Bruce Sawle
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.24 #10 · •Nikons Announced: D3, D300, lenses | |
Jeff wrote:
And still others read into the marketing that Canon has produced. 
Not sure about leaving anything out, but some thoughts on what you included:
1: I don't think too many people around here think the 2MP matter much; I certainly don't. I do, however, find it interesting that some of Nikon's bodies are now eclipsing the resolution of Canon's counterparts, after all these years of Canon being the 'resolution king'.
2: It would appear that you believe that Canon is the only manufacturer who can produce a low-noise sensor? Regardless of the suggested 'crap' from Nikon marketing, I've seen some damn fine pictures from those cameras. I've seen some pretty good 'crap' from Canon marketing, too.
3: And, as you've admitted, 45 AF points may be overkill on a 1.25x sensor (I actually think it's about right, as all the 1-Series bodies I've owned have focused better then the 30D). I think the point is that the focusing system is the same as on their new flagship D3. Canon could even say the same back in the film days with the Eos 3, but sadly there is now a disconnect between the functionality of the 1-Series and all other bodies they currently produce.
4: Unless I were a landscape photographer, the 12- vs. 14-bit wouldn't matter a whole lot to me either way. I must admit that I don't know why the 14-bit aspect has hobbled the frame rate of the Nikon offerings; they must have some of their secret 'special sauce' going in there, somewhere... 
5: I take may camera out in the rain frequently, and I plan appropriately when I can. Sometimes the weatherman is out to lunch, and the 30D stays in the bag; it's the 1-Series I am relatively unconcerned about using under these conditions. You risk it because you don't have a choice (unless you choose to not get the shot). I think that's important to a lot of people, even if it's not to you. I reserve the right to change my mind once I've actually seen/held a 40D, but from the images that have been posted thus far, I'd hardly call the 40D 'weather-resistant'. The D200/300 are.
6: Do you own a camera with onboard sensor cleaning? I'm actually quite impressed with the MkIII's implementation. It seems to work for much of what I'd otherwise be trying to blow around with a Giottos, and my focusing screen is a lot cleaner for it. In 10 weeks and 4500 images, I've had to blow one single piece of garbage off the sensor, and that was likely post-production muck still floating around in the chamber. I shoot a lot at higher f-stops, so this is big for me, and I notice a big difference.
7: As for Canon's LCDs, they are pathetic, though at least they don't require those goofy-looking plastic covers. I don't think any of us try to edit in-camera, but it is all but impossible to truly scrutinize whether an image is in focus or not using the LCD of any Canon dSLR I've ever owned. Canon's approach of increasing LCD size without increasing the number of pixels is simply inane; this low-resolution piece of junk should not grace the rear-end of the MkIII. Yes, it's better than what preceded it, but they should have upped the resolution. "9 zillion pixel dots" for a 3-inch screen sounds pretty good to me.
===> Although the 40D may be no slouch, neither is it any ground-breaking upgrade, like the D200 was in the Nikon camp. It's an incremental one (as is the D300), though at least deserving of its own name, compared to the 20D MkII that I own. Canon owners have been pining for a digital version of the Eos 3 for years now, and if the next iteration of the 40D ain't it, Canon is missing a really big boat. I can't think of too many pros that wouldn't want one for a backup, let alone the hordes of enthusiasts that would buy one. Wildlife/tele shooters should have a pro body that isn't full frame, and right now, neither choice (40D or 1D MkIII) is optimal for several reasons.
And, all of the above disregards the fact that if I ever needed another 1-Series body, there now would be few reasons not to seriously consider moving to the D3/D300 combo. Having owned a 1Ds, I can state with certainty that 12MP is a good number for a FF camera. $8000 is too much for a '35mm' camera these days (regardless of how many pixels it has), as the percentage of photographers who truly require that kind of resolution I can count on one finger. As a '35mm shooter', I want few cameras that do everything well, not lots of cameras for many specific applications.
Regards,
Jeff
...Show more →
I stand corrected  I just hate all the Canon bashing in this Canon forum. It is very DP review. And I yes I like new technology as much as anyone hence the new MK III my over all points were not to discount what Nikon has produced but to help remind people that Canon has produced Fine cameras themselves, and to not read into Marketing hype until the Cameras have been field tested.
|
