Chris Beaumont wrote:
I don't see why, Canon saw how extraordinary the D3 was at roughly the same time that the 1DIII came out, and still chose to keep the crop for their next model, that's like saying it was unfair to compare the D300 to the 50D because the Nikon had more features.
I am discussing the difference in IQ from a crop sensor to a full frame...not so much about features.
Canon has there stategies in keeping their line of camera's. Nikon throws a full frame fx sensor with a high fps body. Canon probably kept the crop for the 1dmk4 to retain/standby its line so they do not seem to assimilate to Nikon's formula of camera bodies.
The D3s walks all over the 1dmkIII interms of IQ. Not defending Ole but its a no brainer the full frame will be advantageous over a 1.3 crop of a Canon 1dmkIII. In Ole's article he never got his hands on a 1dmk4. I wonder why alot of people are "wishing" for a 7D af system in a 5dmkII. My 5dmkII's IQ is substantially better than my 1dmkII. Just think Nikon's put an fx system in a sports body with fast fps.
IIRC the D300 was out before the 50D. The D300 has a good edge over the 50D especially in the AF department and perhaps IQ.
I love my variety of Canon primes. This alone is a no brainer for me to stick with Canon. The 35L and 85LmkII is wonderful glass and nikon needs to step up in FL in Nikkor primes.
Beni wrote:
Question: If an ambassador gets 'free' stuff or preferential treatment then why are you lot not decrying his lack of impartiality in being a canon ambassador in the first place? Were his writings not just as suspect until now?
Or is it only if he works for Nikon that suddenly he's hugely biased and making it all up?
Hypocrites, seriously.
Beni,
Did you notice any post on this thread that really trashed him now that he switched from Canon to Nikon? To be frank, I never heard of this guy, let alone visited his website/review and I seriously care less what equipment he uses. Whatever floats his boat...
Alanu, that's my point though, Canon KNOW that a larger sensor generally produces higher IQ than a smaller one, but they stuck with it anyway, the only reason I can think of is that the marketing department insisted on it so that if you want a pro-body and full-frame you have to spend $8000, so given that they conciously made the decision not to go 35mm with the 1DIV, I don't see how it's unfair to compare the two.
rd4tile wrote:
What's unfortunate about that? If the D3x is a better cam for you then the switch was warranted in your mind. If Nikon made a product comparable to the MKIV I'd take a look at it.
Their 70-200 better be from another universe because I don't see how a zoom could be any better then the new Canon.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Alanu, that's my point though, Canon KNOW that a larger sensor generally produces higher IQ than a smaller one, but they stuck with it anyway, the only reason I can think of is that the marketing department insisted on it so that if you want a pro-body and full-frame you have to spend $8000, so given that they conciously made the decision not to go 35mm with the 1DIV, I don't see how it's unfair to compare the two.
I agree with your thoughts on Canon's strategy.
Perhaps "unfair" is the improper wording. I wish I had experience with the 1dmk4 but I can see the FX full frame of the Nikon to be an advantage. Comparing two bodies is fine but its not apples to apples.
$8000 can buy me alot of diapers and formula. As an enthusiastic hobbyist I love my gear but since its not the tools for my trade 8 grand is no feasible. I can always dream though.....
abam wrote:
i guess i still don't care who this guy is. the thread was entertaining, though.
Yes and that's partly why I posted it - no end of fun, there's nothing on TV anyway don't get em wrong I'm not (trying too) stir the pot just thought it was interesting.
I cruised to the Canon site last night, looks like they striped his stuff off toot sweet (not that I blame them).
I had not heard of him till the Mark 1d4 previews and saw some pics of his in a Canon promo video as I recall, it was a low light pic of a BIF in moonlight off the water - was very nice.
Alanu wrote:
I agree with your thoughts on Canon's strategy.
Perhaps "unfair" is the improper wording. I wish I had experience with the 1dmk4 but I can see the FX full frame of the Nikon to be an advantage. Comparing two bodies is fine but its not apples to apples.
$8000 can buy me alot of diapers and formula. As an enthusiastic hobbyist I love my gear but since its not the tools for my trade 8 grand is no feasible. I can always dream though.....
I totally agree with you, even as someone making 100% of their income from photography I couldn't dream of justifying $8k for one of these, I think if I was starting out now I'd be using a D3 or D700 rather than a Canon.
FWIW (and arguably very little) the DxO mark ratings put the D3s substantially ahead of the 1DIV.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
FWIW (and arguably very little) the DxO mark ratings put the D3s substantially ahead of the 1DIV.
Honest question, Chris: Do you think, judging from a set of images taken with each camera, you could tell the difference, with 100% certainty, between the two in real world prints? At this point in time IQ is so close that its hardly a determining factor--focus on AF, ergonomics, feature set, lens selection and cost are far larger determinants than IQ, IMO. YMMV of course.
M Vers wrote:
Honest question, Chris: Do you think, judging from a set of images taken with each camera, you could tell the difference, with 100% certainty, between the two in real world prints? At this point in time IQ is so close that its hardly a determining factor--focus on AF, ergonomics, feature set, lens selection and cost are far larger determinants than IQ, IMO. YMMV of course.
Honest answer - more often than not I can't tell my 1Ds and 40D apart at less than 10x8. I honestly think that the 1DII/1Ds II (depending on what you shoot) is all the camera 99.9% of photographers ever need, it's only when you start peering at your images too closely that you get upgradeitis, if the 1Ds II did ISO6400, or probably even 3200 I'd have 2 and probably never buy another camera until I'd worn them into nubs.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Honest answer - more often than not I can't tell my 1Ds and 40D apart at less than 10x8.
But you're talking about the difference b/t a FF sensor and an APS-C sensor--the difference is far greater than comparing FF to 1.3x. FWIW I'm not stating there is no difference, but in most cases it is negligible.
M Vers wrote:
But you're talking about the difference b/t a FF sensor and an APS-C sensor--the difference is far greater than comparing FF to 1.3x. FWIW I'm not stating there is no difference, but in most cases it is negligible.
That's what I'm saying, in print I find the IQ differences between nearly all cameras negligable, it's the sensor size, AF quality, FPS and all the other features that help you get the image that's important to me.
I'm sure us UK'ers and maybe some of you folks from across the pond know full well that Andy Rouse, UK wildlife photographer, did what appears to be exactly the same thing in switching from Canon to Nikon.
A simple bread and butter equation really
denoir wrote:
From my point of view it's too bad as I liked his reviews. And yes this does hurt his credibility as an independent reviewer - both retroactively for the Canon reviews and for future Nikon reviews.
However having said that I don't think there is anything to be upset about. He's a pro photographer that got a better deal from Nikon. Nothing unique about that. Art Wolfe switched from Nikon to Canon in a similar situation. In fact for a long while there was a Nikon->Canon stream because Nikon were being cheap while Canon handed out tons of equipment.
I doubt the not getting an 1DIV was his reason for switching - it sounds like a lame excuse. More likely he was approached by Nikon with an offer of all the cameras and glass he could eat plus a healthy amount of pocket change. Nothing wrong about that reason for switching.
Hobby photographers may enjoy blind brand loyalty but people who do it for a living have other considerations.
Time to chill
Denoir said it oh so succinctly right there near the start
All we have to do is create a niche for ourselves and do it so well that either Canon or Nikon think we are worth sponsoring.
Tim
Will Patterson wrote:
Yea but when money talks like this, I stop listening to his reviews.
Cry baby is right. I won't lose any sleep over it though.
I forget but is this the guy who said the 50D focused faster than the 1D3 and had a truly top AI Servo system?? Not sure, that might have been the other guy.
he does take some nice pics
anyway my guess it is nikon sure tossed a ton of stuff at him, which, as he says, means that switching to Nikon WILL allow him to be better able to carry out his duties as a pro
that said i'm sure he was impressed by the AF and IQ of the nikons, he was probably like you know this is certainly no worse than what I had been using, perhaps in some ways a bit better even, and I can get it all for free if I switch.... hmmm let me think do i stay or do i go.... hmm a tough one.....
