S Dilworth wrote:
It's visible in direct comparisons, just as it's visible between the 5D Mark II and the D700 (the latter, and the D3, has some of the sharpest-cut colour filters of the last few years). This is closely related to the skin-tone problems the D3 and D700 have under tungsten light (i.e. they accurately record those undesirable colours!).
Hmm, that is very interesting. I am not going to trade my D3 for a D3s, too little to gain, but I was considering the D3x, but according to her post, colour would not be a strong reason to do so. I might wait for the D4 numbers then and see if something improves...
You might be right, though I think people want full-frame primarily for lower noise.
To be honest, I think a lot of people buy FF because of the bragging rights. Sad, but there it is. I actually went FF (5D), left it for crop (M8) and returned to FF (D3), not for the colour or resolution, but for the look wide open. I love the look on FF of some lenses, and cropped it is partly lost. Odd as it seems, I love the look of optical flaws (within reason, and in an otherwise excellent package!) on FF, but find the cleanliness of crop boring (less vignetting, less distortion, less character). I could imagine myself with a handful of old Leica and Zeiss lenses on a D4, with a Fuji X-Pro 1 as my carry everyday camera.
M Lucca wrote:
Both the 5D and the 5d2 are home runs. The 5d mkI when first came out was an outstanding FF camera despite many camera companies including Nikon saying compact FF is a niche product. And we know how successful this camera became.
Then 3 years later, Nikon after swallowing its own shoes and came out with a D700 using the aged 5dc as a benchmark however without hdslr. Canon showed the world what FF with hdslr can do with the 5d mkII thus cleaned house with the many indie film makers and hdslr enthusiasts while Nikon is nowhere to be seen. A growing market segment. There are groups of people that buy the 5d2 solely for HD movie making only!!! Are you kidding me?
Home runs. Yup. Twice over. If you didn't think so, you're probably way out to the left field. ...Show more →
Agreed, 5D was a home run, I still love mine! A great camera for it's time! The 5DII? Definitely a home run for video as you stated, and MP too. But, definitely not for those who prefer to shoot with outer points. Maybe one day when Canon does put an upgraded AF system in the 5D line the "center point only crowd" will discover a new frontier with their photography...the light bulb will come on, I promise.
When discussing the Canon 5D2 lets not forget that if you want comparable resolution from a Nikon camera then you are talking 3x the price.
If I were still with Nikon I would be using a much lower resolution camera. Speaking entirely personally of course. And for that I am grateful to Canon. Of course some are not happy with the 5D2 AF, and if that is the case, for the combination of high res AND great AF you will have to pay a fortune whether you look at Nikon or Canon.
Of course for many a D700 is the perfect choice, but equally for many the 5D2 is the perfect choice. Neither NIkon or Canon give you everthing at a mid price point! Arguably the 5D2 holds back on pro AF, and the D700 holds back on pro resolution. Arguably.
I guess it looks about what one would expect and we have no idea what the in-camera processing settings were for NR and sharpening (looks like there is sharpening). Can't say there's really all that much of a difference compared to what I think I can get out of the 1DIV. What would concern me somewhat if I was a Nikon user is the sequence with the trees... maybe the focus was simply bad, but it doesn't make the new 85mm look very good at all, though the inside photos seem pretty decent. And that lens is also quite chunky looking compared to the EF85 f/1.8...
Hrow wrote:
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?
Canon still hasn't filled in the blanks on some 1DX details, such as weight, buffer capacity, battery life... maybe they were waiting to see the final D4 specs?
Disappointing to see such low resolution figures, but makes sense given the bus limits with high framerates, yields from silicon manufacture, and marketing for "fewer pixels means less noise".
The D4 will be a seriously nice camera but that noise reduction has a price other than recommended retail.
If the 1Dx comes in within half a stop per pixel noise with a MP advantage any resizing gain will bring hem almost level.
Suites me.
Also I don't see to many people smashing Nikon over the cheek of only offeringb12bit images to use the full buffer...a major concession to get the buffer to 100.
Like who spends 6000 to get a 12 bit color camera.Canon stopped 12 bit so long ago I can't remember and Nikon still offer inferior IQ as a bonus to advertise a 100 frame buffer.
Bit like the cropnbonusbyou get for your 6000.. Yep I really want to shoot 8mp files when I spent 6000 dollars.
Sorry but the D4 shows Nikon is using hype to generate numbers it can plug. Just be aware there is a cost to pay for some features..
dehowie wrote:
For all the D3 series kicks the daylights out of everything some reading material buy guys who are only interested in results not labels.
The D4 will be a seriously nice camera but that noise reduction has a price other than recommended retail.
If the 1Dx comes in within half a stop per pixel noise with a MP advantage any resizing gain will bring hem almost level.
Suites me.
Also I don't see to many people smashing Nikon over the cheek of only offeringb12bit images to use the full buffer...a major concession to get the buffer to 100.
Like who spends 6000 to get a 12 bit color camera.Canon stopped 12 bit so long ago I can't remember and Nikon still offer inferior IQ as a bonus to advertise a 100 frame buffer.
Bit like the cropnbonusbyou get for your 6000.. Yep I really want to shoot 8mp files when I spent 6000 dollars.
Sorry but the D4 shows Nikon is using hype to generate numbers it can plug. Just be aware there is a cost to pay for some features.....Show more →
Nikon has 14 bit color 14 bit will get you 64 and 74 in the buffer. Most people who are shooting at such a high frame rate are hardly worried about 12 bit vs 14 as we have all seen there is not much difference between the two at least for sports. How can you comment on the IQ of two cameras we have not seen yet. If you claim Nikon has inferior IQ overall go rent a D3x.
Good to see this has the Canonites all whipped into a frenzy and pulling out everything they can to prove to themselves they have the far superior gear. :troll:
daskibum wrote:
Good to see this has the Canonites all whipped into a frenzy and pulling out everything they can to prove to themselves they have the far superior gear. :troll:
Hope your not referring to me as a troll. I own gear from both camps.
daskibum wrote:
Good to see this has the Canonites all whipped into a frenzy and pulling out everything they can to prove to themselves they have the far superior gear. :troll:
You must be relatively new here... If you think this would classify as partisan feeding frenzy then look back on the belly aching we do when a new canon model is released. We just tend to be a vocal bunch is my opinion.
I owed both systems for quite a while. The D3 was D700 were good - no gripes from me. I just think Canon offers more as a system and doesn't give up anything on the high end and that goes for the D4. Competition is good, hopefully it keep canon pricing balanced.
daskibum wrote:
Good to see this has the Canonites all whipped into a frenzy and pulling out everything they can to prove to themselves they have the far superior gear. :troll:
Well that's an intelligent response...
Think I clearly mentioned it would be a seriously good camera.
My point was Nikon using inferior technology to claim improvements which are clearly at a ost of IQ.
So which part isn't true??
I know IQ of the D4 and 1D X is unknown yet, but based purely on specs the 1D X seems a fair step ahead of the D4. D4 is clearly only a minor upgrade other than video and ergonomics. I expect IQ will be similar between the two models, but potentially 1D X will have better AF, since D4 only had a minor improvement of the 51pt AF, although it was already good. Head-to-head comparisons are eagerly awaited. My guess is Nikon will still have a slight edge in high ISO noise, but it'll be closer than with 1D IV and D3s. I'll bet up to ISO 25600 they'll be line ball.
More interested in the D800, which I hope isn't 36MP. Roll on the 5D III and 7D II.
I was pretty excited when I heard about the 1D X and then heard it was coming in 6 months. That clearly said to me they wanted to announce something for the faithfiul because of the D4.
Now the D4 is out, I'm excited by that. Isee many many improvements in this specs, I can't even imagine how small the difference between 16 and 18 MP in resolution is so that's a negated issue.
If Nikon have managed to increase the MP and keep exactly the same quality , then to me, that's an improvement. If it's even better than the D3s, then that is really something.
In terms of AF, it appears a massive step ahead from anything before.
I do love my toys, and the 1D X was tempting me to finally update the 1DIIn (maybe I'll keep it , who knows). Gotta say, this D4 is shaking it up for me.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
D4 only had a minor improvement of the 51pt AF
I wouldn't call it minor.
Yes, comparatevily, the 1DX is completely new from the ground up while the D4 is not, but still, going down to ev-2, official support for AF down to f8 and claimed faster performance, including initial acquisition (which is were canon has always been superior to nikon), don't seem like minor improvments, at least IMHO.
I could be wrong, but I believe in low light the nikon will still be better, while canon might have an advantage in good light, particularly faster initial acquisition, as previously.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Head-to-head comparisons are eagerly awaited
Indeed.
Both in AF performance and noise tests.
Regardless of the results, I think both will be really, really great cameras and one can't go wrong with neither of them.
The prices, however, could have been a little lower...
I think we have to be honest here and just accept that both cameras will be phenomenally good. This nit picking about specs is pointless because both will perform exceptionally and both will produce incredible image quality that will surpass most of the people using them.
Sure we can discuss a whole 2mp difference in the sensor and I could say that having a whole 2 extra mp's makes all the difference as I can crop a smidgen more, but could say that keeping the res a whole 2mp's lower might slightly improve the ISO performance of the D4 over the 1Dx. We could discuss 12 fps against 11fps, we could talk about the fact that AF acquisition might be milliseconds quicker on one in daylight and milliseconds quicker on the other in darker conditions.
The point I'm making is that these marginal, and lets be honest they are marginal, differences are not likely to impact or affect anyone in the real world. The fact of the matter is that if you have a D4 or a 1Dx you are using the flagship camera from either manufacturer and both cameras will provide the user with an awesome photographic experience and will yield top line results that any pro, or serious amateur, or wealthy person will be extremely pleased with.
At this time, here and now they are both the pinnacle of photographic tools and I can't see anyone regretting buying the D4 or 1Dx.
P.S I'm a Nikon man but can't find any fault with the 1Dx. If my lineup of Nikon lenses were all Canon instead I would buy the 1Dx.
Canon showed the world what FF with hdslr can do with the 5d mkII thus cleaned house with the many indie film makers and hdslr enthusiasts while Nikon is nowhere to
