Pixel Perfect wrote:
Olympus will announce a very good replacement for E-1, unfortunately for them they have shackled themselves with 4/3. Sony will announce a FF competitor to 5D next year, hopefully at PMA. Given the noise performance of the D3 this could send shock waves through Canon. Sony's CMOS is delivering big time.
The E-1 replacement might have seemed "very good" if it was released a year or 2 ago. Recent competitive introductions by Canon/Nikon (and possibly Sony) will just make it seem inadequate -- too little, too late. 4/3rd is indeed a problem for them.
Sony's next model, may be less of a 5D competitor and more of a 1D/1Ds and D3 competitor if you are to believe some of the rumour mongering out there. However, regardless of what it is targeted at, they have a pretty tall order if it is going to be able to compete. As with the the recent A700, it will probably be just "OK" and not provide anyone with a sufficient reason to switch.
Finally, you say "Given the noise performance of the D3..." Given might be too strong a word. Apart from a couple of dubious samples that have popped up in the 'net, we really don't know anything about the noise performance of the D3 other than what Nikon had claimed. We'll have to see real, verifiable, output from real cameras before we know if Canon should be shocked. Perhaps, it should have read, "If Nikon's claims for the noise performance of the D3 are accurate..."
Lotusm50 wrote:
The E-1 replacement might have seemed "very good" if it was released a year or 2 ago. Recent competitive introductions by Canon/Nikon (and possibly Sony) will just make it seem inadequate -- too little, too late. 4/3rd is indeed a problem for them.
They nearly went out of the camera market altogether because their lenses did not readily lend themselves to AF 20 years ago. That was only a mistake when looked at in hindsight. Now the situation is very different. Blind Freddy could see that 4/3 was not going to last as a format and I seriously doubted the wisdom of that decision from day one. With the "4/3 only" lens range they go beyond merely "saddled" to an loser system and become shackled to it. And it's going down, not up.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Sony's next model, may be less of a 5D competitor and more of a 1D/1Ds and D3 competitor if you are to believe some of the rumour mongering out there. However, regardless of what it is targeted at, they have a pretty tall order if it is going to be able to compete. As with the the recent A700, it will probably be just "OK" and not provide anyone with a sufficient reason to switch.
I think Sony have probably already factored this in and are aware that they will have to wear the losses in the short to medium term. They are a very large company in much bigger markets than DSLRs and can probably afford to do it. Their biggest problem from my point of view - and I have handled an Alpha 100 - is ergonomics. They will simply have to listen to real-world photographers. If their response to the gripes of television news cameramen is anything to go by, it will happen.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Finally, you say "Given the noise performance of the D3..." Given might be too strong a word. Apart from a couple of dubious samples that have popped up in the 'net, we really don't know anything about the noise performance of the D3 other than what Nikon had claimed. We'll have to see real, verifiable, output from real cameras before we know if Canon should be shocked. Perhaps, it should have read, "If Nikon's claims for the noise performance of the D3 are accurate..."
Well said. Same applies to the D300. I'd kind of like to see a slightly more rational approach to this D300/40D debate. Now that the 40D is a known quantity, its performance is measurable in the field and I have not heard anyone complain about it. Canon got smoked, not so badly that the 40D is not a competitor but rather, in the marketing and publicity stakes.
Lotusm50 wrote:
SNIP
Finally, you say "Given the noise performance of the D3..." Given might be too strong a word. Apart from a couple of dubious samples that have popped up in the 'net, we really don't know anything about the noise performance of the D3 other than what Nikon had claimed. We'll have to see real, verifiable, output from real cameras before we know if Canon should be shocked. Perhaps, it should have read, "If Nikon's claims for the noise performance of the D3 are accurate..."
Yet, he can share no images. I've learned that it is often very difficult to take anyone's "opinion" on the web regardless of whatever reputation they might have. There are too many "authorities" on the web whose opinions are compromised unspoken arrangements and incentives (and I'm not saying this is necessarily true of Mr. Betz), and clearly the claimed provenance and manipulation of early sample images is uncertain and unreliable. I've seen too much nonsense, BS and other dubious statements on the web months before real production cameras actually reach customers hands to trust much at all. I'll see it when I see it for real -- with legitimacy and verifiability once real production cameras become available.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yet, he can share no images. I've learned that it is often very difficult to take anyone's "opinion" on the web regardless of whatever reputation they might have. There are too many "authorities" on the web whose opinions are compromised unspoken arrangements and incentives (and I'm not saying this is necessarily true of Mr. Betz), and clearly the claimed provenance and manipulation of early sample images is uncertain and unreliable. I've seen too much nonsense, BS and other dubious statements on the web months before real production cameras actually reach customers hands to trust much at all. I'll see it when I see it for real -- with legitimacy and verifiability once real production cameras become available....Show more →
It's a good idea to be cautious, at least if you are thinking about spending any money.
But my point was that it is not solely Nikon who are claiming good high ISO noise performance - as well as Ed Rob Galbraith was also impressed, although of course more information and pictures will be handy and increase our knowledge, but early indications are good.
With 12MP and a FF sensor, and two years more to develop it, there is really no reason to think that the D3 will not be at least as good as the 5D.
We can all only deal with the info we have available at the time - even after release and testing issues can arise such as exploding batteries or lack of longevity in some of the parts, so if we all withheld any judgement until all the information was available we would be hanging on at least until the camera was no longer made.
It is looking good based on several sources, although nothing is obviously definitive as yet.
Regards,
DaveMart
If we can't start believing the pro's who actually use these things, who are we going to believe. dpreview tests. Is that what people do, buy cameras because of a photo of a test chart.
No offence to Phil, his web site is excellent when you want the technical info. But I'd give plenty of weight to those who are actually using the cameras in their profession. There are enough reports to make an informed decision about the image quaility from the 1D MK III, 40D or D3... that being excellent...., I have no reason to doubt it.
Doesn't bother me that I have an $8K Canon camera on order to go with my $5K Canon camera that doesn't AF in hot weather. Nope, doesn't bother me at all........Nope.........Just not thinking about it..........nope
The Nikon rep probably had highlight tone priority enabled. It does help if it's like Canons new function. All the direct comparison, including Nikon's country introductions, compare the D3 to the 2004 1D MKII. I purchased a MKIII in May. I would think Nikon could come up with one. Although I do have to admit perhaps Nikon had to send it in for repairs.........
But lets be fair and compare the D3 to Nikon's 2004 pro offerings.
CGrindahl wrote:
For the record, the Canon 1D Mark I used a CCD sensor. Perhaps that is the reason it produces such brilliant images...
Has anyone here got my point yet or are we going to continue splitting hairs until it's lost altogether?
The point is that Sony have been making CCDs for twenty years and have more experience than anyone else in the field. Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't know how to make a sensor for a DSLR because their experience is in video cameras is wrong. The point I have made is that many of the top still cameras have been using Sony chips for a long time and this will stand them in very good stead provided silly market perceptions don't get in the way (which is ulitmately the job of their marketing department to address).
Sony DSLR cameras will be fine. Whether enough people buy them is another issue.
J.D. wrote:
There is some suggestion that it might be Fuji.
Hmm. My understanding was that they were working with Kodak for their D3 sensor. Maybe that was incorrect.
I'll be curious to see how it all works out once these get to the field, including the CMOS chip in the D300. It will be interesting to see the differences, if any, and how it will benefit me as a photographer. It looks like we've all got some new gear to get excited about, regardless of what brand we are shooting.
eaglewolf wrote:
Hmm. My understanding was that they were working with Kodak for their D3 sensor. Maybe that was incorrect.
I'll be curious to see how it all works out once these get to the field, including the CMOS chip in the D300. It will be interesting to see the differences, if any, and how it will benefit me as a photographer. It looks like we've all got some new gear to get excited about, regardless of what brand we are shooting.
?
