"Faithful" is a term I used to describe a group of people who are satisfied with their equipment, and see no need to switch camera manufacturers every few years. For whatever the reason, bottom line is it doesn't make good business sense. I am old school as well, and brand loyalty does enter into some of my purchase decision. What is wrong with that? Maybe I should have said satisfied. I have had great sucess with Canon over the years and swapping to Nikon isn't on my radar. I said in my earlier post, I will not loose money or customers to the D3 and I know that to be true.
The direct answer to your questions is "keeping your books in the black". If my gear and skills are up to the task, why change gear and upset my accountant.
I hope you will be happy with your move back to Nikon and hope it isn't too expensive a trip, but I would not unpack all my bags if I were you. From the tone of your post, you will be moving back.
chez wrote:
Well, 72 pages of discussion on the new Nikon camera on a Canon forum versus only 17 pages of discussion on the new 40D. I believe Nikon made a big statement with this release. Enough said.
17 pages from the twelve people who regularly post on the Nikon forum is a lot. enough said?
chez wrote:
Well, 72 pages of discussion on the new Nikon camera on a Canon forum versus only 17 pages of discussion on the new 40D. I believe Nikon made a big statement with this release. Enough said.
dcmiller wrote:
17 pages from the twelve people who regularly post on the Nikon forum is a lot. enough said?
Chez's comment in my view, however, misses the mark. The 40D "discussion" is a hands on thread. It was started a lot later and Jeff has strongly suggested that we keep the chit chat down on that thread and just let people post their actual experience with the camera. Only 3 or 4 people have actually got the camera yet, so it is no surprise that the thread is still pretty short. Give it a week, however, and I am sure it will grow quickly. This thread on the other hand has had much wider ranging discussion and is just about the specs. No surprise it is longer.
also pay close attention to look at the group shots and then see for yourself what the Lack of DIGIC III Adds to the images
Has anyone seen if there's exif on these files? Or what the ISO is. I assume it's very high.
But this is too funny if those are typical files at ISO 1600 or 3200. I'm going to be laughing for days. Put those next to a 1D3 file. Those files are like 600kb. Put it next to a 100kb 1DIII of about the same size. No explanation necessary.
dcmiller wrote:
Has anyone seen if there's exif on these files? Or what the ISO is. I assume it's very high.
But this is too funny if those are typical files at ISO 1600 or 3200. I'm going to be laughing for days. Put those next to a 1D3 file. Those files are like 600kb. Put it next to a 100kb 1DIII of about the same size. No explanation necessary.
yeah i hear ya here is one I am still laughing at myself
Jeff wrote:
You becoming a closet Canon evangelist, John?
hehe , i am a fan of lots of things Jeff. But on this point i was being a little too sharp for my own good i guess, to my eyes the Nikon images are pretty incredible and the group shots from the MKIII are not very good at all , (says more about the shooter i suspect) looks like they have been thru a gaussian blur of 3 pixels
That photo could certainly do with some 'unsharp' mask.
dcmiller wrote:
But this is too funny if those are typical files at ISO 1600 or 3200. I'm going to be laughing for days. Put those next to a 1D3 file. Those files are like 600kb. Put it next to a 100kb 1DIII of about the same size. No explanation necessary.
Ahh, actually , explaination necessary. What are you saying?
That is one nasty looking group of photos. If they are from a variety of cameras, it must be something in the web prep. The gamut looks less than sRGB. Look at the man next to the purple mascot. Does he have liver failure? My D60 would do that to skin tones sometimes. These are fine for most publications. But look at a magazine like SI and the quality of almost all photos.
My point on file size is that those are high quality jpegs. Can't be blamed on compression.
There's a great thread on dpreview in the Nikon Dx forum. Well over 100 posts comparing D3 photos of a Nikon lens at various ISO to Canon. The D3 photo is very bad due to camera shake. Everyone posting thinks the photos are great.
dcmiller wrote:
Exif viewer hangs on my macbook pro
That is one nasty looking group of photos. If they are from a variety of cameras, it must be something in the web prep. The gamut looks less than sRGB. Look at the man next to the purple mascot. Does he have liver failure? My D60 would do that to skin tones sometimes. These are fine for most publications. But look at a magazine like SI and the quality of almost all photos.
My point on file size is that those are high quality jpegs. Can't be blamed on compression.
There's a great thread on dpreview in the Nikon Dx forum. Well over 100 posts comparing D3 photos of a Nikon lens at various ISO to Canon. The D3 photo is very bad due to camera shake. Everyone posting thinks the photos are great....Show more →
I was taking you seriously for a while but your bias is ridiculous. The people commenting on that thread have all pointed out that the photos are out of focus but that looking ONLY at noise, comparisons can be made. FYI the same thread is also on the Canon forum and they at least appear to be less blinded by bias than you.
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Yep, you N guys must be hungry....it's been a looong wait.
Congrats on finally having some gear that appears competitive.
Actually, I chose my current bodies (D2H, D2X, D200) and lenses because I felt Nikon products were better designed than the competition. Seriously, I've been happy for a long time and I, for one, haven't been waiting with the exception of wanting a slightly higher MP D2H. Even before the new releases, there has been plenty of Nikkor lenses, for example, that I would love to have owned. And they're still out there, waiting for me to break out my credit card.
Stan Otokpa wrote:
I was taking you seriously for a while but your bias is ridiculous. The people commenting on that thread have all pointed out that the photos are out of focus but that looking ONLY at noise, comparisons can be made. FYI the same thread is also on the Canon forum and they at least appear to be less blinded by bias than you.
I shouldn't, but I will.
How can I have bias when I apparently haven't seen an image from either camera that's fair to evaluate? How do you evaluate noise correction in a blurred image? I didn't see one person mention the smudging in the D3 photos.
Most of the threads on the dpreview forum have very good discussions concerning the new cameras. Things like, oh, critical thinking without emotional outbursts. I guess you guys who don't want to discuss specifics but wet your pants over any suggestion of concern are moving over here. Woo Hoo.
