Sony 24.6MP "Flagship Model" to ship in 2008.

[John Sheehy]

Yes Nikon has made a great D3 camera but my question why a default of iso 200?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Until companies find a way to collect more photons per unit of area total (with an arbitrarily long exposure), there will be nothing good about low base ISOs.  An ideal  digital camera with today's type of technology would start somewhere around ISO 300 - 400.  At this point in time, the only thing that allows a camera to have a base ISO of 50 (or even 25, as in some digital backs) is the fact that these cameras are not very good at collecting photons.  There is nothing good about having low base ISOs, except that they make it easier to do long exposures with motion blur, without ND filters.

Having a low base ISO does not mean that it has any less noise or greater dynamic range than a high base ISO.

[John Sheehy]

I used the Kodaks for 5 years,  If you knew their quirks, they were (and still are) capable of superb results, but they were marketing disasters because Kodak overstated their versatility and they were built on amateur Nikon N80 bodies, so slow focus etc. 

And from what I hear, The D3 is already blowing holes in Canon's side.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon is a very stubborn company.  I appreciate their philosophy of leaving conversions a little bit noisy along with leaving as much detail as possible in the file, but the public has spoken, as can be seen in comments about Fuji P&S cameras, and in Nikon DSLRs, that the public is more concerned about not seeing noise than they are about seeing natural detail.  Canon should have long ago offered an option in their cameras to have the kind of NR that other companies are using, if they want to compete.

I don't mean to imply that the D3 *needs* lots of NR, but the fact that it has a lot of it by default in conversions makes the D3 seem to be performing a couple of notches better than the sensor really is, compared to the recent Canons, in some people's eyes.  There is no question in my mind that the 1Dsmk3 has equivalent image noise characteristics in the highlights and midtones, and slightly better in the shadow areas, than the D3.  All conversions you'll see from Canon, or by default from 3rd parties, will have very little chromatic noise reduction, because that is the standard Canon has set for their conversions.

[mcfoto]

Until companies find a way to collect more photons per unit of area total (with an arbitrarily long exposure), there will be nothing good about low base ISOs.  An ideal  digital camera with today's type of technology would start somewhere around ISO 300 - 400.  At this point in time, the only thing that allows a camera to have a base ISO of 50 (or even 25, as in some digital backs) is the fact that these cameras are not very good at collecting photons.  There is nothing good about having low base ISOs, except that they make it easier to do long exposures with motion blur, without ND filters.

Having a low base ISO does not mean that it has any less noise or greater dynamic range than a high base ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
In a studio with flash units the lower ISOs are a must. Especially with power full
floor packs. My normal f stop is F 11 @ iso 50 in the studio.

[John Sheehy]

Hi
In a studio with flash units the lower ISOs are a must. Especially with power full
floor packs. My normal f stop is F 11 @ iso 50 in the studio.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You could put magenta gels over the flashes, and get better full-color DR (RAW white = real world white) if you had a camera that started at ISO 200.  One fellow I suggested this to and tried it said that he got much better skin tones.

Why must you use full power?  Is the illumination less consistent at lower power?  Or just easier to manage with multiple flashes?

[narikin]

Many people don't want the big, heavy, brick body of the 1DsIII.

They would far prefer that Canon put that sensor in a 5DII body to make it more backpackable.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

agreed. we are not all sports/paps.
I do have a new 1Ds3 (as I did the 1Ds2, and do a P45+) but its too big + heavy. bring on the 5D2 with 20Mp+ please!
and why not a FF premium p/s - a Canon G series w full frame. yes please.

canon needs to up its game, it was cruising along at the top of the field thinking nobody could touch it whilst it raked in incredible $$.
well... its stock has fallen by 30% in the last 3 months, so its time they got their finger out, and started to release some groundbreaking products.

I'm sure they can drop a ~28Mp sensor into a 1Ds4, in fact they're probably sitting on prototypes sensors right now, they could also put a similar sensor into a 5D2, but their attitude is - why bother when we own the whole field?  thank you Sony for giving them a reason why, and good kick in the pants.

[BernardLanguillier]

I'm sure they can drop a ~28Mp sensor into a 1Ds4, in fact they're probably sitting on prototypes sensors right now, they could also put a similar sensor into a 5D2, but their attitude is - why bother when we own the whole field?  thank you Sony for giving them a reason why, and good kick in the pants.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They could do 40MP, the problem of the Canon system is not the sensor's lack of resolution, it is the wide lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DarkPenguin]

I thought the reason canon did so well with professionals was that their support for them was better than any other companies.  I believe Thom Hogan has complained about Nikon in this regard repeatedly.

[mcfoto]

You could put magenta gels over the flashes, and get better full-color DR (RAW white = real world white) if you had a camera that started at ISO 200.  One fellow I suggested this to and tried it said that he got much better skin tones.

Why must you use full power?  Is the illumination less consistent at lower power?  Or just easier to manage with multiple flashes?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
Your kidding about the magenta filters? I am not using my packs at full power. A lot of light comes out from Profoto Acute packs or even Alien Bee mono blocks. When shooting MFD I generally shoot @ iso 50. When I shoot with the Aptus 22 or 75 the skin tones are excellent. Was also very impressed with the Sinar 75 to.
Thanks Denis

[John Sheehy]

Hi
Your kidding about the magenta filters?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not at all; I wouldn't joke about a thing like that.  That's the natural light color for most digital cameras.  They see magenta as white.  They see white as a cyan-ish green.  Daylight needs much more white balancing than magenta light.  White-balancing for daylight usually consists of a 1 stop boost of the red, and 1/2 stop boost of the blue.

[Mark D Segal]

I thought the reason canon did so well with professionals was that their support for them was better than any other companies.  I believe Thom Hogan has complained about Nikon in this regard repeatedly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon's support for professionals comes at the expense of their support for every one else. If you are not a CPS member it is quite pathetic.