Don't get me wrong Azul.... I'm now about Nikon the way I am about Mac ... a diehard.
And I ain't selling no matter what but I do have a confession. For some applications I simply think that the Canon strengths make it "the" system to have. I just really hate the concessions I have to make. I found that there is more to photographic life than spec sheets and although I do get lured by both aspects ... I value that something intangible that only Nikon in my hands gives - that something which makes me flow better - and yes, to get more shots with which I'm happy. But there are weaknesses where I keep thinking that perhaps I should go back to having a dual system. For me and the way I shoot it revolves around some missing lenses. Specifically the 300 f 4.0. I want VR real badly, I think with what I am after pictorially speaking I could get to a higher level. Also for me that would preclude going the 300 f 2.8 route because I simply am not strong enough to wield that beast for five to seven hours hadheld (no matter how many weights I lift). And I will not go to a monopod.
So I keep thinking that next year I may be able to afford a 200-400 but It's too big for handholding so while it is one of two "to die for lenses" (which btw canon has no equivalent for!) it is not perfect - and it is a fortune.
So if I get the 300 f 4.0 IS and a cheap second hand 20D ... it makes sense for me. Then a few juicey lenses like the 35 f 1.4, the 50 f 1.2 and the 85 f 1.2 and I will be way to broke to ever get the 200-400, 300f 2.8 and D3h that I fill my daydreams with. So in that alternate scenario, which up to now has not had enough allure for me to betray my current mistress, the new 1Dmk3 with it's improved focus and ergonomics - well, it makes temptation weigh the options a bit differently.
But in the end being broke has it's advantages. By the time I could plunk down enough money for either full scenario I feel quite sure that a D3h will tip the ballance towards my true sould mate once more.
But dreaming of a new mistress ... well we are all human ... all photography hardware slaves, are we not?
whats harm can a bit of out loud fantasizing be? (aside from pissing a few good guys here off ) I dream of that other great body -claudia schiffer's, the same way ... and that never leads to anything either!
robson .. if we did really ever switch over ... that would be like coming out of the closet ... a lot like admiting we are perv and and how could we ever hold our head up high again. Can you really ever think of yourself as one of those white lens guys? I mean really.
patience! I'm not weak ... really ... I'm not!
Former Nikon shooter I switched to Canon (at a great cost because I had 12 Nikon old and modern lenses):
What no one is discussing is that Canon's low noise high ISO performance lead has now been extended by another F stop. My D200 tests indicate that Nikon's ISO 600 is comparable to Canon's ISO 2400+. Do alI Nikon shooters work in bright light or use Flash?
soundhound - you really just have to know how to expose well with a nikon, it's much less forgiving. Also, the d200 is the noisier of the recent cameras. Fact is, canon does lots of noise reduction in camera, something nikon doesn't
SoundHound wrote:
My D200 tests indicate that Nikon's ISO 600 is comparable to Canon's ISO 2400+. Do alI Nikon shooters work in bright light or use Flash?
Nikon's ISO 600 is equivalent to Canon's ISO 2400+? Boy if I ever saw proof of that I would switch over pretty fast.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd honestly like to see that.
dyel337 wrote:
soundhound - you really just have to know how to expose well with a nikon, it's much less forgiving. Also, the d200 is the noisier of the recent cameras. Fact is, canon does lots of noise reduction in camera, something nikon doesn't
In fact, this is the point of the dual signal processing ASIC (whatever the chip is called) they will have on the new one. I wonder if this will give them the ability to do wavelet-transform based noise reductions in-camera. If not, then good exposure and noise ninja should get you cleaner high ISO pix out of current-day Nikons.
Basically, what I see with Canon is that they do a lot of NR in-camera, and you have no control over that process. So if you're going to PP anyway, then Nikon high ISO with noise ninja or similar noise-reduction tool should get you cleaner photos anyway.
Having said this, the specs on this new camera, if they actually reflect the produced product, mean that Canon has a great camera. At least on paper, it's a great camera, and they should be commended on the feature set. Now we await Nikon's salvo
In the end though, this competition is good for us
Yes this sounds like a great new tool from Canon but it makes me laugh that some Nikon users are getting all worked up about this. Why is it we seem to complain about features we must have that 99% of us will never use?
Some of my favorites are:
1. Must have 10 fps when most will only use it goofing around on the sofa taking pictures of your foot on the coffee table.
2. Got to have clean files at ISO 3200 when most never get the camera off of ISO 100-400 and never have a need to.
3. Some of you complaining that Nikon better do something soon to come out with a more technologically advanced camera when you have no intentions to spend more than the cost of a D40 on a camera body, and if you did your spouse would do unspeakable things to you. How can you compare the features on Canon's $3,000 - $4,000 new camera to a Nikon body which is 1/3 of the cost. These fancy new features are going to cost some serious money.
I know it has been a long winter but just go shoot and enjoy what you have. For 99% of our needs are our current cameras that bad? Digital has made tremendous strides in a short period of time and will keep getting better. It was just last year that Canon users were complaining about Canon not releasing anything groundbreaking, and that the Canon 30D was not that much of an improvement over a 20D, and were ready to jump ship to Nikon. In the 1-2 years Nikon has released some wonderful bodies in the D80, D200, and D40. Hopefully, this will be the year for an improvement to the D2H or D2X, but time will tell. So relax, have a beer, and go enjoy the outdoors.
SSISteve wrote:
Yes this sounds like a great new tool from Canon but it makes me laugh that some Nikon users are getting all worked up about this. Why is it we seem to complain about features we must have that 99% of us will never use?
Naah, I don't think most of us here are getting all worked up about this. As photography/camera enthusiasts I think we're all geniunely impressed at Canon's newest offering.
I mean sheesh, plenty of Nikonians discuss the merits of D2 bodies and yet most of us don't have one of those either.
To those people that your post applies to, well they probably aren't satisfied by anything.
SSISteve wrote:
Yes this sounds like a great new tool from Canon but it makes me laugh that some Nikon users are getting all worked up about this. Why is it we seem to complain about features we must have that 99% of us will never use?
Some of my favorites are:
1. Must have 10 fps when most will only use it goofing around on the sofa taking pictures of your foot on the coffee table.
2. Got to have clean files at ISO 3200 when most never get the camera off of ISO 100-400 and never have a need to.
3. Some of you complaining that Nikon better do something soon to come out with a more technologically advanced camera when you have no intentions to spend more than the cost of a D40 on a camera body, and if you did your spouse would do unspeakable things to you. How can you compare the features on Canon's $3,000 - $4,000 new camera to a Nikon body which is 1/3 of the cost. These fancy new features are going to cost some serious money.
I know it has been a long winter but just go shoot and enjoy what you have. For 99% of our needs are our current cameras that bad? Digital has made tremendous strides in a short period of time and will keep getting better. It was just last year that Canon users were complaining about Canon not releasing anything groundbreaking, and that the Canon 30D was not that much of an improvement over a 20D, and were ready to jump ship to Nikon. In the 1-2 years Nikon has released some wonderful bodies in the D80, D200, and D40. Hopefully, this will be the year for an improvement to the D2H or D2X, but time will tell. So relax, have a beer, and go enjoy the outdoors. ...Show more → Man, did you ever say a mouthful, I could not agree with you more. I personally NEVER use my 8fps capability, and I still need a new Mac to get caught up with those b/a (big apple) files that come out of my current camera. Nikon will be just fine and will soon roll out a new toy for us to wish we had the budget room and justification for, time to go shoot
Avi B wrote:
what I see with Canon is that they do a lot of NR in-camera, and you have no control over that process
I don't think Canon does NR the same way Noise-ninja does (for instance).
Pics at 100 and 1600 iso look very similar, "NR" does not induce much side effects.
IMO, Canon high-iso is based on low-level CMOS technology (photons management).
CMOS technology is inherently more noisy than CCD. Look up any technical paper it will say the same thing. Canon does it superbly regardless of how they do it. The low noise at high ISO is good. Which overall image you prefer though, is up to you. Since I use a 5D and a D200, I can say like both. The 5D has its place in some shooting situations, but the D200 is just the bomb as a better overall camera, and half the price.
I don't know what camera Bruce was refering to when he said "My D200 tests indicate that Nikon's ISO 600 is comparable to Canon's ISO 2400+.", but I would suggest he leaves the testing to the professionals,if thats the results he's getting. I'd like to see the photos Bruce, since my photos don't show that at all.
What no one is discussing is that Canon's low noise high ISO performance lead has now been extended by another F stop.
Yep, its called advancement. Just like the D40 and D80 have great noise characteristics, as does the 400D and 30D. You would expect a manufacturers lastest offering to be an improvement over technology that is a few years old.
Etadam wrote:
I don't think Canon does NR the same way Noise-ninja does (for instance).
Pics at 100 and 1600 iso look very similar, "NR" does not induce much side effects.
IMO, Canon high-iso is based on low-level CMOS technology (photons management).
grmedhat1 wrote:
If those sample pictures is what the fuss is about...what's all the fuss about? Is this a camera designed for geeks where only specs give you bragging rights and actual performance gains have to be measured by emotion rather than practical benefit?
Seems so. It has lots of bling-bling for the gear collector and a lot of so-what stuff for the serious photographer. How does adding a "must have" feature such as a shaking sensor add to Canon's claim of better reliability?
Just because the features don't mean much to you doesn't mean they are only meaningful to cash laden amateurs looking for bling. We do pro work (less these days, as I am back in school), and I could benefit from every added feature except the 10FPS. How can you possibly say that a reasonable attempt to resolve the dust problem is not of practical benefit? Dust is the enemy of film and digital photography, and we should welcome innovative solutions to the problem. Clearly the system works, considering Canon has it on their Rebel, and that camera's reliability is acceptable. What gives you cause to believe that Canon can't implement it reliably on an EOS-1 camera?
Adding the complexity of more moving parts doesn't prove the claim. Only the test of time will prove whether or not it makes the camera more reliable. If the self cleaning sensor works so well how come the software that comes with it has "Dust Delete Data" functions?
Does the inclusion of one dust solution require Canon to exclude other means of dealing with dust? It is entirely possible that software dust removal is designed to supplement, rather than supplant hardware efforts to do the same.
I don't care what brand is stamped on the frame, clearly this a piece of equipment designed for cash laden point-and-shooters. I wouldn't be surprised if it came with window decals to stick on a pimped 4x4 as well. If this is what Nikon and the photography industry in general is supposed to be aiming at to stay in the game it doesn't look good for serious photographers and photography.
On what basis do you state this repeated claim? I find it completely absurd that you would equate useful innovation in camera technology with decline of photography as business and craft. As a once pro-shooter, I see plenty to like here. How are dust removal, live preview, weather sealing, lighter weight, and other usability and functionality bringing about the death of "serious ... photography?"
In regard to John's Live Preview comment above, I also think it's going to be a fantastic feature, even if I only ever used it for 1% of the images I take. After all, how many images have you seen of PJs shooting with their cameras anywhere but with their eye up to their viewfinder? Lots! If you don't like the feature, don't enable it, but it's there for the PJ/war shooters, for the macro shooters, and for people who end up using P&S cameras for neck-craning shots that simply aren't worth messing with using a dSLR. I'm much more successful 'blind-pointing' my P&S camera than I am with my dSLR, and it's mainly because I've had so much practice with a Live Preview (using the P&S).
I'm not sure I'll ever actually need whatever comes along to take the place of the 1Ds/MkII, but the 1D MkIII is the first camera (beside the D2x) to have me seriously considering selling the 1Ds for an all-around dSLR. Only the images from production units can now sway the decision for me.
) I dream of that other great body -claudia schiffer's, the same way ... and that never leads to anything either!
