Michael and 5dII

[harlemshooter]

has the nick devlin article been published anywhere online?

thx

[ndevlin]

has the nick devlin article been published anywhere online?

thx

It's in the queue. Michael was just kind enough to hold off on publication until my asbestos underwear cleared customs!
(just kidding - I doubt this one will provoke the same level of death threats as the G9/M8 piece, with the possible exception of my bold proclamation that the D3x is just not good value for money   )

- N.

[michael]

It should go up next, probably on Thursday evening.

M

[Marlyn]

what disturbs me is that most of the people using this site don't seem to be able to make up their own mind. They can't decide what is good for themself.

May I know where you did the survey to conclude this? it's just to vote for the reduced group of people who are able to make up their own mind.

I used to be indecisive, but now I’m not so sure.


Mark

[BernardLanguillier]

Seems pretty clear that "the Nikon D3x doesn't represent good value"  is what he meant (albeit subtly, without hurting too many feelings).    Shooting with the A900, has probably re-inforced that conclusion.

My feelings are badly hurt, I guess that I'll have to keep shooting to forget...



Cheers,
Bernard

[budjames]

I find it amazing that Michael gives us all so much from his reviews, web site and this forum for free. I support him by subscribing to the Luminous Landscape Video Journal and by purchasing his excellent tutorials and I'm glad to do it.

That said, I cannot believe some of the posts that indict him for having a preference or bias on equipment that he uses. After all, don't we all?

Michael keep up the good word and thanks for sharing.

Cheers.

Bud James
North Wales, PA.

[Panopeeper]

My feelings are badly hurt, I guess that I'll have to keep shooting to forget...

Bernard, I like your pano (I like most of your panos), but if you believe to have proven anything with this one, then you are mistaken. Exception: if the intention was to show, how the DR of even the D3X can be too low for a scenery. I conceed, that this too is a point worth of prooving, for many posters believe that DR is not an issue any more.

Even after discounting the challange of the DR of the scenery, I don't see what this has to do with the value of the camera. Honestly, if I could justify it, I would buy it immediately (the excellent Nikkors would be the icing); but it requires some special circumstances to see that as "value".

[EricWHiss]

My feelings are badly hurt, I guess that I'll have to keep shooting to forget...



Cheers,
Bernard

Definitely keep shooting because those are nice images (if still landscapes are your interest) but I'd have to side with Panopeeper - I don't see the image you posted as a good defense of the D3X. And knowing you its probably not a single shot but a multi-image stitch and probably you stacked exposures too - or you should have.

[eronald]

Well, I cannot see the value in the P65+ but it's visible to Michael - he cannot see the value in the D3x but it's visible to me. Both are overpriced, I guess, and also best of breed. On the other hand, most people are going to have access soon to the D3x technology with a D700x for $2.5K I guess, while the P65+ won't transition from Ferrari to Volkswagen that soon.

Edmund

[BJL]

most people are going to have access soon to the D3x technology with a D700x for $2.5K I guess

My guess is $3K-3.5K, but whatever: about $4-5K less than the initial and current D3X price, and likely about $3-4K less than the price the D3X will drop to if and when a "D700X" appears.

So I have to ask again, since no one has offered a useful answer:
Should Canon discontinue the 1DsMkIII right now, given that it costs $4,300 more than the almost as good 5DMkII?
As far as I know, Canon has instead not even reduced its wholesale price for the 1DsMkIII; dealers are simply accepting lower margins now that demand for it is reduced ... but dealers do keep stocking the 1DsMkIII.

Another question: are (1) more, smaller pixels or (2) a larger sensor the only two reasons to pay substantially more for one camera than another?

[eronald]

The 1DsII has the fast EOS-1 series focus which is indispensable to action/sports/events and snapshot shooters. The 5DII cannot really push the superteles that fast. SO there's no replacement for the 1DsIII.

Also, the 1DsIII will just bounce off the floor if you drop it. This too is a form of insurance for pros. The 5DII is not as tough as it should be as it seems to have had a 25% failure rate on a certain Antarctic once-in-a-lifetime trip.

Fast focus, DR, good high-Iso, video ability, vibration reduction seem to be things people want from top line still cameras, in addition to lots of pixels or a large sensor. Some want compatibility with legacy lenses -as offered by the Nikons. Every company seems to offer some of these features, none offers all, and Canon has a credibility problem with focus at the moment.

Edmund

My guess is $3K-3.5K, but whatever: about $4-5K less than the initial and current D3X price, and likely about $3-4K less than the price the D3X will drop to if and when a "D700X" appears.

So I have to ask again, since no one has offered a useful answer:
Should Canon discontinue the 1DsMkIII right now, given that it costs $4,300 more than the almost as good 5DMkII?
As far as I know, Canon has instead not even reduced its wholesale price for the 1DsMkIII; dealers are simply accepting lower margins now that demand for it is reduced ... but dealers do keep stocking the 1DsMkIII.

Another question: are (1) more, smaller pixels or (2) a larger sensor the only two reasons to pay substantially more for one camera than another?

[BJL]

The 1DsII has the fast EOS-1 series focus which is indispensable to action/sports/events and snapshot shooters. The 5DII cannot really push the superteles that fast. SO there's no replacement for the 1DsIII.

True, if we expect the D700X to be of a higher grade on the non-digital side than the 5DMkII is. But I suspect that most action/sports/event shooters go for the 1DMkIII and D3 rather than the 1DsMkIII and D3X.

Also, the 1DsIII will just bounce off the floor if you drop it. This too is a form of insurance for pros. The 5DII is not as tough as it should be as it seems to have had a 25% failure rate on a certain Antarctic once-in-a-lifetime trip.

The D3X will probably have that sort of advantage over the D700X too, though again, Nikon might spec. the D700X better than the 5DMkII. (Which is part of why I expect it to cost more like $3.5K.)

So on your first two points, your main reason for seeing the 1DsMkIII in a better position that the D3X is that the 5DMkII is inferior to what you expect of the D700X. If that is so, what the D700X causes Nikon to lose in D3X sales, it should more than make up by taking sales from the 5DMkII from those who care about things like AF and build quality.

Fast focus, DR, good high-Iso, video ability, vibration reduction seem to be things people want from top line still cameras, in addition to lots of pixels or a large sensor. Some want compatibility with legacy lenses -as offered by the Nikons.

That is a fair list, if we add high frame rate, and the build quality that you mention above.


It might be that compatibility with a substantial investment in Nikon lenses is a major reason for people buying a D3X rather than any of the less expensive 35mmFF options, for now. I can see the D3X and 1DsMkIII both selling far less than the 1Ds series used to ... but still not in such small numbers as some other high priced niche products that survive, like the Leica M8.

[eronald]

So on your first two points, your main reason for seeing the 1DsMkIII in a better position that the D3X is that the 5DMkII is inferior to what you expect of the D700X.

I'm not saying that. In fact, I think the D3x is markedly better the 1Ds3 because the focus is incredibly good, which translates into very sharp images.

Edmund

[Panopeeper]

Fast focus, DR, good high-Iso, video ability, vibration reduction seem to be things people want from top line still cameras, in addition to lots of pixels or a large sensor

and sensor cleaning - one of the most important features in my eyes. I needed to clean the sensor of my 40D only once perhaps in a year, as opposed to a ten times the 20D. I don't get, why Nikon dropped this feature from a $8000 camera.

[BJL]

I'm not saying that. In fact, I think the D3x is markedly better the 1Ds3 because the focus is incredibly good, which translates into very sharp images.

And since you seemed to be arguing that the price difference between the 1Ds3 and 5D2 is justified by advantages in AF and build quality in particular, the same should be at least as true for D3X vs 5D2, or D3X vs a "D700X" that is comparable to the 5D2 for AF and build quality. Which is why I concluded that the only reason for thinking that a "D700X" would put the D3X in a worse position than the 5D2 puts the 1Ds3 is if that "D700x" is distinctly superior to the 5D2 in features like AF.

Which is what I said: predictions of a worse fate for the D3X than the 1Ds3 rely on the idea that the 5D2 is inferior to what a "D700X" will be, and so competes less well against the 1Ds3 than a "D700X" will compete against D3X.

[eronald]

And since you seemed to be arguing that the price difference between the 1Ds3 and 5D2 is justified by advantages in AF and build quality in particular, the same should be at least as true for D3X vs 5D2, or D3X vs a "D700X" that is comparable to the 5D2 for AF and build quality. Which is why I concluded that the only reason for thinking that a "D700X" would put the D3X in a worse position than the 5D2 puts the 1Ds3 is if that "D700x" is distinctly superior to the 5D2 in features like AF.

Which is what I said: predictions of a worse fate for the D3X than the 1Ds3 rely on the idea that the 5D2 is inferior to what a "D700X" will be, and so competes less well against the 1Ds3 than a "D700X" will compete against D3X.

I have trouble following you here. I'm sorry, but I've run out of my Alzheimer medication.

Edmund

[BJL]

I have trouble following you here. I'm sorry, but I've run out of my Alzheimer medication.

Let me phrase it as a question. You argue (and I agree) that some (professional) photographers will prefer the 1DsMkIII over the 5DMkII despite the big price difference on the basis of factors like superior AF and robustness. You also say that the D3X is even better at AF, and as far as I know, it is similar to the 1DsMkIII for robust construction. So by those criteria the high price of the D3X compared to the 5DMkII also seems justified, for the same sort of photographers. Do you agree so far?

My main question then: would a D700X hurt D3X sales and pricing significantly more than the 5DMkII hurts 1DsMkII sales and pricing, and if so, why?

(The only answer I can see is an expectation of a far smaller performance gap between D700x and D3X than ther is betwen the 5DMkII and 1DsMKIII.)


Of course my real curiosity is about why the 1DsMkIII is not criticized for being overpriced nearly as much as the D3X is, meaning currently 1DsMkII pricing in competition with the 5DMkII.

[aaykay]

Of course my real curiosity is about why the 1DsMkIII is not criticized for being overpriced nearly as much as the D3X is, meaning currently 1DsMkII pricing in competition with the 5DMkII.

I think the reason is that people got spoiled by the sub-$3K D700, where they got pretty much EVERYTHING in the D3 body, including the superior AF, in a  much cheaper and smaller body.    So there is an expectation that Nikon will introduce a D700X shortly, at the $3K pricepoint, with EVERYTHING that the D3X provides, in a much smaller body - thus leading to speculation that the D3X is over-priced.  

I believe Nikon will not be introducing a D700X anytime soon (contrary to the general expectation), since they will not want to kill off the highly lucrative D3X market, like was done to the D3 market when the D700 was introduced.

[BJL]

... so there is an expectation that Nikon will introduce a D700X shortly, at the $3K pricepoint, with EVERYTHING that the D3X provides, in a much smaller body - thus leading to speculation that the D3X is over-priced.

That does seem to be a good part of it: which means that those people expect the D700X to have higher specs than the 5DMkII in key areas like AF. So if you do not kick your camera around too much, the imagined D700X looks very tempting.

On the other side of the picture, the D3X seems to have added to the trend of some photographers moving from DMF to 35mm DSLR's, for those not feeling much need for the higher pixel counts of the new MF sensors with 6 micron cell size. See this thread for example,
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=33410
or sense the "35mm SLR feature envy" in posts from MF users like James Russell, such as this one:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....33286&st=40

Putting these two thoughts together makes me think that a well-executed "Nikon D700X", even priced at $3500 or more, would further advance the encroachment of 35mm SLR's into former MF territory. Especially if good enough wide angle lenses are made available, and both Nikon and Zeiss are working on that.

Maybe a 35mm SLR body option with no AA filter, or a removable one, or just the very light AA filters that Nikon seems to be working on, would push this trend forward.

[harlemshooter]

just curious, what does "former mf territory" mean?  

if you referring to those converts who previously used MF for medium prints (say 20x30 with 240+ dpi) who are now using the d3x, etc, i somewhat agree.  but even then, these are likely small numbers of converts and the only real benefit to me is a lighter camera...35mm ff sensors will never better MF sensors for medium and large prints.  most agree it isn't about lens resolving capability as much as it is about sensor capability.

while i use my dslrs for prints 20x30 or smaller, i always use view cameras for anything larger.  the difference in end print quality, which we will never be able to analyze via internet, is massive indeed.

if you are a weekend warrior photographer, like most, then the dslr is perfect.  but for fine art photography, dslrs simply do not deliver the quality artists (at least those making large prints for galleries) require.

back to the topic at hand, i would be curious to hear how large mr devlin has been able to print using his 5d2 set up and what he thinks of the overall print quality of the 20+ mp dslr.

Putting these two thoughts together makes me think that a well-executed "Nikon D700X", even priced at $3500 or more, would further advance the encroachment of 35mm SLR's into former MF territory. Especially if good enough wide angle lenses are made available, and both Nikon and Zeiss are working on that.

Maybe a 35mm SLR body option with no AA filter, or a removable one, or just the very light AA filters that Nikon seems to be working on, would push this trend forward.