nugeny wrote:
Hey, you guys, D4 is bigger, heeavier, and costs more than D3s. D3x price is dropping. I think I will for 24MP! 16MP is disappointing. just 2/3!!!?
I don't think you understand that its not all about MPs. All MPs aren't created equal.
Keith B. wrote:
That Italian designer guy sure does a nice job on those Nikon bodies.Definitely a step up from Canon's industrial stealth bomber brutalism
Keith, you have a way with words...that made me laugh.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Did they copy their info from [NR]
Iso is mentioned here back down to 12.800 again.
Compared to this design and layout 1D X is a real beauty.
The actual analog top ISO of the 1Dx is 6400 according to someone I trust - I haven't measured this camera myself for obvious reasons. That sounds reasonable, considering that the 1D4 has the same analog limit. The actual top ISO of the 5D2 is 3200. The D3/700 is 6400, and the D3s might be 12800, I haven't checked since it's largely irrelevant - but I doubt it. Everything above this is digital post-processing, and has nothing to do with the sensor/readout mechanism.
(one slightly amusing fact for those that find this "not enough" is that the maximum analog amplification in the best high ISO APS cameras today, the NEX5n, the Pentax K5 and the Nikon D7000 is just about ISO1000.... The rest in done in PP in the image processing pipe at later stages...)
So, the notion that the purely theoretical number that the manufacturers state as "native ISOs" have anything to do with what is REALLY a native ISO is pure bollocks. It was true most of the time - five years ago - but it isn't anymore.
At anything above the maximum native ISO (I'm talking about the REAL maximum now, not the manufaturer spec) the raw file will contain gaps in the values in the raw file. At ISO25600 the 1D4 only uses every fourth value in a 14-bit raw file - 1...4...8...12...16 and so on. This does not hurt performance in any way imaginable since the minimum amount of noise in any given pixel is a lot more than than the width of the gaps, so it's really not a relevant point.
The "max native ISO" is totally irrelevant as any kind of notion about the quality at say ISO25600.
digitalbug30d wrote:
the Canon's way better looking...the Nikon is clunky,to many buttons,oh I forgot the buttons make it MORE Professional.
Matter of opinion. I prefer the look of the D4, but then I like brunettes whilst my mate likes blondes. Go figure. I thought everybody thought exactly the same as me.
