The analog measurement at each sensor site is subject to noise. A less accurate measurement is going to produce a less good image. Software can only reduce that error by using adjacent pixels. Garbage in Garbage out.
I don't see what 14 bits has to do with it.
Etadam wrote:
No.
What I mean is that with a 14-bits per color channel depth (ie 64 times the jpeg definition per cc), provided the color rendering is accurate (and studies show the D3/D700 have an excellent color accuracy) a good software should be able to render an image as you like, i.e. like the 5D if you want.
Problem is, while there is definitely a lot of progress in this department, the software design requires a lot of complex mathematics and experience in this area.Nikon is probably not at its best now for that.
But the good news is, as soon as they provide the right soft, it will have a "retroactive" effect ; any good old raw (with enough color depth) could be re-processed and be rendered a new different way, maybe 5D-like, or better......Show more →
Went to a prominent camera store today and the sales guy was so close in taking a deposit for my order even though he said it is not setup in the system yet until he checked with the manager. The manager said they cannot take an order until it is announced NEXT WEEK. So while this manager was trying to avoid a problem with Canon of taking an order too early, he inadvertently disclosed that the announcement is next week. That could be as early as Monday!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Who cares about the camera, I just pray that the tag line is not "Delighting You Always". How stupid is that?
hmmm i think that might be the slogan of that massage parlor right next to the university here that curiously lists hours on the sign pointing to a back alley entrance as open until 2AM....
oh Canon, what ever have you gotten yourself into now.
Look, obviously you're frazzled from all the opposition shown to your "pop-up flash is better for social photography" viewpoint, so giving you that benefit of the doubt let me clarify to hopefully bring the tone down a notch:
- When I say that I don't find much utility in pop-up flashes, I mean that and nothing else. I do not imply that others should be denied the right to use it PER SE, but if it's a feature that is thrown in instead of other features I find useful then I would rather not have it.
- Canon are very price conscious when spec-ing out new designs--you don't have to believe me--and as such they are the type to skimp on one feature to allow for another, not because they can't afford to but because they've decided ahead of time how much margin they want to make and as such can only fit so many features in there. No, a pop-up flash isn't expensive, but neither is weather sealing. So why are neither in the 5D? That's what I'm trying to say: they're really stingy with their features, and if pop-up flash has to go in favor of weather sealing I'm all for it. You're not? That's fine and you're welcome to that preference.
- Please stop the ad hominem attacks on those who oppose your preference for pop-up flash. It doesn't lend your argument any credibility. Saying that those who would rather not have a pop-up flash are just snobs and are only trying to look professional instead of be professional just adds unnecessary venom to a discussion that should never get anywhere near as personal.
- I've shot weddings and social events for pay, and I prefer dedicated flash over pop-up. The look is more in-line with my preference, and as you've acknowledged this is indeed a matter of preference. I don't like the straight-on flash look of pop-up flash because it flattens out features too much for my taste, and with a flash modifier like the Demb Flip-It I can modify the flash enough to soften the shadows while keeping enough definition there to not flatten out features. To date I have never seen a wedding photographer in action using pop-up flash, and I've seen many. That's not to say that it can't be done, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I claim that among pros in this field pop-up flash isn't the preferred method. You're welcome to your methods, but just as a statement of fact I believe the majority of the field would disagree with your preference.
And in a last-ditch effort to add a gentler final note to this post in case my tone is seen as too confrontational (not at all my intention, btw), if I were a Nikon shooter I'd have a D700 right now. Although I wouldn't use the pop-up flash very much, I wouldn't at all bemoan the fact that it has one because it also has all the other features I want. Whether or not the 5DII has a pop-up flash will not in any way sway my decision. It's not what unnecessary (to me) features it has that matters; it's what necessary features it has or doesn't have that will tip the balance.
skibum5 wrote:
hmmm i think that might be the slogan of that massage parlor right next to the university here that curiously lists hours on the sign pointing to a back alley entrance as open until 2AM....
oh Canon, what ever have you gotten yourself into now.
Well, I just hope the 5DII gives me a happy ending!
dcmiller wrote:
The analog measurement at each sensor site is subject to noise. A less accurate measurement is going to produce a less good image. Software can only reduce that error by using adjacent pixels. Garbage in Garbage out.
I don't see what 14 bits has to do with it.
And what would be the error in terms of final raw data? Inaccuracy of colors.
However, the D3/D700 have been tested in this regards, and show very good results (200 ISO).
So where stands the difference between a 5D and a D700? The global rendering of the picture, the 5D pleases more the eye... i.e. processing of the raw data, i.e. algorithms implementation, i.e. software.
This is where the 14 bits depth becomes important, stretching the tones being less likely to result in posterization.
The sensor measurement accuracy is, as you say, of course very important. But nowadays they're pretty accurate for that level of DSLR (canon, nikon).
The next step is the raw data processing via complex algorithms, that was, until a couple of years ago, under-estimated.
Canon should go retro-put a 16.7mp sensor in a F-1 body manual focus,uses FD mount lenses..this would be a hit..I am being serious here..I think it would have a coolness factor right up there with a range finder leica around the neck...
if I had the money I would get my own F-1 or A-1 converted if I had the millions I would creat my own company and do just this...think about the ruggedness factor
digitalbug30d wrote:
Canon should go retro-put a 16.7mp sensor in a F-1 body manual focus,uses FD mount lenses..this would be a hit..I am being serious here..I think it would have a coolness factor right up there with a range finder leica around the neck...
if I had the money I would get my own F-1 or A-1 converted if I had the millions I would creat my own company and do just this...think about the ruggedness factor
just think of all those cheap FD lenses!
400 2.8 for who knows how little $800 maybe??
digitalbug30d wrote:
Canon should go retro-put a 16.7mp sensor in a F-1 body manual focus,uses FD mount lenses..this would be a hit..I am being serious here..I think it would have a coolness factor right up there with a range finder leica around the neck...
if I had the money I would get my own F-1 or A-1 converted if I had the millions I would creat my own company and do just this...think about the ruggedness factor
It would be cool but not a hit. I doubt there are enough in the market that would think the same way. But yes it would be cool for those who did.
I'm thinking that Canon are behind some of the rumour as they were with the 50D. Very smart marketing.
Though unlike the specs for the 50d being on the money i expect the 5D to exceed the rumoured specs. I think Canon want to use the 5D upgrade to make a statement and that statement will be about firmly establishin Nikons recently fading perception of being second best in the digital slr market.
From that perspective expect the 5D to have 24 megapixels on a digic4 chip.
I'm guessing the 5D outsells the 1D's and whereas the higher profit margin covers some of that Nikon is making sure the the days of the high price for the 1D's is about to come to an abrupt end.
So eating into current sales of the 1D's not a problem as most who will own the current model already do.
The next 1d's will follow in early 2009 with 30 megapixels which is the predicted utopia of 35mm digital. It will be at a more reasonable price (thank you Nikon) and many who own the 5D will also find that we can indeed also have a 1D's4
I'm happy for Nikon to do well in order to force such amazing upgrades.
I hope a few more who are weak enough to live in the moment without realising new models will always come, will jump ship to the Nikon camp so Canon will find new ways to attempt to win them back.
roger coen wrote:
5D is on the wrong side............obvious fake!
I am not sure. As far as I remember they did that when I was a school boy. That have been good times. Maybe Canon marketing decided its a good idea to do a kind of design retro as main change.
Just worked out that switching to Nikon with a couple of D700's to replace my 5D's and the usual other stuff such as lenses, flashes, etc would cost me £3200 after I sold all my rather battered canon gear and that's buying everything but the bodies in the US! Given the price of a D700 at £1750 and the 5D mkII will have to compete (we hope, the 50D is still more expensive than the D300 in the UK) I would have to say that the choice is still between doing nothing or upgrading one of my 5D's. It's all very well to say 'put your money where your mouth is' but that's one heck of a lot of money and I don't really think it's a justifiable business decision when that amount would buy me an upgrade to a 1Ds mkIII almost. Not that I want a 1 series, especially the mkIII versions!
Beni wrote:
Just worked out that switching to Nikon with a couple of D700's to replace my 5D's and the usual other stuff such as lenses, flashes, etc would cost me £3200 after I sold all my rather battered canon gear and that's buying everything but the bodies in the US! Given the price of a D700 at £1750 and the 5D mkII will have to compete (we hope, the 50D is still more expensive than the D300 in the UK) I would have to say that the choice is still between doing nothing or upgrading one of my 5D's. It's all very well to say 'put your money where your mouth is' but that's one heck of a lot of money and I don't really think it's a justifiable business decision when that amount would buy me an upgrade to a 1Ds mkIII almost. Not that I want a 1 series, especially the mkIII versions!...Show more →
Good thinking, Beni.
Unless one's got money to burn, I believe switching to Nikon at this point doesn't sound very compelling for many of us even if the 5DMkII ends up being "merely" a full-frame 50D. Not the end of the world, I'd say.
