No, Brutus is well reputed, a.o. winner of the Nordic Nature Photography. He is not willing to sell a different opinion just for the money, or shoot Nikon secretly and in the meantime tell you that Canon is good. He is in fact incorruptable too
Mauro Moretti wrote:
If you think that only a year ago the 30D was the current camera, in a little more than 12 months the specs have move tremendously:
8MP -> 15MP (plus sRaw1 and sRaw2)
12 bits -> 14 bits
ISO 3200 -> ISO 12800
2,5in 230kpixel -> 3,0in 920kpixel
viewfinder magnification 0.9x -> 0.95x
5 fps -> 6.3 fps
30 jpeg buffer -> 90 jpeg buffer
No live view -> live view
NO dust removal -> dust removal
ISO in the viewfinder when changing -> always ISO in the viewfinder
NO auto ISO -> auto ISO 100-1600
NO autofocus adjustment -> autofocus adjustment
AF with only center cross type sensor -> all cross type sensors + enhanced center sensor
No weather sealing -> partial weather sealing
Plus many other little things improved (AF-ON, menu system, auto lightning, HDMI, custom functions, histogram, higher power batteries, optional grips, etc.)
Incorruptible wrote:
In the article the guy seems to really think the AF is fast... he says:
"Förbluffande quickly, I must add. "
Now I don't know what the Förbluffande means... but it sounds about the same as what we'd say in English...
I am not Swedish, but it is close enought to Dutch that I would venture to guess it means "verbluffend" in Dutch, which would be translated into "dazzling" or "amazing"
jcverheijen wrote:
I am not Swedish, but it is close enought to Dutch that I would venture to guess it means "verbluffend" in Dutch, which would be translated into "dazzling" or "amazing"
You are quite right. He states that the af of the 50d is quicker than anything he has tried, even his daily workhorse, the 1d mark III!
i love listening to dutch. every third or fourth word is also a german cognate, so we german speakers are always getting the gist of the sentence, but the details often get lost.
e.g., "verbluffend" is also a german word ("verblüffend"), meaning about the same thing as it does in dutch.
Incorruptible wrote:
The thing with Canon is that they actually have all the camera features most desire... like full frame, high MP etc... but all at an unreachable (to most) price.... in the form of the 1D series cameras. But I don't want a giant camera!!
What they have been loathe to do is to include the real goodies from the 1D series into a smaller body format for fear of cannibalising sales... of the more expensive cameras.
It's now or never though... I eagerly await the next FF camera in the compact body format of the 5D etc...
I don't care what they call it 5DII, 7D, 3D, 2D whatever... but give me the real stuff... give me FF, weathersealing and 100% VF in a compact body and I'm there...
At £1,199 this is clearly an in-between camera. There could be a 12MP 45D soon and, hopefully, the 5DMK2.
To be honest, looking at this beautiful bit of kit, it's obvious why Canon looked like they'd 'dropped the ball' a little bit lately. Rather than waste resources on incremental updates with a much stronger Nikon in the marketplace they wanted to come out with genuine progress.
The 50D has all the bells and whistles people are coming to expect like dust removal along with big moves forward - huge pixel count, all-new DIGIC processor, micro adjustment, much higher ISO, etc., etc.
Is anyone still after a Nikon now? We're almost back where we were pre-D3 and D300 when, frankly, Nikon looked miles behind.
Yes - it's interesting to examine the 50D as potential competitor to the D3 or D700. First there's the cost saving. Then there's the extra sharpness provided by 15 megapixels. ISO 25600 on the Nikon's isn't really viable, so comparison at iso 12800 is going to be interesting. Size and weight is an issue too, as the D700 is bulkier than a 5D. Face detection. 'Auto Lighting Optimiser'. You lose frame rate, but 6.3 still seems pretty fast, even for occasional sports shooters. Hmmm.
ShutterLover wrote:
Is anyone still after a Nikon now? We're almost back where we were pre-D3 and D300 when, frankly, Nikon looked miles behind.
I don't know, an upgrade to the 40D is not what was needed right now, and until the next iteration of the 5D is released, nothing has changed for many of us. If you are suggesting that Nikon is now back to 'miles behind' Canon, I really can't fathom how the 50D has done anything other than matching what some other manufacturers already have in the marketplace. 15MP vs. 12MP is not a significant factor in the grand scheme of things, for me at least.
brainiac wrote:
Yes - it's interesting to examine the 50D as potential competitor to the D3 or D700. First there's the cost saving. Then there's the extra sharpness provided by 15 megapixels. ISO 25600 on the Nikon's isn't really viable, so comparison at iso 12800 is going to be interesting. Size and weight is an issue too, as the D700 is bulkier than a 5D. Face detection. 'Auto Lighting Optimiser'. You lose frame rate, but 6.3 still seems pretty fast, even for occasional sports shooters. Hmmm.
Richard, although I agree with you that the 50D may be an adequate sports backup camera, I'm not too sure how it's truly a potential competitor to both of Nikon's FF cameras. Could they shoot many of the same things? Sure. But, I still feel that the D700 has some very compelling features that Canon lacks, and is built like the 5D's successor should be built: rugged, and similar (ergonomically and features-wise) the the 1-Series cameras. I keep going back to the 'faked' 3D image of a few years ago: that's the build I want, FF, non-hobbled AF, a nice VF, with a pop-up flash for emergencies. It doesn't have to be 20 MP, though clearly it will need to be at least 16 MP based upon the 50D's current spec.
For those who want mucho-MP 'on-the-cheap', the 50D will be a great camera, given that the 5D still hasn't been replaced. It's also a worthy upgrade for 20D/30D users, assuming one actually needs the increased resolution or the upgraded features.
BRAINIAC said that ISO 25600 at the NIKON D300 is not good at all;I tried a NIKON D300 (my friend has one,I use 2*30D bodies),even at ISO 6400 the pictures taken with D300 were looking pretty bad,real bad,and the owner agreed with me;I think that high values of ISO are purely comercial!!!! THE 50D WILL KICK ASS!!!!! I'm glad CANON is back!!! WAIT AND SEE 5DII and MARKIIIN. IT WILL COME PRETTY SOON!!!!
Jeff wrote:
I still feel that the D700 has some very compelling features that Canon lacks, and is built like the 5D's successor should be built: rugged, and similar (ergonomically and features-wise) the the 1-Series cameras.
...sure - agreed, but when Canon looks back at the success of the 5D, it does suggest that costs are better spent on sensors than on all that sexy stuff you are talking about. It's the Subaru Imprezza idea: cheap, gets there really fast, stays on the road, but not exactly luxurious.
You say you want all these things, but what people want, and what they end up buying aren't always the same. The 5D2 is probably going to capture a lot of my hard earned money because of the sensor, I am predicting. If it's another wolf in sheep's clothing, like the original 5D, well, so be it: I'll find a way to live without CLS.
gabimaster wrote:
BRAINIAC said that ISO 25600 at the NIKON D300 is not good at all;I tried a NIKON D300 (my friend has one,I use 2*30D bodies),even at ISO 6400 the pictures taken with D300 were looking pretty bad,real bad,and the owner agreed with me;I think that high values of ISO are purely comercial!!!! THE 50D WILL KICK ASS!!!!! I'm glad CANON is back!!! WAIT AND SEE 5DII and MARKIIIN. IT WILL COME PRETTY SOON!!!!
the nikon d300 is a crop camera that does not go beyond 6400
it's only the d3 and the d700 ff cameras that go beyond, and their high iso capabilities are much better
I remember I saw some reviews on D300 High ISO PQ and the reviewer actually prefer Canon as he said the Nikon is simply soften the image to not show the noise but Canon's image has much more details but a bit more noise.
You may be right, Brainiac, but these crops proove nothing.
Obviously these are jpgs with heavy noise reduction applied on the D3 shot and little or none on the 1Ds3. Consequently the D3 looks blurry, and the 1Ds3 looks noisy.
You are right upscaling the D3 shot for comparison, but you would also need to have equivalent noise reduction applied, to get a valid comparison.
Yes, removing luminance noise (in camera, especially) almost always results in a loss of detail, and you can usually guess that a given double-truck image in SI is (or is not) from a Nikon by the way it looks. I am not a fan of removing luminance noise (I still say the original 1Ds had some of the best detail out there because of its luma noise characteristics), but chroma noise hasn't any virtue whatsoever. Luckily Canon is finally choosing to remove it in-camera.
