D4..pretty nice looking camera.
1Dx..killer camera..2mp more..2fps more combined with a range of super teles hat will be between 20 and 35% lighter than Nikon.
Canon from here looking like they have a clear edge in the big gun field..
Will be interesting but Nikon are only claiming a 1 stop improvement in noise which means the 1Dx will be very close if not equal or better.
Interesting times..
From what I can gather the D4 may have a stop cleaner high ISO than the D3s. If the 1D x only just matches or doesnt quite match the the D3s then Canon has a bit of work to do before they start selling it. Looks like Nikon will stay ISO kings...
Digitalbud has also been menacing the Nikon threads
dehowie wrote:
D4..pretty nice looking camera.
1Dx..killer camera..2mp more..2fps more combined with a range of super teles hat will be between 20 and 35% lighter than Nikon.
Canon from here looking like they have a clear edge in the big gun field..
Will be interesting but Nikon are only claiming a 1 stop improvement in noise which means the 1Dx will be very close if not equal or better.
Interesting times..
But from what I read the 1D x only has a real stop advantage advantage over the 1Dmk4. The 2 stop applies to jpgs and in built noise reduction. The D3s was already about a stop and a half better than the 1Dmk4 so Nikon are still comfortably ahead or am I just confused??
Bones74 wrote:
But from what I read the 1D x only has a real stop advantage advantage over the 1Dmk4. The 2 stop applies to jpgs and in built noise reduction. The D3s was already about a stop and a half better than the 1Dmk4 so Nikon are still comfortably ahead or am I just confused??
Both new cameras do have amazing spec!
No , not confused, but I guess it depends on where we are talking about the differences. At ISO 4000 , they are both very good. Ok, the Nikon D3s was better, but in reality it wasn't that big a difference. The colour on the Nikon held up better the higher up the ISO dial you went.
If the 1D X is an improvement on the 1D IV then I reckon there will be a lot of even happier shooters.
No , not confused, but I guess it depends on where we are talking about the differences. At ISO 4000 , they are both very good. Ok, the Nikon D3s was better, but in reality it wasn't that big a difference. The colour on the Nikon held up better the higher up the ISO dial you went.
If the 1D X is an improvement on the 1D IV then I reckon there will be a lot of even happier shooters.
True, I guess any improvement is good and the added features, improved AF and metering will keep the campers happy. I'll be hanging onto my 1Dmk4 though, I cant afford a 1D x and I'm already focal length challenged (400mm w/2 x ext) so losing pixel density is not an option. I'm holding out for the 5Dmk3 to add "for my FF needs" and probably sell the 7D.
Ralph Conway wrote:
At the moment all I can see are rumors. If D4 might be announced tomorrow, reality looks easy for me. Canon announced a new Flaggship 8 Weeks ago. Nikon hurried to copy all those specs as good as they could 16MP instead of 18, no AF improvement, D3s ISO (there is a french magazins introduction rumored few hours ago) 1FPS less and priced it at about 800 less (first time I remember) of its competitors announcement and offers 1 month earlier delivery.
One just have to watch that body design to see, it was scratchbuild in hurry.
If specs came out as truth, Nikon had to offer a lower price because of standard AF (as good it might be, I would bet Canon does not create the 1D III disaster a second time - the new AF will be market leader) and even at an lower resolution two stops less ISO (if that french mags data does not turn out as wrong)....Show more →
Here is a list of things in your post which turned out to be wrong:
- Nikon copied the 1DX in 8 weeks. I think nothing needs to be said here. If you really believe this you need help.
- AF has been seriously improved, and was already better than the Canons, so unless the 1DX has a huge and massive jump in ability, something which no past Canon AF development would indicate is likely, the Nikons will still have an AF lead.
- High ISO has a 1 stop improvement over the D3s, which was 1 1/2 stops ahead of the 1D4. We will see how the 1DX does.
- The body's ergonomics is beyond question, and has been winning awards for years. The D4 has been improved in several ways here too. The only questionable change I can see is the loss of the AE-L button, but perhaps the AF-ON button can be reprogrammed. Time will show. Canon's button on the other hand keep moving around, as if they are not sure where they should be. No buttons to the left of the screen loses the benefit of the left thumb being nearby. I think Canon doesn't really get ergonomics. Too many wholesale changes and too few careful refinements.
Things you missed:
- Video has been added and sounds like it may become the reference implementation of that generation of camera. A lot of careful thinking went into it, just read through dpreview's list. Time will show though.
Here is a list of things you were right about:
- 16MP, 1FPS less (but 100 RAW buffer!)
Anyway, both sound like awesome cameras, I doubt anyone will buy one and be disappointed.
I am rather confident the 1DX and D4 will be neck-to-neck in terms of high ISO performance.
The bigger challenge for Canon is: have they made any improvement to their low ISO dynamic range? They have failed in this regard, over and over again...
molson wrote:
Whatever the case, I'm glad to see that Nikon is finally moving on from the 12MP "we've got to build a better 5D" paradigm. Canon's success with that camera must have left them with deep emotional scars...
The D3 was the camera which made photographers switch from Canon to Nikon, and which pulled Nikon ahead of Canon in Japan, so I *really* don't understand that comment. That 12MP sensor has been kicking ass for years now, with a class-leading 24MP camera to back it up, in case that is what you need.
dehowie wrote:
D4..pretty nice looking camera.
1Dx..killer camera..2mp more..2fps more combined with a range of super teles hat will be between 20 and 35% lighter than Nikon.
Canon from here looking like they have a clear edge in the big gun field.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
Ralph tends to talk out of his ass in every post he is a part of. He like to bash Nikon for what ever reason. The best thing to do is ignore the ignorant.
Ups! I forgot the smiley in my post, Bruce.
You are right. And you are free, to ignore my posts.
Next to that:
The D4 looks great to me. And of course I do not believe, it was scratched together within the last 10 weeks. This is a pro body. No manufacturer can put together something like that in short time. They (both, Nikon and Canon) must have done great research before they both decided, that 16MP (18MP) belong to most needs of pro users. The specs are nearly equal. And would fullfill all my needs, if IQ is same like (or even better than) the set standard (for me of D3X/5D MK II) at ISO 12k/25k.
We will see. I guess it will be. Purchasing either of them would burn a black hole into my empty pocket. But I guess that this year further great bodys will be announced, oriented upon the new flaggships, too. This can only be good for us.
carstenw wrote:
The D3 was the camera which made photographers switch from Nikon to Canon.
I think you meant that the other way around, right? On the release of the D3 lots of Canon shooters changed to Nikon.
Frankly, Canon need to pull their finger out and get the 5D3 launched because that's the only thing I'm waiting for now to make my mind up on which brand to settle on for years to come. The 1D X doesn't cut it for me (features) whereas the D4 looks more promising. If they cripple EITHER the AF or the Video out on the 5D3 then it's bye-bye Canon.
ourabmen wrote:
digitalbug, what bee is in your bonnet? Competition in the market is good, Your comments are like akin to an argument centered on wether Heidi Klum or lLnda Evangelista is better looking,
Heidi Klum...for sure.
But like Canons samples: I would like to see one raw in original format.
Indeed. But then we'd see all the horrible stuff in the file!
Nikon won't give us raw samples, but we were given full-resolution JPEG samples for new cameras prior to the D4, e.g. for the D3S. It's disappointing that Nikon now presents these worthless 700-pixel samples for the D4.
By the way, it's impossible for the D4 to be anywhere near "one stop" better than the D3S at reasonable ISOs. The noise there is dominated by the physics of light (photon shot noise), and the D3S already had greater than 50% quantum efficiency.
The only areas for big improvement are at low ISO (where high readout noise has been a problem) and ultra-high ISOs like 50,000 (where shot noise already guarantees low image quality, so nobody cares anyway).
Low-ISO image quality may be hugely improved in the D4 compared to the D3S, since the brochure talks about "14-bit A/D conversion built into the sensor." Importantly, it also has ISO 100 available.
To me, the 100 image RAW buffer has left me drooling. I run up against the limited buffer size on the 1DsMkIII all the time and it's the one of the few major things I don't like about the camera. Even the 7D, which though better, has it's limit hit frequently while shooting sports so this looks very appealing to me. Anyone know what the 1D X is rated at?
to add "for my FF needs" and probably sell the 7D.
