Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
John, have the rumors you heard said anything about theoretical specs and pricing? Hard for me to figure out where they could put a "D800 killer" in their product line.
Well Canon have not really updated the now defunct 1Ds MKIII which was more of a studio/commercial camera whereas the 1Dx/1DIV are seen as a PJ/sports camera. Well the 'Specs' are 40+MP, no video and lower frame rate, but it is only speculation.
Avi B wrote:
I am guessing here, that Will is being sarcastic. Just a guess tho.
Not necessarily, he has ample reason for concern. The 1DMkIII was touted as the most advanced AF system in the world and couldn't focus consistently on a street sign - literally. I went through 3 of them before throwing in the towel. After looking at some of the samples that Canon is trotting out there seems to be something seriously amiss in the sharpness department. Many people are blaming the JPG settings and maybe they are right. That doesn't change the reality that a number of the samples they are promoting suck though.
Technician wrote:
Reading from day to day endless threads on forums about competition, it comes to mind a question do people actually take photos and learn the nature of light? The question what is better is relevant only if you have no camera, but if you have one, it is surely better of them all: you are free to take it and shoot anything, you have it already. Blabbers around first place have no points of significance, because they have nothing to do with photography — point why we all spending money on camera and lens park.
Just shoot something, learn how to post-process what is already taken and you'll see very soon that all those 'King of the hill' threads are absolutely empty and worthless....Show more →
It may come across as "abbrasive" or "offensive" but really there is a lot of truth in this opinion. It applies to both camps, N & C, equally and it deserves to be acknowledged, IMHO.
AGeoJO wrote:
It may come across as "abbrasive" or "offensive" but really there is a lot of truth in this opinion. It applies to both camps, N & C, equally and it deserves to be acknowledged, IMHO.
There may be truth in it, however photography gear and photos themselves are two separate, but related, subjects. Discussing gear does not preclude making photos, and comments like these are really irrelevant; it is akin to criticizing people who are discussing cooking for not eating instead.
Dan1 wrote:
There may be truth in it, however photography gear and photos themselves are two separate, but related, subjects. Discussing gear does not preclude making photos, and comments like these are really irrelevant; it is akin to criticizing people who are discussing cooking for not eating instead.
Discussing gear, its characteristics, strengths, specs, etc. is one thing but boasting about one's owned gear is another thing.... Just pointing that out although this is indeed a gear discussion forum.
They were king for the short run of the D90, D300, D7000, D700 and D3 series. However were is the key word. Looking at high ISO shots from the 5D3 it kicks the D4 around, and the 1Dx kicks the D4 in speed as well. And while the speed differences are minimal the noise differences are pretty significant in my eyes. Example.. keeping in mind I didn't download raws, just a quick glance at full res posted stuff...
daskibum wrote:
They were king for the short run of the D90, D300, D7000, D700 and D3 series. However were is the key word. Looking at high ISO shots from the 5D3 it kicks the D4 around, and the 1Dx kicks the D4 in speed as well. And while the speed differences are minimal the noise differences are pretty significant in my eyes. Example.. keeping in mind I didn't download raws, just a quick glance at full res posted stuff...
honorerdieu wrote:
You're comparing Nikon RAW samples to Canon 5D MK III's JPEG samples. I don't see the 5D MK III kicking the D4 around when it comes to high ISO.
I compared jpegs to jpeg images at imaging-recourse. One can not "compare" raws at IR. If raws are given, one has to download and develop them to compare. At ISO 12.800 5D III to me it seems that 5D III wins compaired to both D3s and D4 at 100%. Even the files deliver a 6-10MP higher resolution.
crewshin wrote:
I'd love to hear your logic on why the D800 isn't a direct competitor to the 5DmkIII.
"trenchmonkey" is right. D800 is not a competitor of 5D III. Both cameras defined new camera classes without a competitior from the given manufacturers. While Canon is missing a highest res camera now to compete Nikons D800 offer, Nikon is missing a "D750" offering all what D700 had at a midrange resolution and high ISO capabilities.
The 5DIII doesn't quite have the dynamic range of the D4 but that's to be expected. The D4 holds highlights like no-one else.
However, the 5DIII is a real winner and an amazing achievement in image quality at high ISO. They've been working their little butts off at Canon, I can see why they stuck with the 21-22 MP figure.
nikt wrote:
The 5DIII doesn't quite have the dynamic range of the D4 but that's to be expected. The D4 holds highlights like no-one else.
However, the 5DIII is a real winner and an amazing achievement in image quality at high ISO. They've been working their little butts off at Canon, I can see why they stuck with the 21-22 MP figure.
Yes. And I can see, how Nikon puts their little butts off and within 6 month create a D700/D800 follow up with the 4D sensor and 6-8fps at ISO 12.800 to come back into race half a year later again and to offer a camera many people where waiting for. I myself would be very interested in it.
They are are very good in it. They did it a couple of times the last decade.
That they are the MP winner now for first time is great. Applause! But D800 is a niche camera for special shooters.
Dan1 wrote:
There may be truth in it, however photography gear and photos themselves are two separate, but related, subjects. Discussing gear does not preclude making photos, and comments like these are really irrelevant; it is akin to criticizing people who are discussing cooking for not eating instead.
Defining who is the best of the best is any relevant? Are you kidding?
honorerdieu wrote:
You're comparing Nikon RAW samples to Canon 5D MK III's JPEG samples. I don't see the 5D MK III kicking the D4 around when it comes to high ISO.
No, jpeg to jepg. As I said, I didn't download the raw files. Just looked at the full res images posted and the Canon clearly has less noise. RAW might be more comparable.
The Canon samples on imaging resource appear to have NR applied to them. Take a look at the high ISO shots with the "wheel" of textiles in the top left of the image - the fine detail has been lost in the red and black sheets.
D800: Lots of megapixels, price. But BIG files.
5D mk III: Good autofokus(compared to 5D mk II). But PRICE.
Hm. I haven´t tried them yet.
To me: If price for the 5D mk. III was close to D800, the choice would be easy, because of all the lenses i´ve got.
IMO
Regards Mikkelsen
I compared jpegs to jpeg images at imaging-recourse. One can not "compare" raws at IR. If raws are given, one has to download and develop them to compare. At ISO 12.800 5D III to me it seems that 5D III wins compaired to both D3s and D4 at 100%. Even the files deliver a 6-10MP higher resolution.
(none for D3100/D5100)