Mmm Nikon envy= 2mp less.2fps less same noise levels.
Don't think you will be hearing to many Canon shooters clambering for less MP and lower FPS oh and my 400 2.8 is almost 2kg lighter..
Both cameras look great but really envy..dream on mate..
dehowie wrote:
Mmm Nikon envy= 2mp less.2fps less same noise levels.
Don't think you will be hearing to many Canon shooters clambering for less MP and lower FPS oh and my 400 2.8 is almost 2kg lighter..
Both cameras look great but really envy..dream on mate..
I must be missing something as I can';t seem to find full size 1DX files so the "same noise levels" I suspect is rather optimistic bearing in mind that Canon were on catchup.
dehowie wrote:
.... oh and my 400 2.8 is almost 2kg lighter..
Having a hard time reading specs?
The difference is 770g pro Canon and 1950 US$ pro Nikon (SRP)
My guess is both the 1D X and D4 will be on par with each other on all aspects including the noise levels and it's very clear that they target the same audience with those speeding burst rate. I wonder what would be the effect of Nikon adding f8 auto focus because from what Canon did is they disabled f8 auto focus maybe to eliminate the "misfocusing" issues. I also cannot find any full size file from 1D X and my guess is they are still doing some tuning in the firmware.
Mmm Nikon envy= 2mp less.2fps less same noise levels.
Don't think you will be hearing to many Canon shooters clambering for less MP and lower FPS oh and my 400 2.8 is almost 2kg lighter..
Both cameras look great but really envy..dream on mate..
I shoot both systems, so no reason for envy. I am quite impartial.
The 1DX has no support for AF at f8. The nikons have always focused at f8 but not "officially", if you know what I mean. Now they do.
The 1DX does not AF at f8, period. It will not AF, while nikons try to AF. Slower than F5.6, but they do. The D4 will focus at f8 with very good performance, since this aperture is now officially supported.
If you go to the canon board and visit the threads about the 1DX, you will read hundreds of complaints about the loss of AF at f8.
Also, there is the likelihood that the 1DX will have banding at high iso.
Canon stated they are aware of the problem and are working on it. But they have said that in the past with other cameras and solved nothing when the cameras became available. Personal experience, FWIW.
Also, canon claims their improvement at high iso is with jpeg only...
So it's basically software processing the jpegs. It's in-camera NR.
So some people believe that the 1DX will be, at the most, equal to the D3s when shooting raw. Others believe it won't match it. Close, but not the same performance.
And let's not forget banding...
BTW, regarding noise, nikon's is much more pleasing.
Kind of film grain. Canon's is a blotchy mess. Awful chroma noise all over.
The 1Dx and the D4 have not arrived to the market yet and have not yet been reviewed.
So all we can say now regarding IQ is really speculation.
But I am quite sure the D4 will be better.
And I am starting to think that the day that I will sell all my canon gear is becoming closer.
P.S.
Those two joysticks are a God send.
Moving from canon, this was my biggest complaint with the D3s. Changing AF points, specially on portrait orientation, is a pain. Slow, imprecise and cumbersome.
Now all we need is that great thumb wheel on the D5.
Uzay wrote:
excuse me but what's meant here, i saw this sentence a few places but don't know what's that about
If you use an f5.6 lens, like a 28-300 for example, and put a 1.4x tc, you will lose one stop of light.
So you will be left with an f8 combo.
If you use an f4 lens, like the 300mm or the 500mm nikkors, and put a 2xtc in it, you will loose two stops of light and, once again, the combo will be, effectively, at f8.
The new D4 has official support for AF at f8.
Previous bodies did not.
It means they will be slower to AF at this aperture.
On canon land, at f8 their cameras will not AF at all, since the firmware will disable AF when it detects an f8 lens or combo. Only previous 1D series cameras would AF at f8. It was supported officially, unlike nikons.
The recently announced 1DX will not AF at f8 though.
And the D4 will (with good/improved performance).
So the tables have changed.
Sorry Andy was thinking back to my old Nikon 400 from many moons ago..the Nikon is only 20% heavier!
D4 looks like a nice camera..very nice.
I'm actually surprised and was expecting quite a bit more from Nikon.
What's the deal with the buffer being based on 12bit images. I thought hey had done away with that a while ago?
Why would I spend 6000 ollars on a camera and be forced to use lower quality files to get the buffer up? Sorry but that is pretty cheeky to claim 100 frames but by the way they are poorer quality than normal.
I'm sure the 14bit buffer is still quite large but it's like the crop feature!
Mmm yea I spend a huge amount if money to get an 8mp camera
I'm sure someone will find shooting poorer quality images a great "bonus" but I never would.
Like I said nice camera but I love the way Nikon market what I can only see as marketing hype(to get full buffer shoot 12 bit or crop your shots to 8mp).
If I owned a D3s is be struggling to see a reason to upgrade from an already lovely and extremely capable camera unless I needed the video functions. Very similar to the Canon camp with the 1Dx from a Mk4..
Evolution not a revolution...
The focus at f8 means it'll autofocus when it's twice as dark then the d3 could manage. This will help with any lens when the light drops be it f1.4- f8.
Are all 51 at points now cross type? - nope but but the cross and some singles do f8 around the center of the frame.
Finally some one listened and gave me 100% crop 1920x1080 video so I can get more DOF by using a wider lens at the same aperture The problem with DSLRs for video so far has been the 'problem' of shallow DOF at times when you actually need 'more' (e.g. events).
Not too sure about the 24mbps - seems too low even with B frames, but I'll wait and see. Adding the cost of an HDMI recorder takes things to yet another level.
For Photos, this thing does everything I want and is really a no brainer - except for the list price.
dehowie wrote:
Sorry Andy was thinking back to my old Nikon 400 from many moons ago..the Nikon is only 20% heavier!
D4 looks like a nice camera..very nice.
I'm actually surprised and was expecting quite a bit more from Nikon.
What's the deal with the buffer being based on 12bit images. I thought hey had done away with that a while ago?
Why would I spend 6000 ollars on a camera and be forced to use lower quality files to get the buffer up? Sorry but that is pretty cheeky to claim 100 frames but by the way they are poorer quality than normal.
I'm sure the 14bit buffer is still quite large but it's like the crop feature!
Mmm yea I spend a huge amount if money to get an 8mp camera
I'm sure someone will find shooting poorer quality images a great "bonus" but I never would.
Like I said nice camera but I love the way Nikon market what I can only see as marketing hype(to get full buffer shoot 12 bit or crop your shots to 8mp).
If I owned a D3s is be struggling to see a reason to upgrade from an already lovely and extremely capable camera unless I needed the video functions. Very similar to the Canon camp with the 1Dx from a Mk4..
Evolution not a revolution...
You're not going to care about the data loss (minor highlight gradations that are near imperceptible thanks to the linear nature of digital encoding) if you need a hundred frame buffer - that's 10 seconds of the shutter being held down. You should still get 70+ frames with 14 bit, which again is seven seconds holding the shutter down. You really think you'd hit the buffer limit?
dehowie wrote:
Sorry Andy was thinking back to my old Nikon 400 from many moons ago..the Nikon is only 20% heavier!
D4 looks like a nice camera..very nice.
I'm actually surprised and was expecting quite a bit more from Nikon.
What's the deal with the buffer being based on 12bit images. I thought hey had done away with that a while ago?
Why would I spend 6000 ollars on a camera and be forced to use lower quality files to get the buffer up? Sorry but that is pretty cheeky to claim 100 frames but by the way they are poorer quality than normal.
I'm sure the 14bit buffer is still quite large but it's like the crop feature!
Mmm yea I spend a huge amount if money to get an 8mp camera
I'm sure someone will find shooting poorer quality images a great "bonus" but I never would.
Like I said nice camera but I love the way Nikon market what I can only see as marketing hype(to get full buffer shoot 12 bit or crop your shots to 8mp).
If I owned a D3s is be struggling to see a reason to upgrade from an already lovely and extremely capable camera unless I needed the video functions. Very similar to the Canon camp with the 1Dx from a Mk4..
Evolution not a revolution...
Well, I respecfully disagree here.
This Nikon is the real deal when it comes to upgrades. Some really big ones and a whole bunch of smaller improvements.
I won't use words like revolutionary v's evolutionary because that's subjective, emotive or qualitative, take your pick.
First, 12bit v's 14bit. Ok, let's not start this here. Moving on.
It has upgraded AF that focus's at F8. So stick a 2x converter on some lenses and it will still work. And faster aquisition focusing as well.
The AF system here is really another ballpark. The complaint will still be the closeness to the centre, but that's the way it is.
The video is 1080P 24MBPS.
There is a new 91K sensor that will allow face detection through the viewfinder.
It includes a carbon fibre shutter that is (like Canons) rated for 400,00 photos.
The ISO starts at ISO 100 (again).
It will work at -2EV.
What makes people go "Beh"? How much more are people "expecting". Sure, I have a long list of wishes as well, but given all that, the D4 will be the yard stick that all others are measured against.
What is there not to love about this camera? Oooooh.... right, I just realised, sorry.
dehowie wrote:
Mmm Nikon envy= 2mp less.2fps less same noise levels.
Don't think you will be hearing to many Canon shooters clambering for less MP and lower FPS oh and my 400 2.8 is almost 2kg lighter..
Both cameras look great but really envy..dream on mate..
With Nikon's better image quality I am not sure if anyone at all cares about 12FPS or 18MP vs. 16MP. I sure don't.
I remember when the Nikon F3 came out... no endless speculation as to what the camera could do, nobody stayed up all night to find out what the features really were, Amateurs whined that adding "A" aperture priority automation was the end was photography, and pros bought them and used them day in and day out for a decade. No one ever cried to Kodak "please make an ISO 12,800 Ektachrome".
The best tool for the job is the tool you have at hand. It's unfortunate that camera manufacturers have figured out how to get people to buy a new camera every couple years. But then again we are a consumerist culture!
