so soon after the A900 that while you might be able to make some claim about the price competition from Sony, the argument is weak -- Canon would already have been past development and evidently already had such a price in mind. Moreover, they not only matched Sony's pricing, they beat it, its feature set and performance.
Meanwhile, Nikon came out with something later which cost several thousands more, and has yet to answer. Nikon has clearly been following Canon in FF, and while they may have matched and exceeded it in performance, they have yet to do so in pricing for the key component -- the sensor.
No, the question was and remains will Nikon's pricing be at Canon/Sony's level, or will they still demand a significant premium, a year after Canon and Sony hit the $3000 mark. My bet is that they still won't match Canon's pricing, but I'd be delighted if they did.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
The 1Ds3 can do 7 frames max, which should be fine for HDR, given that it covers the same EV range. The difference between 7 frames and 9 frames is a lot less important than the difference between 9 frames and 3 frames.
The D3x isn't an answer to the 5D2; it's their answer for the 1Ds3. Every review I've read says it's a much better camera than the 1Ds3. B&H has the 1Ds3 for $6900, and the D3x for $7500; about a 9% premium for a newer, more feature rich and better performing camera. I'd say that means Nikon can definitely match Canon for pricing. Consumers will again be given that same choice when the D700x comes out; pay a small price premium for a more robust photographic tool.
I know they won't match Canon's pricing; it'd be silly for them to. They know pro-sumers will be happy to pay an extra 10-15% for a camera that doesn't cut corners in regards to build quality or feature set.
The D300, 2 years after it's release, still has a higher market value than the 40D/50D that Canon had to deeply discount. Having to undercut the MSRP of your product that early in the life cycle is unhealthy.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consu...5710#ModelTechSpecsAct
Everything is a design compromise at one level or another. One person's "cut corners" is another person's "don't want to pay for it". Canon has been aggressive on the pricing front, and I really don't mind that they're continuing to drop prices. The next level is actually not a better 5D II at a bit more cost, but a high-resolution FF at around the $2K mark, which would get FF into hands of still more photographers than can currently afford it. I think the most likely path to this will be price drops on the 5D II as more players/models come on line -- even a $3.2K D700x would help, and the lower they price it the better.
well, if people were prepared to pay $6000 for 1 it may be possible but I doubt that there is a big enough demand at that sort of price level for it to be a viable commercial product ...
Notice that's the 1 exception though - all the others are f2.8 or greater.
also parking errors apparently show up much more in shorter focal length lenses than in teles. These result in unevenness across the frame & with the limited dof in a fast lens used at wide apertures that would be a major problem.
Originally posted by: Heidfirst
well, if people were prepared to pay $6000 for 1 it may be possible but I doubt that there is a big enough demand at that sort of price level for it to be a viable commercial product ...
Notice that's the 1 exception though - all the others are f2.8 or greater.
also parking errors apparently show up much more in shorter focal length lenses than in teles. These result in unevenness across the frame & with the limited dof in a fast lens used at wide apertures that would be a major problem.
more reason for canon to just give in and make a true hybrid system.. sensor shift + in-lens IS =)
As always, regardless what the original thread is about, it turned into a Canon vs. Nikon talk. For that, I thank jpeyton, as always.
One thing I'd like to mention:
Canon could 'sit on their asses for 3 years' because they had no competition. For so long, no competitors could match what 5D offered although 5D wasn't a spectacular camera in term of mechanical quality. Canon, though it'd nice if they did, didn't have reasons to release another FF camera because 5D itself ruled the market all by itself.
Remember how things were back then? Since the release of Canon 5D, Nikon users always had this thing about FF. Whenever there'd a hint of new cameras, the Nikon forums around the world would get heated up expecting it to be a FF.
Thanksfully, after many years of frasturation Nikon finally came out with FF and it was a really good one. As a long 5D user back then, I thanked Nikon because such competition benefits for Canon users as well as all the other users.
The problem is...while Nikon worked on FF matter hard and was able to release FF cameras, thier trying too hard on high ISO noise performance made matters worse. In order to kill noise as much as possible, they went too aggressive on sensor gain control and imaging processing engine. The combination of those two factors resulted in very unbalanced color reproduction, gradation and WB. Hence the birth of ill auto WB, no saturation and too much saturation isssues with cameras that use EXSPEED engine.
Having said that, I should mention how 5D mk2 suffers the same although it's far less than that of recent Nikon cameras. It's a big disappointment because I've been using Canon cameras not becasue of their mechanical quality but because of their image processing quality. Had the problem been worse, I might have just switched to Nikon because...if I'm going to deal with same problems, Nikon is just better as they have better mechanical quality. Interestingly, Sony's A900 took different approach and it shows amazing IQ though it falls way behind in high ISO performance category.
I don't know how things will be when the next generation of cameras hit the market but I hope camera manufactures and photographers stop judging cameras soly based on its mechanical features and high ISO performances.
Anyway, thinking about all these things make me miss Kodak DSLRs all over again. Though Kodak DSLRs had poor mechanical quality and terrible ISO performances along with other problems, the images was nothing but mind-blowing: their amazing color reproduction and very subtle and detailed gradation makes current cameras look like 16bit color images rather than 32bit.
When will camera manufactures and photographers stop caring so much about MP and high ISO performances as great achievement has been made? When will camera manufactures and photographers care about other IQ issues so that we can get images like Kodak's? Think about it, back in the film days, a great emphasis was made on the quality of film. A great film was as important as great cameras.
One thing I'd like to mention:
Canon could 'sit on their asses for 3 years' because they had no competition. For so long, no competitors could match what 5D offered although 5D wasn't a spectacular camera in term of mechanical quality. Canon, though it'd nice if they did, didn't have reasons to release another FF camera because 5D itself ruled the market all by itself.
Remember how things were back then? Since the release of Canon 5D, Nikon users always had this thing about FF. Whenever there'd a hint of new cameras, the Nikon forums around the world would get heated up expecting it to be a FF.
Thanksfully, after many years of frasturation Nikon finally came out with FF and it was a really good one. As a long 5D user back then, I thanked Nikon because such competition benefits for Canon users as well as all the other users.
The problem is...while Nikon worked on FF matter hard and was able to release FF cameras, thier trying too hard on high ISO noise performance made matters worse. In order to kill noise as much as possible, they went too aggressive on sensor gain control and imaging processing engine. The combination of those two factors resulted in very unbalanced color reproduction, gradation and WB. Hence the birth of ill auto WB, no saturation and too much saturation isssues with cameras that use EXSPEED engine.
Having said that, I should mention how 5D mk2 suffers the same although it's far less than that of recent Nikon cameras. It's a big disappointment because I've been using Canon cameras not becasue of their mechanical quality but because of their image processing quality. Had the problem been worse, I might have just switched to Nikon because...if I'm going to deal with same problems, Nikon is just better as they have better mechanical quality. Interestingly, Sony's A900 took different approach and it shows amazing IQ though it falls way behind in high ISO performance category.
I don't know how things will be when the next generation of cameras hit the market but I hope camera manufactures and photographers stop judging cameras soly based on its mechanical features and high ISO performances.
Anyway, thinking about all these things make me miss Kodak DSLRs all over again. Though Kodak DSLRs had poor mechanical quality and terrible ISO performances along with other problems, the images was nothing but mind-blowing: their amazing color reproduction and very subtle and detailed gradation makes current cameras look like 16bit color images rather than 32bit.
When will camera manufactures and photographers stop caring so much about MP and high ISO performances as great achievement has been made? When will camera manufactures and photographers care about other IQ issues so that we can get images like Kodak's? Think about it, back in the film days, a great emphasis was made on the quality of film. A great film was as important as great cameras.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Sadly, Canon isn't an authority on their own cameras. Text
Quality control isn't a design compromise. Just ask a 1D3 owner who went through a third recall for AF issues. If Nikon (and other manufacturers) can design a $600 plastic consumer DSLR body that doesn't creak or flex when you hold the grip, one wonders what kind of tolerances Canon engineers their $2700 professional cameras to.
Uh, Canon is certainly an authority on their cameras, more so than any third-party review site. However, the marketing team responsible for the published specs made a mistake, which I confirmed by looking at the details of Canon's manual.
My mistake, based on Canon's mistake. But that mistake has survived for months or years without correction, so such wide AEB is probably not the huge deal that some try to make it out to be. Yes, it'd be nice if the 5D II had that feature, but the vast majority of is users would probably never use it, don't care about it, and don't even care when it seems to be missing on their top model according to their specs., and probably really appreciate that the 5D II isn't at the price level of the top model or Nikon's current alternatives.
The 5D II is not Canon's pro line. It's prosumer/premium. Granted, the distinction is somewhat arbitrary and somewhat blurry, but I also think that the model numbering system alone shows the distance that Canon perceives between their full-fledged pro line and the 5D.
The Nikon D300 is however clearly targeted towards pros, and I think that the following shows something far worse than noises that a minority of Canon owners encounter.
So much for Nikon quality control, huh?
But this entire argument is idiotic -- thousands of uses are more than happy with the 5D II, but jpeyton finds some issues with Canon and FBB really wants 9-shot AEB, so Canon sucks. With that, I give up.
Yes, on second thought, I was too harsh and glib about the A900 in this thread. Noting this comparison in particular: http://www.luminous-landscape....eras/a900-5dmkii.shtml it's fair to say that Sony beat Canon on a number of points, and if the 5D II didn't exists / etc,. I'd probably have bought one by now, and would be saving lunch and dinner money towards my next Zeiss lens.
I disagree however that high-ISO performance or resolution are not important, and that Sony somehow has vastly superior IQ. Even the purported superiority of Kodak is debatable, and moreover a completely dead horse, like Kodak itself: http://www.luminous-landscape....eras/14n-initial.shtml
Back in the day, if you whined so much about the gear and features as some do here, you'd be dismissed as a gadget hound instead of a photographer. All of these cameras can take great images, and it's great that DSRLs and FF are becoming cheaper. To nit-pick on 9-shot AEB / etc., while OK from a very limited personal perspective as a matter of choice, and personal needs / preference, is completely missing or at least clouding the bigger point.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
The 7 shot AEB on the Canons would do me just fine, probably even better than the Nikon's 9 shot because the Canons can do a wider spread at 2 or 3 EV - Nikon's spread is limited at 1 EV, which is stupid. So the 1Ds and 1D series are fine by me, but out of my price range. The Nikon DXXX and DX series just offer more bang for the buck. And you can't compare the 5D to these Nikons because they're out of its league in features and build quality. Even if I didn't have the AEB requirements and was shooting for fun I still wouldn't buy a 5D MKII.
Don't get me wrong though I've given you enough reasons to get me wrong.
I'm not saying high ISO and MP performance isn't important. I chose 5D mk2 over A900 because I needed high ISO performance. I also chose 5D mk2 because I really needed that MP. Anyway, What I meant to say is that we have achivement gretly in those categories and that it is enough for general users. Now that we've achieved much in that areas, I think we should starting focusing on other factors we have seem to forgotton.
Also, when I mentioned Sony A900 and Kodak cameras IQ. I wasn't talking about lab IQs that can be graphed. Images generated by A900 and Kodak cameras have very and very good gradation and color balance. Such combination creates very different visual experiences than those that don't. This is not something you can measure in the lab and draw on a chart.
One thing about Kodak cameras are that they can be terribly terrible if conditions
are not met. Just like Medium Formate cameras. It is no suprising that the results are very poor in that LL site. In fact, I've seen worse. However, when it's good, it's amazingly good. Instead of looking at a few images or benchmarks, try to visit photography sites and forums, there you'll see images that are really different than all the others'.
There are, indeed, people who really needs certain type/functions of gears and features. You don't hand a P&S for a studio photographer and expect him to not whine. You don't hand a 1fps MF camera to a sport photographer and expect him to not whine. You don't hand a prime 50mm prime lens to a bird photographer and expect not to whine. A good photograher knows about his gears other gears.
Things are more complicated in this digital era. Because it's like buying a film camera that can only use 1 type of film. At least, good that we have RAW and digital image processing programs but we are still limited by the sensor. Even worse, if you care about JPEG quality, it gets a lot more complicated. I, for one, can't stand Nikon cameras that use EXPEED because of its terrible JPEG imaging engine. As fuzzybabybunny mentioned, Nikon "just offers more bang for buck," and I totally agree with that. My previous thread talks about this as well. For someone like me, Kodak cameras are the answer but Kodak cameras have too much mechanical limitation and are damn picky. Nikon, on the other hand, provides so much mechanical qualities yet produces miserable JPEG images. That's why I have my eyes on Sony though there aren't there yet.
In my case 'Even if I didn't have the whatever requirements and was shooting for fun I still wouldn't buy Nikon EXPEED cameras.' Note that it's not blunt Canon or Nikon bashing. fuzzybabybunny know limitations of Canons' and I know limitations of Nikons'. After all, photographers should know what they need/want and find gears that suit them the best.
I've seen you mention this several times but have never heard or read anything about them. Can you post a link?
Just curious, not that it matters to me as I shoot RAW.
There's a rumor of new lower-priced high-resolution FF from Sony -- the DSLRA850. Great news if true, and I wouldn't mind at all being wrong in the above remarks about the 5D II being the probable price leader. Even better news would be the 850 killing off the 900 with its awesomeness, but, well...
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Yes, I completely agree on all points.
Aren't we supposed to be done with these silly megapixel wars? I'm looking for a camera that has the most flexibility for me to shoot almost whatever I want. This means it needs to have a lot of features, not just a super high resolution sensor. A good balance between resolution and low high ISO noise is essential. So are additional features like lots of AF points, ability to bracket a ton, ability to set timed shots for time lapse photography, ability to resist the weather, AF adjustment for lenses, high FPS, etc. I think we've gotten past the point where the majority of people still need higher and higher MP cameras.
I once made a thread about EXPEED's gray cast problem. If you look it up, you will be able to find it.
For WB, there was an extensive test done by DCM(Japanese's digital camera magazine,) I don't have a link to it but if you search it on Google, I think you can find it.
Or, you can just go to Pbase.com and look through images produced by Nikon EXPEED cameras. Watch for gradation details in low ISO settings and for high ISO pictures, check saturation levels.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
i'm pretty sure the spread of AF points is a limit of physics, not just because nikon is lazy and using the same AF sensor as the D300 (not the same system, the D3 is apparently faster and better at tracking)
the 5D is an eos elan with $2500 of film loaded into it. it's not a professional body, despite the price tag.
I don't know. I think its more complex. With the way PP has really opened up to the average user, and how it can produce results that the dark room never brought out, you can take the picture you have and alter it to whatever you want. Want to B&W it? Sure. It isn't just simple operations like B&W, you can adjust the tonality of the image however you want. You don't even necessarily need silver halloid film that gives you huge range. All it really takes is taking multiple shots with a DSLR and then learning how to combine the exposures, and then tweak the image to your liking.
Hell, there are even PS filters designed to mimic/simulate popular films of the day. So the differences between the camera manufacturers are not as great as you make it seem.
IMO I feel these days picking a dslr really comes down to features, brand name, and how much glass we have in a particular mount.
Yes, we can do that but we're still very limited. How you use RAW can make big differences but we just can't overcome the limitations set by the sensor. Imaging processing engine that is tied very closly with the sensor makes things a lot more difficult. Bring the best of Canon, Nikon, and whatever, work on it for hours and days. The result can't still match Kodak's images.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter