Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Anders_HK on August 23, 2007, 01:05:25 am
-
With 1Ds Mk III 21MP announced the other day, there was discussions of image quality compared to Mamiya ZD. Now... just now... Nikon today just announced:
D3 12MP - http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/eight_ye...hanging_pro.php (http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/eight_years_after_changing_pro.php)
D300 12MP - http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/nikon_in...he_new_d300.php (http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/nikon_introduces_the_new_d300.php)
14-24, 24-70 f2.8 - http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/professi...enses_enter.php (http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/professional_zoom_lenses_enter.php)
400 f2.8 VR, 500, 600 f4 VR - http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/nikon_ad...w_supertele.php (http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/08/nikon_adds_three_new_supertele.php)
Above Nikon announcements are high tech featured, but what about image quality? There seem nothing in the writing that speaks of much improvements (except at high ISO). I dare say that in image quality, the Mamiya ZD will win hands down to above Canon and Nikons (excluding at high ISO). What about Nikon's rumored upcoming larger MP in six months? Quote from http://bythom.com/2007comments.htm (http://bythom.com/2007comments.htm)
"Unfortunately, if I'm right about which prototype is being introduced this week, the Canon/Nikon pro user debates will continue unfettered. That's because Canon will up the 1DsII from 16mp to 21mp this week, and Nikon will be once again stuck facing the "fewer pixels" complaint from some users (because they're comparing the wrong camera with the wrong camera). But if you go back and read my roadmap, the high resolution follow up camera from Nikon isn't expected until the middle of next year (and the about-to-be-announced high-speed pro camera is following at about the predicted interval, especially if it doesn't ship until later this fall). Thus, the fireworks are probably not over yet--Nikon appears to be about six months behind Canon in announcing new pro cameras this time, but appears also to be clearly matching or exceeding them this time around (again, making some assumptions about image quality). I can wait six months."
There have been some rumors of a RGB sensor, yet that is in speculations. New technology could potentially improve image quality of DSRL, but... could it by much?
Any thoughts?
Regards
Anders
-
Hi
The D3 will be priced at $5000.00 USD, not bad!
-
The Nikon D3 is basically exactly what the Canon 1Dmk3 should have been. 12mp, full frame with nice features like crop modes and features like this "The D3 also features a unique Virtual Horizon digital level sensor that indicates the camera’s alignment relative to the true horizon on the rear LCD screen or in the viewfinder" very very usefull and cool! Also, Nikons lcd on paper at least seems amazing.
Naturally lots of tests are in order before any conclussions are made but things look very very promising and dont forget a high resolution D3x is to be released next year posibly by spring with 20+ MP, maybe up to 24mp...
But man, GAME ON!!!
Thanks Nikon!
Lets see if Canon finally is forced to lower the 1Ds price from $8,000!
-
The Nikon D3 is basically exactly what the Canon 1Dmk3 should have been. 12mp, full frame with nice features like crop modes and features like this "The D3 also features a unique Virtual Horizon digital level sensor that indicates the camera’s alignment relative to the true horizon on the rear LCD screen or in the viewfinder" very very usefull and cool! Also, Nikons lcd on paper at least seems amazing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps this will force Canon to give up the 1.3x crop factor sensor, and only keep the full frame & the 1.6x crop sensor?
-
Perhaps this will force Canon to give up the 1.3x crop factor sensor, and only keep the full frame & the 1.6x crop sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon will show us a 1DMk3N before the olyimpics next year.
-
I would love to find a way to do a blind test of several cameras... put an identical scene from several cameras out there and have people vote on which is best... after voting, then reveal the camera. Analogous to what audiophiles do. I say this because Digital Outback posted 3 raw files... 1DmkIII, 5D and Fuji dSLR... I looked at the three raw photos and could not walk away with one I thought was better... each had good/bad points buy a clear winner?... nah (IMHO)
Anyway, with all of the opinion on IQ, I would love to see this test happen...
Any clever individuals out there?
-
I would love to find a way to do a blind test of several cameras... put an identical scene from several cameras out there and have people vote on which is best... after voting, then reveal the camera. Analogous to what audiophiles do. I say this because Digital Outback posted 3 raw files... 1DmkIII, 5D and Fuji dSLR... I looked at the three raw photos and could not walk away with one I thought was better... each had good/bad points buy a clear winner?... nah (IMHO)
Anyway, with all of the opinion on IQ, I would love to see this test happen...
Any clever individuals out there?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Camera choice is quite a personal thing and determining a favorite by IQ alone is really tough since there area lot other factors to consider most of which can only be compared while using the cameras for a while. IMHO most current DSLRs offer really good IQ at reasonable ISOs (100-400) provided one has good technique.
I find Nikon's attention to detail amazing in the new cameras really surprising. Features like integrated "virtual horizon level" in the viewfinder and lcd, dx and 4x5 crop modes including proper viewfinder masking and af during live view are just awesome and thing I really wish my Canons had. Just last week I couldve used that for several architectural shoots I had. Also the high resolution lcd seems awesome (at least on paper) and finally high end DSLRs get an lcd worthy of the cameras.
Also, Nikons new 24-70 2.8 and 14-24 2.8 zooms look awesome.
I think Canon was really caught sleeping on this one IMHO.
So where does that leave the Mamiya ZD? Well, like I said months ago, just too little too dang late. The Canon is a third generation model so its extremely well sorted out a reliable integrated image capture device that works reliably under an extremely wide variety of conditions and situations. Its raw files can be read and processed by basically all leading converters and image manipulation software. I can only afford one camera system so the choice is easy for me.
-
It's funny how the Canon and Nikon announced at the same time when the 1DsII and D2X came out. They must have spies in each respective camp or maybe they just go to lunch together...
At any rate, this once very lopsided race has gotten significantly more interesting. I can see Nikon following up with a 21+ MP camera sometime next year. I think it's safe to say that film's demise has gotten that much closer. Interesting times indeed.
-
Are the new Nikons using 8 bit sensors?
-
14 bit (12 bit by option), just like the new Canons.
Are the new Nikons using 8 bit sensors?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
MAN I Love this stuff....
They are indeed good times... And I agree that the ZD was a little too late.
But definitely the ZD made Canon come out with an announcement for sure.
Snook
-
my camera choice is now guided by lens ownership,, i have a 600, 300, assorted other L stuff,,, flashes,, ,, no way i would take that beating,,,,
-
But definitely the ZD made Canon come out with an announcement for sure.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't believe so. My guess is that the 1ds3 announcement is mostly driven by Nikon.
My guess is that, having realized that the upper hand had probably been lost technically in the prosumer and PJ/Sport, they had no choice but to react with a communication of whatever was available, and better yet to anticipate the press release by a few days. This looks like it comes from "damage control for dummies".
Whether the D3 will actually impact Canon sales remains to be seen, but the problem is that the whole marketing strategy of Canon has been based on a very clear implicit message "being better than Nikon". That's why they kept using these images of sport events with many white lenses etc... Based on the current specs, the D3 has clearly the potential to reverse this trend.
The people inside Canon marketing who believe that they got where they are thanks to the - then - smart marketing leveraging of their actual pro dominance in some geos/fields can only reach the conclusion that the Nikon D3 announcement is a very significant threat. Not an immediate one, but a clear and present one.
My, again, guess is that Canon marketing has sort of lost the influence it used to have on engineering and finance. Those 2 dpts have clearly decided to limit the investements since market share was good. Now Canon marketing is facing a situation where they don't have the right tools anymore to maintain the idea that Canon is the technological leader in photography.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hi
For those questioning the ZD which I think is very well priced considering you can pick up a bunch of prime lenses on ebay for a bargain. Have you looked at the price of the Hy6 camera. I will still continue to use both the ZD & the new Canon 1Ds MKIII.
-
I don't believe so. My guess is that the 1ds3 announcement is mostly driven by Nikon.
My guess is that, having realized that the upper hand had probably been lost technically in the prosumer and PJ/Sport, they had no choice but to react with a communication of whatever was available, and better yet to anticipate the press release by a few days. This looks like it comes from "damage control for dummies".
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree.
Ive known for a while that the Canon 40d and 1Ds mk3 have been ready for a long while, close to one year. Canon just didnt have any pressure to release them so cant blame them to milk the current models for as long as they could. In fact the new Nikons look good on paper but they have yet to be widely used and tested obviously so they are unproven.
Canon released the 1Dmk3 first in anticipation of the D3 no question but its basically the first time ever that Nikon has released a camera, well 2 this time, that beat recently released Canon counterparts in sensor size, MP count and features. It has always been the other way around. Remember when Nikon came out with the D2h, 4MP and sketchy at high iso, BAM! Canon released the 1D mk2 with DOUBLE the MP and great high iso performance. In the low end there was the digital rebel, bam! first DSLR under $1k...and so on. Now they go on and release the 40d which is basically what the 30d should have been in the first place and a 1D mk3 that is 10MP (a hard sell marketing wise in a market flooded w/ 10mp dslrs) and has focusing issues. The 1DsMk3 does remain at the top and its the first DSLR to break the 20 MP barrier, well heck, the 1Dsmk2 is still unbeaten in MP by anything but the mk3. BUT Nikon has yet to release the D3x, which might have over 20mp also.
What does all this mean? Well mostly, the damage was done with the 1Dmk2, lots of people changed over to Canon and have heavily invested in Canon glass. BUT Nikon finally offers some competition after close to 4 years of Canon dominance. We might see more agressive specs and features in Canon products and lower prices. Would be nice to see the 1DsMk3 at $6000 or less...
-
What does all this mean? Well mostly, the damage was done with the 1Dmk2, lots of people changed over to Canon and have heavily invested in Canon glass. BUT Nikon finally offers some competition after close to 4 years of Canon dominance. We might see more agressive specs and features in Canon products and lower prices. Would be nice to see the 1DsMk3 at $6000 or less...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, that's also how I see it.
Nikon has finally released something that the market at large sees as being probably competitive, and this will overall drive the prices of both Nikon and Canon down a little bit.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Most replies to my original post is not addressing what I asked of: IMAGE QUALITY. Yes, the D3 has impressive features, but ultimately what matters to us is the IMAGE QUALITY that the sensor can capture.
There is no question that the ZD beats 1Ds Mk III and D3 in image quality hands down (low ISO). My BIG question is in relating to the high resolution Nikon version of D3 to be released in perhaps six months:
1) Can a 24MP Bayer 36 x 24mm sensor come near the ZD. I do not think so because smaller photosites, or, can they... if similar like Phase One 39MP but on the smaller sensor area?
2) Can a 36 x 24mm RGB Foveon type sensor make much improvement over a Bayer sensor as in 1)?
3) How near the ZD in image quality could Nikon reach with above?
Regards
Anders
-
"There is no question that the ZD beats 1Ds Mk III and D3 in image quality hands down (low ISO)."
Bold statement to make given both the Canon & Nikon are still months away from being released!
-
There is no question that the ZD beats 1Ds Mk III and D3 in image quality hands down (low ISO). My BIG question is in relating to the high resolution Nikon version of D3 to be released in perhaps six months:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nodoby knows the exact gap between the 1ds3 and the ZD, and we have zero information today about the D3x.
I agree with you that there will most probably still be a significant gap between the ZD and the 1ds3, but are we talking detail, DR,... it is simply too early to tell.
1) Can a 24MP Bayer 36 x 24mm sensor come near the ZD. I do not think so because smaller photosites, or, can they... if similar like Phase One 39MP but on the smaller sensor area?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
- detail: probably not since I assume that the D3X will have an AA filter, while the ZD doesn't. On the other hand, the pixels of the D2x were very sharp considering the presence of the AA filter, so the gap might not be huge.
- DR: this would be surprising.
2) Can a 36 x 24mm RGB Foveon type sensor make much improvement over a Bayer sensor as in 1)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, it definitely can. The main value will be in color definition and color has always been one of Nikon's priorities.
3) How near the ZD in image quality could Nikon reach with above?
Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No idea whatsoever.
The best thing today is to use your ZD and take sellable images with it. You will only know if it was worth the money of not the day you retire by computing how much money these images will have contributed vs how much money you would have made by either not having a camera at all, or a lesser one.
The market value of the ZD will be decreasing in the coming months, no doubt.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Bernard, your post makes sense, saw it after posting this...
"There is no question that the ZD beats 1Ds Mk III and D3 in image quality hands down (low ISO)."
Bold statement to make given both the Canon & Nikon are still months away from being released!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at all bold :
We know....
1) Image quality of the 1D Mk III seem like a crop of 1Ds Mk III.
2) There is nothing in the D3 that speaks of a very significant imrovement in image quality over other DSLRs.
3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.
With the D3 Nikon has presented a 36 x 24 mm sensor based DSLR with what sonds like highly competitive image quality compared to other DSLRs. The D3 has high ISO capabilities. The sensor in D3 is unlike medium format sensors such as the ZD not focused on ISO 50-400. Nikon seem serious in going after the sports and PJ market with what they need. Assumably since they have done their homework on doing so, one could speculate that what is rumored that they will present in six months is something serious for higher MP in high image quality at perhaps lower ISO.
Canon simply took the 1D Mk III's 1.3x crop sensor and made it 36 x 24mm 1.0x. Nikon cannot do that. They need to use a higher MPand high quality 36 x 24mm sensor, or else their upcoming camera may not have image quality to compete with the now announced D3. My thinking is thus on what sensor could do such a task?
Assumably that sensor/camera will have less image quality than my one month old Mamiya ZD camera.... or else slight dissappointment since I am in process of selling all my Nikon gear. Of course... what matters is images... and my ZD will still help me capture nice images. If I am not misstaken, no DSLR (except ZD) has yet been built with a quality sensor from Dalsa or Kodak, or could that be up for a change? Or could a 36 x 24mm sensor from other sensor fabricator do the task, perhaps Foveon or Fuji type???
Regards
Anders
-
The big question is how do all the Nikon users feela bout going full frame. I'm sure a lot of shooters were happ--but I have to believe a subset is a lil' pissed that they brought into the whole DX is the future format. I always thought it was a lame shtick--kinda like the whole 2-button press is good in case your fingers slip crap Canon sold alongside the 1-series.
I bet only time will tell how many Nikonians will grumble about edge to edge sharpness now seeing as now it will be their lenses being stretched to the resolution limit (assuming the D3x is around the corner).
-
Hi
You have to remember that the Nikon & Canon FF sensors are CMOS whilr the ZD is a CCD ( dalsa ). CCD is sharper than CMOS. But CMOS uses less power & is better than the CCD on the higher isos. When I get my !Ds MKIII I will do a side by side with the ZD,
Thanks Denis
-
I wonder what the difference in color reproduction will be.
It's great that there is now more competition out there. That keeps the developers of cameras on their toes.
-
Are the new Nikons using 8 bit sensors?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
8bit sensors do not exist. Neither do they exist in any other number of bits. The sensors are analog devices. The first 'thing' in the pipeline that has bits is the A/D converter(s).
-
I stand corrected .. tired while posting!
-
The big question is how do all the Nikon users feela bout going full frame. I'm sure a lot of shooters were happ--but I have to believe a subset is a lil' pissed that they brought into the whole DX is the future format. I always thought it was a lame shtick--kinda like the whole 2-button press is good in case your fingers slip crap Canon sold alongside the 1-series.
I bet only time will tell how many Nikonians will grumble about edge to edge sharpness now seeing as now it will be their lenses being stretched to the resolution limit (assuming the D3x is around the corner).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nikon lenses are pretty good. Nikons 17-35mm 2.8 AFS zoom has been mounted and tested and Canon 1Ds mk2's and has done extremely well.
Overall, the full frame format will be a revelation to those Nikonians that havent use it. The first time I used it, on a 5D, I was like dang this is what DSLRs should have been from the start. I was tired of having to use shorter focal lengths all the time given equal subjects, composition and distance to subject. Basically with full frame I started using my 50mm and 85mm lenses a LOT again whereas with the smaller formats I was using 24-35 and 50mm. In the telephoto range full frame is a disadvantage in the sense that where a 300mm + converter was enough now you need those much more expensive 500 and 600mm lenses a lot more. The viewfinder view is also much improved in the full frame cameras. the difference is significant. Also, at least with the 5D, the fact that it uses larger pixels that Nikons 12mp DX D2 contributed to much cleaner high iso image quality and cleaner shadows overall. i know the technologies are different but the D3 should do nicely too. A D3x should at the very least equal the D2xs in that regard or beat it given improvements in technology.
-
I'm really happy to see Nikon put some effort into tonal range. 14 bits plus the in camera dynamic lighting will be pretty hot. I bet you will have to either shoot jpg or use capture to develop the raw to take advantage of it.
I love the dynamic lighting options on capture nx but the program itself is TO SLOW and cumbersome. I would like to be able to integrate this into my work flow but its unlikely.
-
I'm still shooting Nikon D100. Therefore, I may outdate on the technology Nikon put into hteir new models. On D100, the noise reduction is carried out by taking exactly the same length of exposure without open the shutter. It's really pain when shooting really long exposure as I did for the meteror shower. How do D3 and D300 deal with noise reduction? Maybe they used the new technology on D200 already. I just never checked. How is the life view on D3/D300? Does that mean the LCD can flip up? otherwsie it may not be an important feature. Can somebody have the information/knowledge eductae me?
-
The market value of the ZD will be decreasing in the coming months, no doubt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not necessarily. It depends on market. When buying my ZD from agent in HK last month they said that their market in HK was not good for it because the pros were already solds on Phase etc. On other hand in Mainland China it was different (they are also agent there), pros are buying it because they can say to clients that they use mediumformat (higher quality) and charge them more!
Mine is for my hobby though. I hope it in image quality will remain at top of DSLRs for some time, or regardless it will help me be able make large prints of travels for future .
The 1Ds Mk III will only get near the ZD in MP, not other aspects. There is nothing in its specs to indicate the 1D Mk III is not a crop of the 1Ds Mk III. Per the photos I have seen posted from the 1D the quality is not near the ZD, while of course the 1D/1Ds Mk III are totally different cameras also.
Regards
Anders
-
I'm still shooting Nikon D100. Therefore, I may outdate on the technology Nikon put into hteir new models. On D100, the noise reduction is carried out by taking exactly the same length of exposure without open the shutter. It's really pain when shooting really long exposure as I did for the meteror shower. How do D3 and D300 deal with noise reduction? Maybe they used the new technology on D200 already. I just never checked. How is the life view on D3/D300? Does that mean the LCD can flip up? otherwsie it may not be an important feature. Can somebody have the information/knowledge eductae me?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The D200 does the blank frame substraction for long exposures. I was thinking that the the ZD should do it too. They say after 10 seconds it gets all noisy. What would happen if you took a blank frame with a lens cap and subtracted it in PS. Is that even possible?
-
The D200 does the blank frame substraction for long exposures. I was thinking that the the ZD should do it too. They say after 10 seconds it gets all noisy. What would happen if you took a blank frame with a lens cap and subtracted it in PS. Is that even possible?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, the ZD subtracts also. Only time I shoot with lens cap on is with my Mamiya 7II, and that is embarassing!
Rgds
Anders
-
Anybody knows about D300? If it has to do the same for the long exposure, I may not jump on the band wagon this time. Also the life view (as the Olympus), is that really important? I guess it is easy to compose as the LCD is much bigger than the viewfinder. But I like to have different angle to take a shot if the LCD can flip around.
-
We know....
3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that depends on final print -- if the final print is done on a high-speed press for a magazine, I think you might be hard-put to find any difference. If you're making 100cm (40-inch) prints for the fine art market, then the difference may be more obvious. The ZD may be Mamiya's bridge to a new technology, sort of like the Leica M8, but if Mamiya doesn't come out with something better (faster and more robust with better software and support), and soon, then I think they're dead ducks.
JC
-
I think that depends on final print -- if the final print is done on a high-speed press for a magazine, I think you might be hard-put to find any difference. If you're making 100cm (40-inch) prints for the fine art market, then the difference may be more obvious. The ZD may be Mamiya's bridge to a new technology, sort of like the Leica M8, but if Mamiya doesn't come out with something better (faster and more robust with better software and support), and soon, then I think they're dead ducks.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JC, Mamiya being dead ducks is doubtful. Contax and Bronica are gone. Hassy has their closed system with the H3. Apart from the ZD, looking at rest of Mamiya system (AFDII), what will people use their Phase, Leaf etc backs on?
The Mamiya ZD being slow is something that is also a benefit to some applications, simply because it slows your shooting down, forcing you to plan it more with higher success ratio. Good photography is not about pressing the shutter at high intervals and hoping something good is captured by selecting the best out of those frames.
The Mamiya ZD is able to capture the equivalence of one 645 film in 10 seconds. I think not bad. I enjoy the ZD, but seems people are oversold on high technology. One example is the D3, what among that has been presented indicates any significant improvements in actual image quality, apart from that we know it has a 36x24mm sensor?
Look at the ZD camera body (not back), it is unique and very excellent camera. It is a DSLR handling medium format camera. I fully enjoy it. Granted there seem still to be some problems with the USA agent so it is not available on USA shores, which is regrettable. It would be great if in future they upgrade it with a larger sensor for future, even better if they could rebuild my ZD for a reasonable amount for such upgrade. Regardless my ZD will keep capture images of very high quality and to what beats any DSLR out there today or announced until today.
As for print size... my ZD is 5 weeks old, but the A4 sized print in my office from it beats my 1m wide from D200 hands down.
Regards
Anders
-
I wonder what the switch from CCD to CMOS will do to the image quality, colors in particular.
-
I wonder what the switch from CCD to CMOS will do to the image quality, colors in particular.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anders, My 1DsMII will blow your D200 out of the water in printing also.
I would not compare a ZD to a D200.
The Comparison is D3 1DsMII or MIII etc..
Also it will be hard for most people to get a ZD body.
Also it makes very little sense getting a ZD all in one camera. I hope that is obvious?
Not trying to beat your post down but the D200 comparison is not really relative and the Body only ZD is a disadvantage all around especially if you want to change to another back,film or whatever in the future.
Just my 2 cents.
Snook.
PS. That is also why I think the H3 is not a good move at all either.
-
My point was not that the ZD can't make excellent photographs, it obviously can. But it seems to me that at present, the ZD is out-flanked on both...er, flanks.
For highest qualilty, there are other backs and systems, and those systems are going through rapid improvement in both software and hardware. Hasselblad, in particular, seems at the point of offering a system that not only works well and delivers the product, but actually has dependable software capable of doing exquisite translations -- the big problem with a lot of digital MF systems. (I don't actually have one, I'm just going on reviews.)
On the other side, there's the Canon and probably an upcoming new Nikon D3x, which will offer effectively the same resolution, close to the same DR, much better flexibility, a wider choice of lenses and other equipment than the Mamiya, for less money.
I think Mamiya at this point has one option: come out with a MF back that will fit their 645 equipment (forget the stand-alone camera) with ~39 high-quality megapixels, in the $10,000-$15,000 price range. If they can do that, they will move firmly into the MF market and undercut the European competition, which is greatly overpriced, and they'll get Canon and Nikon permanently off their heels. (Canon and Nikon can't offer too many more MP on a FF sensor, unless there's some kind of breakthrough in technology.)
If Mamiya doesn't do something like that, then, I say again, I think they're dead ducks. 8-)
JC
-
Snook and John,
I am sure a 1Ds Mk II will smoke a D200. Yet the differences are small compared to between a DSLR and medium format digital. Frank Doorhof's writing of 5D vs. ZD exemplify that significant step in image quality. There is of course difference between ZD and P45+, but I think it is fair to say not as large as the difference between ZD and 1D Mk II. One reason to the differences are perhaps that the sensors in DSLRs are designed for higher ISO, but there are assumably also other quality aspects considered in the design of medium format sensors. It seems the specs or words of the 1Ds Mk III show no change in this. Is it possibe to improve a 36x24mm sensor to levels of current 48x36mm sensors with todays technology?
I agree that Mamiya will benefit from releasing a ZD with more MP, but I think it shall be in both a back and a camera body. Also that it would be very appreciated if they would offer to upgrade/rebuild our 22MP ZD cameras for a reasonable amount.
It is surpricing why the ZD camera body is discredited. We all have different preferences and shooting styles. To me I looked at both but very much preferred the DSLR handling and controls of the ZD camera body. It is also more compact and easier to carry around your neck when walking around. The AFDII also has a large chamber that can collect dust and the joint between back and camera which gives dust one more path to penetrate, so... all are tradeoffs. Sure you can replace the back in future, but the price of an AFDII is already small compared to what the ZD back now cost. The ZD camera body is not difficult to get and available in all markets but regrettably not USA due USA agent. In Hong Kong they had both ZD back and camera in stock.
Regards
Anders
-
Snook and John,
I am sure a 1Ds Mk II will smoke a D200. Yet the differences are small compared to between a DSLR and medium format digital. Frank Doorhof's writing of 5D vs. ZD exemplify that significant step in image quality.
Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but the question still needs to be asked, can people tell any difference in quality in magazine print?
Annie Leibovitz is shooting some ads these days with a Canon 1Ds2. Can anyone tell by looking at the ads? Is she fielding complaints about inferior image quality now?
-ron
-
Hello. This is my first post here but I've been lurking on and off for a while.
Something that seems to be under-represented in this discussion is value; what you get for your money. You guys with both top-end MF systems and DSLR systems make me jealous, and I congratulate you for making it work for you financially. But for most of us, we have to make do with less. Sales volume of pro cameras is proof enough of that.
FWIW, I've seen some output from the ZD back that looks wonderful, and others that show problems, but for the money it's pretty darn good.
I've also seen output from the better Phase One backs which beats it, hands down. As you should expect, given it's much higher cost.
And I've seen output from the H3D that slots somewhere in between. Their new closed system approach is a turn off, nevermind the price they charge for it, and it has some real problems for architectural work.
The next step down is the 1DsMk2. Depending on the lens it's capable of comparable, but not technically better output than a 16MP back. Again, this should surprise nobody, given the Canon's much lower cost.
The true output of a production 1DsMk3 remains to be seen. It's competitive with mid-level MF digital in pixel count so the resolution should be there, but will it look as good as a 22MP Phase back on a good MF systems with Schneider Digitar or Rodenstock HR lenses?
No way, it just isn't physically or economically possible for Canon to produce a same quality system with the technology they have.
So basically, it becomes a cost/benefit decision. Personally, as an architectural photographer primarily, I really need a view camera. Canon and Nikon don't make one though, so my only choice for now is to stick with my Sinar 4x5 and excellent collection of lenses, which is still widely accepted in the architectural market for those who can afford the substantial film and scanning costs.
Systems like the site owner's Linhoff/Phase/Rodenstock system would pretty much spell the end of my 4x5 system (with a P45 back), but I just can't make a business case for it; the debt service would take way too much out of my bottom line to make a living with it. I hope that changes in the near future, but for now the 4x5 is the highest quality solution I can offer, largely because of it's image quality, but primarily because of it's tilt and shift, which I heavily rely on to do my best work.
For detail shots on medium and high budget jobs, I used to use an RB67II. That's since been replaced with fairly complete D200 system which nets me better images, and is a 1000 times easier to use. It also allows me to make ends meet with headshots, event work, and motorsports work that the MF digital solutions can't do.
Does the D200, even with my excellent lenses and all the tricks and techniques I can throw at it in post offer the same image quality as a good MF digital system? Hell no it doesn't, but it fits my business model, and produces very good output if used correctly.
I think we can safely assume that the Canon 1Dmk3 will beat the mark 2 in terms of ultimate image quality and usable resolution. And I think we can safely say that the D300 will beat the D200 in image quality, with the D3 exceeding both in every respect. It remains to be seen of course, but the potential is very much there for excellent image quality at every ISO, with vastly superior results (compared to other Nikons) at high ISO's, where current Nikon's fall to pieces as we know. And I think it's safe to assume that an upcoming higher res Nikon will meet or beat the Canon system for top honors in the DSLR class.
As an architectural photographer foremost, I'm really interested in the new, digital capture optimized, 14-24 lens. It, along wih a D300 will certainly beat my D200 and 12-24DX, but by how much remains to be seen. Personally, I'll probably just buy the lens first and wait for a D3x, which should be everything I need from a DSLR.
Oh, and BTW, I hedged my bet that a FF Nikon would eventually happen soon enough when I replaced my stolen D200 system last summer. It would have been a pefect opportunity to spend a bit more and switch to a Canon 5D system since the whole kit was stolen, but the 12-24DX was already beating my old Nikon prime lenses, which have always been regarded as better than Canon wides. It was the only DX lens I bought, and picked up AF-D lenses instead of DX equivalents. Lucky me, but I feel bad for those who bought a full kit with DX lenses and regret it now.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to work on expanding my portfolio and client base using tools I can make money from, and eventually get the sort of jobs that will make my MF digital view camera dream system a reality. I'll also hope and expect that lower cost, higher res DSLR's will put downward pressure on the MF systems price of entry. There is no substitute for correcting optical problems at the camera than in the computer, so I'll always use a view camera for technical work whenever possible.
Thanks for listening to my two cents, and I look forward to participating on this board in the future.
Kevin
-
I have been using the 1Ds,1dsMII and 5D, for several years now for Magazines double page spreads the size of W and V magazines, Billboards AS big as you can imagine and NEVER have I had one complaint,even from my self, about the quality! Period
Yes I have been disappointed about some lens quality.
Medium Format I think it for people that want the most dynamic range possible and that do HUGE prints for art and photo type Prints.
It does not surprise me that Annie is using the 1DsMII. Many are using the 1DsMII and will use the 1DsMIII.
I personally feel the MFD gives a little more 3D look, But it might be my wishful thinking as well.
I have download several images from Phase and from Leaf and They really are Not ALL that different to my eyes.
Of course I do not print that big so that is where the difference comes in maybe.
Or maybe you can crop in more with the extra MegaPixels...
One things I worry about is that even with the 1DsMII I am going through external harddrives like wild fire and it is a constant saving and copying battle all the time.
I do shoot a lot but I would definelty have to shoot a lot less with a MFD camera as the space would really disappear quickly..:+]
I really wanted to go to Medium format for the Bigger Viewfinder the nicer lens etc... Not so much for the "better" quality as I have been fine with the 1DsMII.
The ZD was going to be a way to "check" out MFD with out breaking into my profits which would take a big chunk that my clients atleast are not willing to pay extra for as everything has been fine with out it..
Snook
-
Anybody Shot the ZD with an RZIId yet?
Snook
-
I still believe that the differences between the image quality in the ZD and 1DsIII will be very minimal at best. With the step up to 14bits 35mm is making a hard case to be considered as the go-to format for people shooters. Obviously, for special applications--i.e. big job, you'd go to a bigger format but that's for the high end shooters... Everybody else will just continue to rent those backs when the job calls for it. 1Ds (series) will continue to rule the glossy pages IMO.
-
Perhaps this will force Canon to give up the 1.3x crop factor sensor, and only keep the full frame & the 1.6x crop sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed.
Just one week ago I believed that there was a big inherent price difference between Canon's 19x28mm 1D format (1.3x) and 24x36mm, partly based on repeated statements from Canon to that effect, including Canon's correct statement that in general steppers impose a chip size limit of 26x33mm unless special, slower and more complicated procedures are used. This 26x33mm is the standard size used by most Canon and Nikon steppers, and in particular no current Nikon stepper goes larger AFAIK.
But now the Nikon D3 is priced at only $500 (11%) more than the 1DMkIII. The cost gap might still be there, with with Nikon accepting low margins, either in an attempt to take turn from Canon, or on the basis of higher sales volume than the 1Ds series which makes lower margins profitable. But maybe the sensor cost barrier is not so great a problem in this high price range.
Either way, Canon has worked very hard to make people believe that "bigger is better and crops are bad", so it will be hard to launch a 1DMkIV with a smaller sensor than its Nikon competitors and 1.3x crop, especially with no matching "19x28 format lenses".
So I expect 24x36 format in the next high frame rate professional body from Canon, and thus in all future high end professional bodies from Canon.
-
There is no question that the ZD beats 1Ds Mk III and D3 in image quality hands down (low ISO).
Tests need to be done to verify or disprove this.
But I think a key point is that the 1DsIII uses a full frame sensor, and so is using the entire image circle. The ZD is still a cropped format, so is using a cropped image circle. Presumably the Mamiya has room to grow.
I recall reading years ago that MF lenses do not resolve as highly as 35mm ones. I'm not sure if that is true.
-
But now the Nikon D3 is priced at only $500 (11%) more than the 1DMkIII. The cost gap might still be there, with with Nikon accepting low margins, either in an attempt to take turn from Canon, or on the basis of higher sales volume than the 1Ds series which makes lower margins profitable. But maybe the sensor cost barrier is not so great a problem in this high price range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cost and price have nothing to do with each other, it has always been clear that Canon was making very large margins on the 1ds2.
Besides, Nikon has overall been able to provide more features per Yen than Canon in the past few years. Whether it means that they make less margin or whether it means that their production process is more optimized is anybody's guess.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Cost and price have nothing to do with each other, it has always been clear that Canon was making very large margins on the 1ds2.
Besides, Nikon has overall been able to provide more features per Yen than Canon in the past few years. Whether it means that they make less margin or whether it means that their production process is more optimized is anybody's guess.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My guess is that Nikon is working on slimmer margins than Canon, might even lose money on some models while they try to restore market share. Pretty common business practice when you're behind the curve and trying to catch up.
Then again, we don't know how Canon is amortizing their CMOS manufacturing investment. It's hard to believe they'll make any money on the upcoming 40D, it's a whole lot of camera for the money.
-
My guess is that Nikon is working on slimmer margins than Canon, might even lose money on some models while they try to restore market share. Pretty common business practice when you're behind the curve and trying to catch up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My analysis happens to be different. Nikon has been producing bodies in Thailand for a few years now. They have a very large facility with about 15.000 people there.
I believe that this one of the keys to their agressive pricing.
Another aspect is that they buy their sensor from Sony and these standard parts end up being probably cheaper than the in house sensors made by Canon since they are manufactured in significantly larger numbers.
Canon has been pretty bad at standardization, most of their bodies use different sensors while the Nikon lineup has been based on having different bodies use the same sensor (D50 and D70s, D40x and D80 for instance).
My feeling is that Canon will soon be unable to compete on price in the low end if they stick to using in house sensors that end up having little performance advantage if any. They are already using Sony sensors for their compact cameras, I wonder if pride and image are not the only 2 things that keep them from doing the obvious: select a standard part instead of making their own at a higher cost.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I wonder if pride and image are not the only 2 things that keep them from doing the obvious: select a standard part instead of making their own at a higher cost.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Two points -
Your sources for stating Canon's CMOS sensors are made at a higher cost?
Canon just announced a big factory (in Japan) to manufacture CMOS sensors for digicams. They are obviously shifting away from using other brand sensors in as many of their products as possible.
-
Yes they are buying chips from sony at this time, BUT this will also change soon. Canon is investing a lot in beeing able to produce all there chips and that is most of the time better fro a company.
-
Yes they are buying chips from sony at this time, BUT this will also change soon. Canon is investing a lot in beeing able to produce all there chips and that is most of the time better fro a company.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Using an automotive example, how do you explain that the fraction of car sub-components manufacturered by suppliers has been growing every single year to reach a level of about 70 to 80% nowadays?
Why did GM sell Delphi and why did Ford sell Visteon?
The only reason why engines are not sub-contracted on a wide bases yet is that there are not so many manufacturers who are willing to share their expertise. Besides, it isn't that easy to design a car without anything to say about the engine you will be using.
Electronics is even more advanced in this trend, very few of our household appliances use components manufactured by the OEM we buy the product from.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Two points -
Your sources for stating Canon's CMOS sensors are made at a higher cost?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I confess that I do not have insider information on this point, but I don't see why Canon would be able to escape from the well known laws of economics and manufacturing. If you make 3 times more of something, you can mostly reduce your cost significantly.
This is backup by the fact that nikon makes record profits while selling at low prices cameras using these sensors while offering a physical quality overall superior to the Canon counterparts. Granted, this could result form the fact that Nikon manufactures in thailand.
Canon just announced a big factory (in Japan) to manufacture CMOS sensors for digicams. They are obviously shifting away from using other brand sensors in as many of their products as possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but that move would probably be driven from the idea that the current Sony CCDs for digicams suck, and we all know that they do.
As far as DSLR chips go, the gap of performance between Sony and Canon is really small as we speak.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Using an automotive example, how do you explain that the fraction of car sub-components manufacturered by suppliers has been growing every single year to reach a level of about 70 to 80% nowadays?
Why did GM sell Delphi and why did Ford sell Visteon?
The only reason why engines are not sub-contracted on a wide bases yet is that there are not so many manufacturers who are willing to share their expertise. Besides, it isn't that easy to design a car without anything to say about the engine you will be using.
Electronics is even more advanced in this trend, very few of our household appliances use components manufactured by the OEM we buy the product from.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can answer one question here-
GM sold Delphi basically to break a union contract. The Delphi workers had a traditional UAW-style contract, meaning fairly decent health care and retirement benefits. GM kept demanding ever lower prices from Delphi, which was forced to compete just like any other vendor for their business. This led its management to basically gut the company trying to reduce costs. Once they had stripped it down to the bare skeleton and costs couldn't be reduced any further, management demanded massive give-backs from the union, then torched the company and sold the debris.
-
Tests need to be done to verify or disprove this.
I recall reading years ago that MF lenses do not resolve as highly as 35mm ones. I'm not sure if that is true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is true. But there is such a gap between a 24x36 and a 4x5" (or even a 6x6 cm), than it doesn't matter even with less resolving lenses. On a film, MF is far better than slr.
But the gap is not so high with digital, between a 24x36 and a 48x36 mm sensor.
-
We know....
1) Image quality of the 1D Mk III seem like a crop of 1Ds Mk III.
2) There is nothing in the D3 that speaks of a very significant imrovement in image quality over other DSLRs.
3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.
With the D3 Nikon has presented a 36 x 24 mm sensor based DSLR with what sonds like highly competitive image quality compared to other DSLRs. The D3 has high ISO capabilities. The sensor in D3 is unlike medium format sensors such as the ZD not focused on ISO 50-400. Nikon seem serious in going after the sports and PJ market with what they need. Assumably since they have done their homework on doing so, one could speculate that what is rumored that they will present in six months is something serious for higher MP in high image quality at perhaps lower ISO.
Canon simply took the 1D Mk III's 1.3x crop sensor and made it 36 x 24mm 1.0x. Nikon cannot do that. They need to use a higher MPand high quality 36 x 24mm sensor, or else their upcoming camera may not have image quality to compete with the now announced D3. My thinking is thus on what sensor could do such a task?
Assumably that sensor/camera will have less image quality than my one month old Mamiya ZD camera.... or else slight dissappointment since I am in process of selling all my Nikon gear. Of course... what matters is images... and my ZD will still help me capture nice images. If I am not misstaken, no DSLR (except ZD) has yet been built with a quality sensor from Dalsa or Kodak, or could that be up for a change? Or could a 36 x 24mm sensor from other sensor fabricator do the task, perhaps Foveon or Fuji type???
Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When did (28.7mm x 18.7mm) x 2 = 36mm x 24mm? The 1D3 white paper talked about ISO (noise) improvements; whereas the 1Ds3 white paper says ISO is similar to the 1Ds2. The 1Ds3 also incorporates distortion, light fall-off and CA corrections via DPP. It's safe to assume those corrections would be different for a cropped sensor. Frankly, you're making some pretty big assumptions when we have no sample images from the 1Ds3 (or the Nikon D3).
-
We know....
1) Image quality of the 1D Mk III seem like a crop of 1Ds Mk III.
2) There is nothing in the D3 that speaks of a very significant imrovement in image quality over other DSLRs.
3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We certainly do not _know_ the first two, and the third is also debatable, at least until the 1DsMkIII amd D3 have been compared to various MF options.
On (1), the 1DMkIII has larger photosites than the 1DMkIII and Canon claims lower noise at high Exposure Index (EI, or ISO), while a 1.3x crop from the 1DsMkIII give more pixels than the 1DMkIII, and so probably somewhat higher resolution. The 1DMkIII sensor it is not simply a 1.3x crop of the 1DsMkIII sensor; they offer different noise/resolution trade-offs.
On (2), Nikon claims a major improvement in IQ for the D3, in the area of lower noise at high Exposure Index. That might not interest you, but it cannot be ignored when asking if the D3 offers any significant IQ improvements.
The claims of reduced high EI noise also hint at improved dynamic range (reasonable, as it has the largest photosites of any DLSR sensor since the original 1Ds). This is because the sensor is claimed to have several stops higher usable EI and so probably several stop less shadow noise at equal EI, with only a one stop increase in minimum EI (base-ISO speed).
-
I figure that the point is often being missed in discussions such as these. Image quality arguments seem to lack the practicality side of things IMHO. I shoot using fast lenses (the fast Canon 'L' fixed focals from 24 to 85) in low light and anticipate using such lenses for the foreseeable future. The D3 is a very appealing camera to me (I am an ex-Nikon user) but to be perfectly blunt about it, Nikon simply don't build the lenses that I want to use, so debates over their cameras versus others interest me only as much as the possibility of them producing lenses appropriate to my needs to match their cameras.
No discussion about image quality can be complete without reference to the lenses usable to lay down the image in the first place and I personally would be interested to hear from specialist photographers about which camera/lens/sensor combination is used or would be of greatest interest to them. Polarisation on brand is something which palls after a time with nuances often becoming overly important. In this case the Mamiya would be of no interest to me even if it had substantially better image quality but I would be interested to hear from other photographers who shoot low light about their lens/sensor desires/experiments.
-
On pricing between Canon and Nikon, there is more there than just the costs associated with manufacturing. It's a little like Porsche and Chevy. A 911 will always cost more than a Corvette. The Corvette provides tremendous value for the dollar, but Porsche isn't about to drop the price on the 911 because the Corvette is cheaper.
For many years, it's been perceived (rightly or wrongly) that in the digital arena, Canon provides a better product. (The technical innovation has certainly surpassed most of the competition.) As such, they believe their product is worth what they charge, regardless of competition. The 1Ds2, has held pretty steady at $8K because it has no direct competition. Even the 1Dxx has held pretty steady because, while the D2x comes close, to Canon, it's no cigar.
The advent of the new D300 and D3 may have a very slight pricing effect on the new Canons (or at least the 1D3), but not much. The 5D has seen far greater discounting because it's perceived by Canon as not a top-tier camera on the level of the 1-series, and therefore more at risk from Nikon competition.
Personally, I wouldn't trade my Canon's for anything else on the market. I think, after all these years, Nikon has finally hit the sweet spot with it's new cameras.
Nemo
-
On pricing between Canon and Nikon, there is more there than just the costs associated with manufacturing. It's a little like Porsche and Chevy. A 911 will always cost more than a Corvette. The Corvette provides tremendous value for the dollar, but Porsche isn't about to drop the price on the 911 because the Corvette is cheaper.
For many years, it's been perceived (rightly or wrongly) that in the digital arena, Canon provides a better product. (The technical innovation has certainly surpassed most of the competition.) As such, they believe their product is worth what they charge, regardless of competition. The 1Ds2, has held pretty steady at $8K because it has no direct competition. Even the 1Dxx has held pretty steady because, while the D2x comes close, to Canon, it's no cigar.
The advent of the new D300 and D3 may have a very slight pricing effect on the new Canons (or at least the 1D3), but not much. The 5D has seen far greater discounting because it's perceived by Canon as not a top-tier camera on the level of the 1-series, and therefore more at risk from Nikon competition.
Personally, I wouldn't trade my Canon's for anything else on the market. I think, after all these years, Nikon has finally hit the sweet spot with it's new cameras.
Nemo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Difference is Canon still has the edge marketing wise. Nikon has yet to produce and ship a camera with more than 12MP, much less a full frame one. So the Canon 1Ds mk2 with 16MP STILL stands alone at the top and the 1Ds mk3 will, for years. Its not until Nikon challenges the 1Ds directly with a camera that is full frame and close to it in MP at a lower price that Canon will budge. They will have to budge. The Canon 5D was ahead of its time when introduced. Maybe Canon though Nikon was on the verge of releasing their own full frame DSLR then at a much lower price than the 1Dsmk2 so Canon wanted to add a lower priced full frame alternative. Even though the D300 and D3 were introduced we will have to wait for those cameras to be shipped AND be widely tested and used for them to have credibility, only then will they really affect pricing on the Canons. If the IQ turns out amazing on the D3 then Canon will probably budge but probably not until Nikon introduces and ships the D3x with 16-20MP.
-
Brief user report on the D3 by a sports pro here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...essage=24736304 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=24736304)
Regards,
Richard
-
Brief user report on the D3 by a sports pro here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...essage=24736304 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=24736304)
Regards,
Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very much worth reading too I might add. I'd read the entire thread and it's continuation too. Nikon seems to have indeed 'roared back'. This guy has creds. He dumped Nikon years ago over poor performance and went Canon. Sounds like he may be switching again.