This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009the d300s killer
p.8 #1the d300s killer
Trenchmonkey: That's a fabulous shot. Really, really, really. But then you knew that, didn't you.
Sep 04, 2009 at 07:13 AM
p.8 #2the d300s killer
chez wrote:
Built in gps, built in 3g capabilities (imagine uploading anywhere there's a 3g signal), built in body IS....Nikon has release their own GPS unit (the GP-1) if you want to geotag.
3g is too slow for file uploading (especially for a large number of large images) to be of any use. That's why the iphone users are always looking for wifi connections.
Nikon has already dismissed in body IS (VR) because VR in each of their lenses is designed specifically for that lens. They feel a generic in body VR would not be the optimal way to go.Optimal for their profit margins as they can charge more per VR lens than having the all inclusive in-body IS.
No. The VR engineers made this statement, not the marketing department. It's on the Nikon website. The physical VR mechanisms are specific to the lens designs to optimize the VR for each lens.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
gman1339 wrote
trentchau wrote
I think Nikon can really stand out by releasing things likeBuilt in gps, built in 3g capabilities (imagine uploading anywhere there's a 3g signal), built in body IS....
3g is too slow for file uploading (especially for a large number of large images) to be of any use. That's why the iphone users are always looking for wifi connections.
Nikon has already dismissed in body IS (VR) because VR in each of their lenses is designed specifically for that lens. They feel a generic in body VR would not be the optimal way to go.
No. The VR engineers made this statement, not the marketing department. It's on the Nikon website. The physical VR mechanisms are specific to the lens designs to optimize the VR for each lens.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
Sep 04, 2009 at 07:31 AM
p.8 #3the d300s killer
gman1339 wrote:
Built in gps, built in 3g capabilities (imagine uploading anywhere there's a 3g signal), built in body IS....Nikon has release their own GPS unit (the GP-1) if you want to geotag.
3g is too slow for file uploading (especially for a large number of large images) to be of any use. That's why the iphone users are always looking for wifi connections.
Nikon has already dismissed in body IS (VR) because VR in each of their lenses is designed specifically for that lens. They feel a generic in body VR would not be the optimal way to go.Optimal for their profit margins as they can charge more per VR lens than having the all inclusive in-body IS.No. The VR engineers made this statement, not the marketing department. It's on the Nikon website. The physical VR mechanisms are specific to the lens designs to optimize the VR for each lens.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
Yes, it is obvious that lens based VR would be more effective than camera based VR...but even if it weren't, Nikon would not allow camera based VR as they make tons of money from each lens they sell with VR. It is one of the "value added" features of Nikon lenses that everyone pays dearly for. All adds up to money in Nikon's pockets.
chez wrote
gman1339 wrote
trentchau wrote
I think Nikon can really stand out by releasing things likeBuilt in gps, built in 3g capabilities (imagine uploading anywhere there's a 3g signal), built in body IS....
3g is too slow for file uploading (especially for a large number of large images) to be of any use. That's why the iphone users are always looking for wifi connections.
Nikon has already dismissed in body IS (VR) because VR in each of their lenses is designed specifically for that lens. They feel a generic in body VR would not be the optimal way to go.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
Yes, it is obvious that lens based VR would be more effective than camera based VR...but even if it weren't, Nikon would not allow camera based VR as they make tons of money from each lens they sell with VR. It is one of the "value added" features of Nikon lenses that everyone pays dearly for. All adds up to money in Nikon's pockets.
Sep 04, 2009 at 08:29 AM
p.8 #4the d300s killer
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I really miss the eye control... found it to be a phenomenally useful feature. Do we know why it went away and never returned?
Lack of consumer demand. I loved it on my A2e. They stopped putting it in bodies and users kept buying them despite it. I'm sure it added manufacturing costs to a camera. A tragedy really, someone puts out a forward thinking technology that actually works and then they forget about it.
Pavel wrote
I will get excited, really excited when Canon introduces some of the technology that Canon users used to have long ago. Eye control? Pelicle mirror? Oooh ya.Lack of consumer demand. I loved it on my A2e. They stopped putting it in bodies and users kept buying them despite it. I'm sure it added manufacturing costs to a camera. A tragedy really, someone puts out a forward thinking technology that actually works and then they forget about it.
Sep 04, 2009 at 08:33 AM
p.8 #5the d300s killer
chez wrote:
No. The VR engineers made this statement, not the marketing department. It's on the Nikon website. The physical VR mechanisms are specific to the lens designs to optimize the VR for each lens.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
Yes, it is obvious that lens based VR would be more effective than camera based VR...but even if it weren't, Nikon would not allow camera based VR as they make tons of money from each lens they sell with VR. It is one of the "value added" features of Nikon lenses that everyone pays dearly for. All adds...Show more →
Don't let facts get in the way of making outrageous statements. You admit that lens based VR is the better way to do stabilization, stating that it's obvious. Yet you still want to pretend that it's greed? How stupid is that?
Is bashing nikon with inane statements a hobby or a profession for you?
No. The VR engineers made this statement, not the marketing department. It's on the Nikon website. The physical VR mechanisms are specific to the lens designs to optimize the VR for each lens.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
Yes, it is obvious that lens based VR would be more effective than camera based VR...but even if it weren't, Nikon would not allow camera based VR as they make tons of money from each lens they sell with VR. It is one of the "value added" features of Nikon lenses that everyone pays dearly for. All adds...Show more →
Don't let facts get in the way of making outrageous statements. You admit that lens based VR is the better way to do stabilization, stating that it's obvious. Yet you still want to pretend that it's greed? How stupid is that?
Is bashing nikon with inane statements a hobby or a profession for you?
Sep 04, 2009 at 08:53 AM
p.8 #6the d300s killer
chez wrote:
Built in gps, built in 3g capabilities (imagine uploading anywhere there's a 3g signal), built in body IS....Nikon has release their own GPS unit (the GP-1) if you want to geotag.
3g is too slow for file uploading (especially for a large number of large images) to be of any use. That's why the iphone users are always looking for wifi connections.
Nikon has already dismissed in body IS (VR) because VR in each of their lenses is designed specifically for that lens. They feel a generic in body VR would not be the optimal way to go.Optimal for their profit margins as they can charge more per VR lens than having the all inclusive in-body IS.No. The VR engineers made this statement, not the marketing department. It's on the Nikon website. The physical VR mechanisms are specific to the lens designs to optimize the VR for each lens.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htmYes, it is obvious that lens based VR would be more effective than camera based VR...but even if it weren't, Nikon would not allow camera based VR as they make tons of money from each lens they sell with VR. It is one of the "value added" features of Nikon lenses that everyone pays dearly for. All adds up to money in Nikon's pockets.
How do you know what Nikon would do? Why did you put value added in quotes? If you don't need VR than buy something else. I like how my VR lenses perform and I'm glad they DO put it in the lens and it's optimized for the best possible performance. Last time I checked the Canon IS lenses cost more than the ones without IS. Is it a "value added" feature over at Canon?
gman1339 wrote
chez wrote
gman1339 wrote
trentchau wrote
I think Nikon can really stand out by releasing things likeBuilt in gps, built in 3g capabilities (imagine uploading anywhere there's a 3g signal), built in body IS....
3g is too slow for file uploading (especially for a large number of large images) to be of any use. That's why the iphone users are always looking for wifi connections.
Nikon has already dismissed in body IS (VR) because VR in each of their lenses is designed specifically for that lens. They feel a generic in body VR would not be the optimal way to go.
Go under Numerous Benefits -> Every Lens Optimized at this link...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
How do you know what Nikon would do? Why did you put value added in quotes? If you don't need VR than buy something else. I like how my VR lenses perform and I'm glad they DO put it in the lens and it's optimized for the best possible performance. Last time I checked the Canon IS lenses cost more than the ones without IS. Is it a "value added" feature over at Canon?
Sep 04, 2009 at 08:53 AM
p.8 #7the d300s killer
gman1339 wrote:
Also, video from the 7D seems to be in a class of its own, with all the options one could dream of. There's a beautiful sequence here:
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/eosmovie/index.htmlThe killer for this camera will be the autofocus. And I have't seen any glowing reports or proof that it works well in AI-Servo for action. With 8 FPS that's what this camera is going to be pushed as, a low budget action cam. And if the autofocus doesn't deliver sales will dry up. The autofocus performance on the D300s is a known factor, and the 7D needs to at least match it. And we know the recent autofocus history of Canon (broken in the 1D MK III and untouched from the 5D to the 5D II).
This is not true. The AF in the 5DMkII is improved in servo mode.
Jorgen Udvang wrote
It's fair to say that Canon has a real winner here. The resolution is much better than on the D300s, high ISO noise is surprisingly well controlled and it renders the best colours I've seen out of a Canon digital camera in a long time, possibly ever.Also, video from the 7D seems to be in a class of its own, with all the options one could dream of. There's a beautiful sequence here:
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/eosmovie/index.html
This is not true. The AF in the 5DMkII is improved in servo mode.
Sep 04, 2009 at 08:58 AM
p.8 #8the d300s killer
Well; if the AF in the 5Dmkii is an improvement all I can say is "how bad was it before"? I find it pretty pedestrian autofocus after being used to better. Mind you ... it is a fabulous camera in it way, but working fast does not seem to be one of its ways.
Sep 04, 2009 at 09:04 AM
p.8 #9the d300s killer
And please keep the VR or IS in the lens. We all pay insane amounts for glass anyways, so I don't mind more for the very best in the technology - and from my limited use of in body ... well, please keep it where it is. Canon and Nikon do it right. The rest save some pennies and give us a kludge that mostly newbies need or value.
Sep 04, 2009 at 09:07 AM
p.8 #10the d300s killer
I wanted a FF in 2006 for landscapes and perspectives, but didn't want to spend over $5K. Coming from an EOS 5 to the 20D and then 5D, the AF was great for me. Could it have been better? Sure.
I would say the 5DMkII AF, though lacking, was in fact a noticeable improvement over the original 5D. I do think it was very cynical of Canon for not putting the 7D AF in it or even a watered down version of the 7D AF module in the 5DMkII. That does make me upset.
I would say the 5DMkII AF, though lacking, was in fact a noticeable improvement over the original 5D. I do think it was very cynical of Canon for not putting the 7D AF in it or even a watered down version of the 7D AF module in the 5DMkII. That does make me upset.
Sep 04, 2009 at 09:09 AM
p.8 #11the d300s killer
Pavel wrote:
And please keep the VR or IS in the lens. We all pay insane amounts for glass anyways, so I don't mind more for the very best in the technology - and from my limited use of in body ... well, please keep it where it is. Canon and Nikon do it right. The rest save some pennies and give us a kludge that mostly newbies need or value.
Pentax inbody IS is suppose to be better than Sony's, but Sony's new IS is suppose to be good upto 4 stops. Having used the current Sony bodies, the IS is really useful around 100-125mm.
And please keep the VR or IS in the lens. We all pay insane amounts for glass anyways, so I don't mind more for the very best in the technology - and from my limited use of in body ... well, please keep it where it is. Canon and Nikon do it right. The rest save some pennies and give us a kludge that mostly newbies need or value.
Pentax inbody IS is suppose to be better than Sony's, but Sony's new IS is suppose to be good upto 4 stops. Having used the current Sony bodies, the IS is really useful around 100-125mm.
Sep 04, 2009 at 09:11 AM
p.8 #12the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
I wanted a FF in 2006 for landscapes and perspectives, but didn't want to spend over $5K. Coming from an EOS 5 to the 20D and then 5D, the AF was great for me. Could it have been better? Sure.
I would say the 5DMkII AF, though lacking, was in fact a noticeable improvement over the original 5D. I do think it was very cynical of Canon for not putting the 7D AF in it or even a watered down version of the 7D AF module in the 5DMkII. That does make me upset.
It's plain Canon didn't intend the 5D2 for action photography, so I don't think their decision was cynical. Rather, I suspect it was part of a caclucation over what package of features could be offered at the desired price point, which after all was less than both the D700 and D3 at introduction despite the higher resolution and HD video capability. (I'm still impressed at the IQ available at this price point.)
Canon so far hasn't made a full-frame camera for action shooters, if you discount the 1Ds series (for cost or frame rate reasons); the D700 and D3 are still kings of that hill.
Nor, up till now, had they made an APS-C model that was truly aimed at the professional user, while Nikon has had successive generations of flagship DX-format cameras that the D300/300s has benefited from.
The 7D seems to be an attempt to address the second gap; we'll have to see about the first. I'm certain a 3D will follow at some point in the future, perhaps in time to compete with the D700x.
I wanted a FF in 2006 for landscapes and perspectives, but didn't want to spend over $5K. Coming from an EOS 5 to the 20D and then 5D, the AF was great for me. Could it have been better? Sure.
I would say the 5DMkII AF, though lacking, was in fact a noticeable improvement over the original 5D. I do think it was very cynical of Canon for not putting the 7D AF in it or even a watered down version of the 7D AF module in the 5DMkII. That does make me upset.
It's plain Canon didn't intend the 5D2 for action photography, so I don't think their decision was cynical. Rather, I suspect it was part of a caclucation over what package of features could be offered at the desired price point, which after all was less than both the D700 and D3 at introduction despite the higher resolution and HD video capability. (I'm still impressed at the IQ available at this price point.)
Canon so far hasn't made a full-frame camera for action shooters, if you discount the 1Ds series (for cost or frame rate reasons); the D700 and D3 are still kings of that hill.
Nor, up till now, had they made an APS-C model that was truly aimed at the professional user, while Nikon has had successive generations of flagship DX-format cameras that the D300/300s has benefited from.
The 7D seems to be an attempt to address the second gap; we'll have to see about the first. I'm certain a 3D will follow at some point in the future, perhaps in time to compete with the D700x.
Sep 04, 2009 at 10:41 AM
p.8 #14the d300s killer
rsg_1 wrote:
This is not true. The AF in the 5DMkII is improved in servo mode.
Yes, it is true, and it came directly from the chosen one (Chuck Westfall). The autofocus is unchanged between the 5D and the 5D MK II. Any small performance boost that may be seen is due to the new Digic IV processor and not due to any changes made to the autofocus.
gman1339 wrote
The killer for this camera will be the autofocus. And I have't seen any glowing reports or proof that it works well in AI-Servo for action. With 8 FPS that's what this camera is going to be pushed as, a low budget action cam. And if the autofocus doesn't deliver sales will dry up. The autofocus performance on the D300s is a known factor, and the 7D needs to at least match it. And we know the recent autofocus history of Canon (broken in the 1D MK III and untouched from the 5D to the 5D II).Yes, it is true, and it came directly from the chosen one (Chuck Westfall). The autofocus is unchanged between the 5D and the 5D MK II. Any small performance boost that may be seen is due to the new Digic IV processor and not due to any changes made to the autofocus.
Sep 04, 2009 at 11:10 AM
p.8 #15the d300s killer
Correction. The AF module remained unchanged from the MkI to MkII, but the AF processing changed with Digic IV - and it is noticeable for the better.
Sep 04, 2009 at 03:55 PM
p.8 #16the d300s killer
It will be interesting to see the reviews with production cameras. RG refers to a harshness in the 7D pics and comapring them to the D300 on Imaging Resource they certainly have have a hard , contrasty look to me in comparison to the D300 but Canon is certainly dragging out a lot of detail from that sensor
Tim
Tim
Sep 04, 2009 at 07:38 PM
p.8 #17the d300s killer
I shoot both systems and don't look at any gear being "better" than other gear - it all serves a purpose.
I'm impressed with the 7D. If the integrated wireless flash control works out, that would be huge. Brand new sensor, new AF system that looks like it could be pretty slick.
I might pick one up and retire my 40D, which I only use now with the 300mm for reach.
I think Canon put some real engineering into this new camera. There will be the usual, endless pixel-peeping, nit-picking, etc. For the money, it's going to be a lot of mojo in your hands.
The best part is, this bodes really well for the new 1D body, whenever it comes around.
BTW, I do like my Nikon gear a lot. The D700 is another camera that puts a lot in your hands for the money.
I hope everyone can get a few Labor Day/end-of-summer pictures this weekend, whatever they're using.
beepclick
I'm impressed with the 7D. If the integrated wireless flash control works out, that would be huge. Brand new sensor, new AF system that looks like it could be pretty slick.
I might pick one up and retire my 40D, which I only use now with the 300mm for reach.
I think Canon put some real engineering into this new camera. There will be the usual, endless pixel-peeping, nit-picking, etc. For the money, it's going to be a lot of mojo in your hands.
The best part is, this bodes really well for the new 1D body, whenever it comes around.
BTW, I do like my Nikon gear a lot. The D700 is another camera that puts a lot in your hands for the money.
I hope everyone can get a few Labor Day/end-of-summer pictures this weekend, whatever they're using.
beepclick
Sep 05, 2009 at 07:20 PM
p.8 #18the d300s killer
Having owned both, but now being firmly in the Nikon camp, I must say that without a doubt in the right hands BOTH systems deliver the goods. However, with that said, as marvelous as the Canon lens lineup is, their overall consistency of build quality and performance is left wanting in comparison to the Nikkor lenses. Far too many times I had to exchange a lens 2 or 3 in some cases when they were Canon's. I've only replaced ONE Nikkor once and the rest were all essentially perfect. Just yet another reason I can't bring my self to switch back over.
Sep 05, 2009 at 08:00 PM
p.8 #19the d300s killer
beepclick wrote:
I might pick one up and retire my 40D, which I only use now with the 300mm for reach.
I think Canon put some real engineering into this new camera. There will be the usual, endless pixel-peeping, nit-picking, etc. For the money, it's going to be a lot of mojo in your hands.
The best part is, this bodes really well for the new 1D body, whenever it comes around.
Agreed on all points. As a Canon user, I'm excited for this camera. More so because it bodes well for the Mk IV.
The best thing about this camera is it shows that Canon aren't asleep at the wheel as a lot of internet hooplah might have you think. Maybe there's too many MP, and reasonable and thorough reviews will pick up on that, but all in all, Canon have listened to it's customers and produced what looks like a fine camera on paper.
It's nice to be back in the game!
I might pick one up and retire my 40D, which I only use now with the 300mm for reach.
I think Canon put some real engineering into this new camera. There will be the usual, endless pixel-peeping, nit-picking, etc. For the money, it's going to be a lot of mojo in your hands.
The best part is, this bodes really well for the new 1D body, whenever it comes around.
Agreed on all points. As a Canon user, I'm excited for this camera. More so because it bodes well for the Mk IV.
The best thing about this camera is it shows that Canon aren't asleep at the wheel as a lot of internet hooplah might have you think. Maybe there's too many MP, and reasonable and thorough reviews will pick up on that, but all in all, Canon have listened to it's customers and produced what looks like a fine camera on paper.
It's nice to be back in the game!
Sep 06, 2009 at 09:04 AM
p.8 #20the d300s killer
Adam L wrote:
Maybe there's too many MP, and reasonable and thorough reviews will pick up on that, but all in all, Canon have listened to it's customers and produced what looks like a fine camera on paper.
It's nice to be back in the game!
Regarding the 18MPs, Canon had little choice in reallity : if they had made the 7D a 12MPs, people would have complained about the 7D being a D300 copy 2 years later. If they had introduced the 15MPs from the 50D, people would have complained that they do not get more resolution than their 50D (and also the 50D is considered as noisy and not a major upgrade to the previous sensors resolution-wise). Now with a new 18MP crop body sensor, if Nikon introduces their 14/15MP D400 it will look like old news. Most likely the reason Nikon did the minor upgrade of D300->D300s, and I am sure they will now introduce a D400 with direct neural connection, or some other major upgrade to take the lead again
Maybe there's too many MP, and reasonable and thorough reviews will pick up on that, but all in all, Canon have listened to it's customers and produced what looks like a fine camera on paper.
It's nice to be back in the game!
Regarding the 18MPs, Canon had little choice in reallity : if they had made the 7D a 12MPs, people would have complained about the 7D being a D300 copy 2 years later. If they had introduced the 15MPs from the 50D, people would have complained that they do not get more resolution than their 50D (and also the 50D is considered as noisy and not a major upgrade to the previous sensors resolution-wise). Now with a new 18MP crop body sensor, if Nikon introduces their 14/15MP D400 it will look like old news. Most likely the reason Nikon did the minor upgrade of D300->D300s, and I am sure they will now introduce a D400 with direct neural connection, or some other major upgrade to take the lead again
Sep 07, 2009 at 05:09 AM