Pixel Perfect wrote:
Nikon does have PF lenses and I'd say it's more likely we'll see a 600 f/5.6 PF before a 600 f/4 DO. I'll never be able to afford the 600 f/4, already in Australia the 600 III is nearly $17K and the DO would be a fair bit dearer. Still not as bad as Sony, they want $22K for the 600 f/4.
Nikon clearly has the lead now with light, compact and high quality tele primes. With the 500PF supply problems apparently solved (they seem to be in stock at several dealers in my country nowadays) they might start working on the next PF lens. My impression is that Nikon PF technology is more appropriate to less bright lenses compared to Canon DO, but obviously also a lot cheaper. Although they will probably be spending most of their efforts on Z lenses in the next few years (just like Canon is busy with new RF halo lenses and ignores almost everything else).
Sony is very good at building tele primes that are very light for their spec, but seem to be in no hurry either to produce more modest spec (and more affordable, but still high quality) long lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Nikon does have PF lenses and I'd say it's more likely we'll see a 600 f/5.6 PF before a 600 f/4 DO. I'll never be able to afford the 600 f/4, already in Australia the 600 III is nearly $17K and the DO would be a fair bit dearer. Still not as bad as Sony, they want $22K for the 600 f/4.
Ok, I looked up the Nikon 500 PF lens.
I’m no Nikon expert, maybe even worse than a dummy. I remember a few years ago Nikon put out the first PF lens and you’d thought they had just invented peanut butter and jelly, even though Canon had DO’s for over a decade!
The Nikon 500 is a 5.6. 5.6 is the secret here, that’s damned slow. What’s acceptable? On a Canon at 5.6 you’re probably using a group c lens. You’re down to only the center cross focus point! You might as well use a Canon 5Dll at that point. The 5ll has a great center point!!! LoL
Maybe the nikon bodies are better with point usage?
All I can say is that 5.6 had better be cheap! Like only a few dollars more than the ancient Canon 400 5.6.
You’d be better off with a 100-400 ll and a 1.4. Only one stop slower, where does the slow speed race stop?
I’d rather use a 100-400 with a 5Ds body and have more reach. And WAY more versatile! Nikon only has 36mp, so the 100-400 has more reach on the 5Ds body.
I guess for Nikon the slow race is ON! Lets see who else can go that SLOW!!!LoL
John
Dragonfire wrote:
I hope the 600DO is F2.8 at 7lbs.
Dragon, that’s a joke...., right LoL
I own the 200 1.8.
Yes it’s old tech but that one stop, tripled the size and weight of the 200 2.8!!
Imagine what that TWO stops would do to a 600
It would be Canon’s cannon, for real!!! 😂
John
JohnSil wrote:
Ok, I looked up the Nikon 500 PF lens.
I’m no Nikon expert, maybe even worse than a dummy. I remember a few years ago Nikon put out the first PF lens and you’d thought they had just invented peanut butter and jelly, even though Canon had DO’s for over a decade!
The Nikon 500 is a 5.6. 5.6 is the secret here, that’s damned slow. What’s acceptable? On a Canon at 5.6 you’re probably using a group c lens. You’re down to only the center cross focus point! You might as well use a Canon 5Dll at that point. The 5ll has a great center point!!! LoL
Maybe the nikon bodies are better with point usage?
All I can say is that 5.6 had better be cheap! Like only a few dollars more than the ancient Canon 400 5.6.
You’d be better off with a 100-400 ll and a 1.4. Only one stop slower, where does the slow speed race stop?
I’d rather use a 100-400 with a 5Ds body and have more reach. And WAY more versatile! Nikon only has 36mp, so the 100-400 has more reach on the 5Ds body.
I guess for Nikon the slow race is ON! Lets see who else can go that SLOW!!!LoL
John...Show more →
Not sure how much of the above is sarcasm...
Like anything, it's a compromise. 5.6 gets you a smaller, lighter lens that one might be more inclined to use than having to lug around a ~10 lb super-tele and monopod or tripod. It also hits a certain price point, one which is more accessible to the masses. While 5.6 is slow(er) and objectively worse subject/background separation, the high ISO capability of modern cameras/sensors compensates to some degree for less light while the type of subjects you shoot will dictate to what degree the subjective nature of the 'worse' background blur is relevant.
I'd guess making a large super-tele type PF/DO element is considerably more expensive and difficult than one for a f/5.6 lens...
On the Canon side, IIRC, the new 90D is all f/5.6 cross sensors. Earlier cameras like the 5DIV, 1DXII, probably also 5DIII, 1DX and maybe 7DII had some number of f/5.6 cross sensors... I'm sure there are more.
Nikon's D850 is 40-something MP at a higher frame rate, or in other words, virtually the same reach as the 5Ds but with more shots per second (if that matters to you)...
JohnSil wrote:
Dragon, that’s a joke...., right LoL
I own the 200 1.8.
Yes it’s old tech but that one stop, tripled the size and weight of the 200 2.8!!
Imagine what that TWO stops would do to a 600
It would be Canon’s cannon, for real!!! 😂
John
John, a 600DO 2.8 would only be one stop faster and I know Canon could come close to 7lbs if they so desired.
My 200L IS was much lighter than your 200L 1.8, but, there was a 10 year difference in technology.
artsupreme wrote:
What is a realistic expectation for the 1DXIII MP and fps? Could they deliver 26MP @ 16fps?
I don't think 16 fps will be useful, the mirror blackout time in DSLR's is a given, typically 45-50 msec on the pro models. At 16 fps the total blackout time is 16 x 50 msec = 800 msec in each second of burst. which means when tracking a subject you and the camera are effectively blind almost 80% of the time! It will just lead to more missed shots or redundant frames. When I had a 1DXII I actually dialed it back to 12 fps...seemed to be enough to capture the "peak of action" moment
the only way to go to those high frame rates and still be useful is with the mirror up in LV or in mirror-less cameras... then it becomes a challenge to maintain true 120fps live feed during burst.
JohnSil wrote:
Ok, I looked up the Nikon 500 PF lens.
I’m no Nikon expert, maybe even worse than a dummy. I remember a few years ago Nikon put out the first PF lens and you’d thought they had just invented peanut butter and jelly, even though Canon had DO’s for over a decade!
The Nikon 500 is a 5.6. 5.6 is the secret here, that’s damned slow. What’s acceptable? On a Canon at 5.6 you’re probably using a group c lens. You’re down to only the center cross focus point! You might as well use a Canon 5Dll at that point. The 5ll has a great center point!!! LoL
Maybe the nikon bodies are better with point usage?
All I can say is that 5.6 had better be cheap! Like only a few dollars more than the ancient Canon 400 5.6.
You’d be better off with a 100-400 ll and a 1.4. Only one stop slower, where does the slow speed race stop?
I’d rather use a 100-400 with a 5Ds body and have more reach. And WAY more versatile! Nikon only has 36mp, so the 100-400 has more reach on the 5Ds body.
I guess for Nikon the slow race is ON! Lets see who else can go that SLOW!!!LoL
John
The Nikon 500PF has to be one of my top three lenses I've ever owned...maybe even #1....and I've owned a few nice lenses (Canon 300II, 400DOII, 600II, 200-400, Nikon 500/4 E, 300PF).
Some of your intel is incorrect. First on the Canon side, at f/5.6 on the 61 point systems (5D3, 1DX, 5D4, 1DX2, 5DS/R) you actually have 41 x-points at f/5.6...on the 7D2 all 65 points are x-type at f/5.6.
On Nikon f/5.6 focus is really, really good across all 153 points and with Canon focus is good across the points also.
Nikon's highest MP body is not 36MP, it is 46MP D850 and equivalent pixel density (actually slightly more) in the 21MP D500.
You would need to put a 474mm lens on 5DSR to match reach of 500PF on D850. But 5DSR has 5FPS (usually around 3FPS) with marginal AF compared to 9FPS and class leading AF in the D850. I've owned both cameras...there really is no comparison between the results.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I don't think 16 fps will be useful, the mirror blackout time in DSLR's is a given, typically 45-50 msec on the pro models. At 16 fps the total blackout time is 16 x 50 msec = 800 msec in each second of burst. which means when tracking a subject you and the camera are effectively blind almost 80% of the time! It will just lead to more missed shots or redundant frames. When I had a 1DXII I actually dialed it back to 12 fps...seemed to be enough to capture the "peak of action" moment
the only way to go to those high frame rates and still be useful is with the mirror up in LV or in mirror-less cameras... then it becomes a challenge to maintain true 120fps live feed during burst.
14fps is already getting near the mechanical limits of being able to flip a mirror up and down. The acceleration/deceleration of the tip of mirror are getting very large. It really doesn't make any sense to go much faster, diminishing returns and more extreme engineering required to make it work reliably. They need a hybrid VF, so that you can use LV through it rather than have to look at the back of the camera. However, no point have 10-20fps even in LV if the sensor read out is not fast enough to avoid massive rolling shutter and you still get large VF lag. Nothing short of a stacked sensor/global shutter will do for a sports camera and Sony to their credit realised that.
I wont be selling my D500 anytime soon but it would need for these next gen DSLR's to be exceptional to make me shell out that sort of coin for last of the line cameras. I'm just praying someone else can do a mirrorless sports camera other than Sony sooner rather than later, and given how good the Nikon PF lenses are I'm hoping they don't take too long and drop some more PF lenses like 400 f/4 and/or 600 f/5.6 and maybe even a 200-600 f/5.6 PF. Wish Canon would start making more DO lenses, all new 300 f/4 is 10 years overdue and would be prime candidate same with 400 f/5.6.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
14fps is already getting near the mechanical limits of being able to flip a mirror up and down. The acceleration/deceleration of the tip of mirror are getting very large. It really doesn't make any sense to go much faster, diminishing returns and more extreme engineering required to make it work reliably. They need a hybrid VF, so that you can use LV through it rather than have to look at the back of the camera. However, no point have 10-20fps even in LV if the sensor read out is not fast enough to avoid massive rolling shutter and you still get large VF lag. Nothing short of a stacked sensor/global shutter will do for a sports camera and Sony to their credit realised that.
I wont be selling my D500 anytime soon but it would need for these next gen DSLR's to be exceptional to make me shell out that sort of coin for last of the line cameras. I'm just praying someone else can do a mirrorless sports camera other than Sony sooner rather than later, and given how good the Nikon PF lenses are I'm hoping they don't take too long and drop some more PF lenses like 400 f/4 and/or 600 f/5.6 and maybe even a 200-600 f/5.6 PF. Wish Canon would start making more DO lenses, all new 300 f/4 is 10 years overdue and would be prime candidate same with 400 f/5.6. ...Show more →
The 1dx2 can actually shoot 16 frames per second in Live View mode with the mirror locked up.
If one really needed more I suppose you could just shoot video at 60fps and dump out 4K frame grab images at 8.8mb. I've experimented with the frame grab in the camera but I don't know whether in post processing if any tools would speed up the process to extract images.
In live view when shooting 16fps it doesn’t continue to track focus right?
adamx12m wrote:
The 1dx2 can actually shoot 16 frames per second in Live View mode with the mirror locked up.
If one really needed more I suppose you could just shoot video at 60fps and dump out 4K frame grab images at 8.8mb. I've experimented with the frame grab in the camera but I don't know whether in post processing if any tools would speed up the process to extract images.
J.Marcus Photo wrote:
In live view when shooting 16fps it doesn’t continue to track focus right?
That is true AI Servo AF is not supported at 16 fps. Referring to the original point of a mechanical shutter moving beyond 14 fps, you have to imagine the mechanical challenges increasing this must be insane along with focusing and high shutter speed that coincide.
Yes, that’s why I’m going to skip the mkiii and wait for Mirrorless version. I’m moving to Rf lenses anyway.
adamx12m wrote:
That is true AI Servo AF is not supported at 16 fps. Referring to the original point of a mechanical shutter moving beyond 14 fps, you have to imagine the mechanical challenges increasing this must be insane along with focusing and high shutter speed that coincide.
JohnSil wrote:
Ok, I looked up the Nikon 500 PF lens.
I’m no Nikon expert, maybe even worse than a dummy. I remember a few years ago Nikon put out the first PF lens and you’d thought they had just invented peanut butter and jelly, even though Canon had DO’s for over a decade!
The Nikon 500 is a 5.6. 5.6 is the secret here, that’s damned slow. What’s acceptable? On a Canon at 5.6 you’re probably using a group c lens. You’re down to only the center cross focus point! You might as well use a Canon 5Dll at that point. The 5ll has a great center point!!! LoL
Maybe the nikon bodies are better with point usage?
All I can say is that 5.6 had better be cheap! Like only a few dollars more than the ancient Canon 400 5.6.
You’d be better off with a 100-400 ll and a 1.4. Only one stop slower, where does the slow speed race stop?
I’d rather use a 100-400 with a 5Ds body and have more reach. And WAY more versatile! Nikon only has 36mp, so the 100-400 has more reach on the 5Ds body.
I guess for Nikon the slow race is ON! Lets see who else can go that SLOW!!!LoL
John
It’s actually 3x as much as Canon’s 400/5.6, but still about half the 400 DO plus 1.4x. If Canon made that instead of Nikon, I would have preordered it, and I have never preordered anything in my life. The only reason I have not bought one yet is the added cost of buying a Nikon body to use with it, and the high demand making it tough to get when it first got released. I’m going to PhotoPlus this week and that is on my list of things to look at.
It’s clear this lens is not marketed to you, but for wildlife photographers, this is about perfect.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I don't think 16 fps will be useful, the mirror blackout time in DSLR's is a given, typically 45-50 msec on the pro models. At 16 fps the total blackout time is 16 x 50 msec = 800 msec in each second of burst. which means when tracking a subject you and the camera are effectively blind almost 80% of the time! It will just lead to more missed shots or redundant frames. When I had a 1DXII I actually dialed it back to 12 fps...seemed to be enough to capture the "peak of action" moment
the only way to go to those high frame rates and still be useful is with the mirror up in LV or in mirror-less cameras... then it becomes a challenge to maintain true 120fps live feed during burst.
Got it, so I guess we can expect 14fps with a higher MP count then and an improved AF system. I was hoping for a couple more fps for something I've been shooting but 14fps will do. Would be cool if we could get AF for 120fps video
adamx12m wrote:
The 1dx2 can actually shoot 16 frames per second in Live View mode with the mirror locked up.
If one really needed more I suppose you could just shoot video at 60fps and dump out 4K frame grab images at 8.8mb. I've experimented with the frame grab in the camera but I don't know whether in post processing if any tools would speed up the process to extract images.
I know that, but I was talking about physical limitations of flipping a mirror much faster on a FF sensor. Also does the 16fps actually track or is focus locked with first frame?
1DXIII should implement a 6K burst mode where it captures short bursts of say 5s at 24/30p coupled with pre-buffer. 19MP@30fps but without hundreds of gigs to troll through would be nice.
It won't be under your Christmas Tree.
LoL 