Sunny Sra wrote:
Will the DX lenses that Nikon made for their 1.5x crop work on the FF or will the users have to buy new lenses? if its latter, that would probably prevent a few users from switching over and buying lenses...
Camera will switch to the Crop or DX mode when DX lenses are used on D3. So they will still work
There is no salvation for these defectors. Their black souls are condemned to oblivion until the stars fade.
There is but this one offence for which even our lord will not provide salvation. These foolish sinners will take their place among the damned - doomed to forever regret their choices in life, never again to know the beauty that is Canon.
The blasphemers that tout the supposed virtues of the evil Nikon must be eliminated - JIHAD!
But then again ... maybe some good deals on used Canon glass will show up on the Buy and Sell
But on the serious side, try to shoot a portrait in bright sunlight with a diffuse background at ISO 200 and you'll definitely need ND filters.
Is it that hard to get ISO 25 to work?
Yes it is. It's hard to get a balance between low and high ISO.
The photo diodes have their own "native" sensitivity. Unamplified output will cause a known amount of light to give a certain registered intensity. This determines the ISO of the sensor. Build-in amplifiers can boost the sensor sensitivity to higher ISO values.
The fact that a sensor (any sensor) has a base ISO of 200 means the photo diodes / photo sites are made more sensitive. That means less amplification needed to get to high ISO values.
Making a sensor that has a base sensitivity of 25 is possible, but them you need much stronger on-sensor signal amplification to get to ISO 3200.
25-50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200 or 200-400-800-1600-3200. Double the signal 7 times or double it only 4 times, that's a huge difference in amplification. (And thus noise.)
Having to choose between the two, say 25-800 or 200-6400, is a no-brainer. You can always lower ISO by using a neutral density filter. You can't boost ISO by adding a filter, can you?
PShizzy wrote:
Competition is good for all. But I still believe that Nikon sorta did a disservice to their customers by not really keeping up for a while. I know of a lot of converts who came over to the Canon camp simply because they felt they would never get a good high ISO camera out of Nikon.
Honestly, we should all expect companies to leapfrog each other, the problem was that Canon did this and maintained that for years, long enough to have a lot of the Nikon people lose hope.
If you're a Canon person, like me, your first though is: Great specs.
But your second thought: It's only gonna take a few months for Canon to bring out something better. What's sad is that for years, the Nikon camp couldn't say the same.
I'm hoping this drives prices down, like I said before, competition is always good for the consumer.
I couldn't agree more! I am a Nikon user (lurking here in the Canon Forum) and I was thinking about jumping ship recently for the reasons you stated. I have a D200 and a pair of old D1X's recently sold my last of several D70s's I had). I have not been happy with the high noise levels on any of my Nikon DSLRs. The only reason I stayed with Nikon was because I have way too much money invested in Nikon optics I have accumulated over the years since my film days.
Everytime Canon came out with a new model I waited patiently for Nikon to respond with a new model. For years Nikon has lagged behind and I have been very dissapointed. Hopefully their new releases will be readily available, bug free, and have image sensors that are at least as good as the ones made by Canon. If not, it will mean more dissapointment and thoughts about taking the leap into Canon.
On the flip side, judging by Canon's outstanding track record of introducing new models, I am sure that by next year Canon will release several bodies and lenses that make Nikon's selections pale in comparasion. All great for us consumers!
Here's something else to consider that's inherent in both the recent Canon and Nikon announcements. More pixels and greater bit-depth means more recoverable details in our photos. Have noticed that each successive generation seems to yield greater recoverable dynamic range with greater clarity (resolution).
Here's a real-world example: outdoor group photo in bright, high-contrast noon-day sun of helmeted motorcycle policemen standing in front of their shiny black-and-white motorcycles. Since these were being taken as part of a photo feature story and not for framing, using flash fill would have destroyed the natural look and produced even more unwanted highlights from shiny stuff. Held my breath and shot the setup using both a Canon 30D and 5D in RAW. Processed all photos using Photoshop CS2 and immediately noticed that I could "recover" the faces in shadow more easily with 5D photos. My speculation is that it had as much to do with pixel density as with better dynamic range management between the two cameras.
Having even more pixels and greater dynamic range with these new Canon and Nikon DSLR annoucements bodes well, even when shooting in bright sun!
SoCalPhoto, you know those people in the Nikon rescue boat are doomed, too, right? Look at all of them. There's no way that boat, with all those people on it, will be able to keep its top speed. It looks like it wouldn't even be able to make it over 2.5 frames per - I mean, miles per hour!
Was that too vague a reference? I feel like a nerd.
vyanush wrote:
At 5Mp for $5K. Cost-effective solution!
Better than not working like the historical whatever FD mount that Canon had. Such push backs are common when superiority is suddenly threatened, I guess
My next camera was likely to be the 5D Mk II - until latest Nikon offerings gave a brighter future on Nikon's side.
Do people think Nikon's "D400" will be full frame and at say $2000+ or so? At 16MP with 6400 ISO and the D300 body that would be an attractive offering in 6 months.
Mark
Edited by Jeff on Aug 25, 2007 at 01:57 PM GMT (Reason: Merged into •Nikon thread)
