Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mort54 on March 01, 2009, 06:36:26 pm
-
Michael, you seem to be suggesting that the $4K USD price premium of the D3X over the D3 is due to sensor costs. While I have no information to the contrary, I doubt the D3X sensor is much more expensive than the D3 sensor. Yes, it has some Nikon goodies added to it, but it is still essentially an A900 sensor, and the A900 sells for what, around $3K USD. That's a body and a sensor for only $3K USD. I somehow doubt Nikon's added goodies drive the cost of that same sensor up by $5K USD.
I suspect - and again I have no information to confirm this - that it's purely market positioning driving the costs, not the components inside. Why would Nikon do this? Who knows. Greed is too simplistic an answer. Maybe they never intended to sell many, and just wanted to have the biggest, baddest, and most expensive DSLR on the market for bragging rights. Well, they succeeded, but at the cost of lots of bad feelings and acrimony from the Nikon faithful.
As a long time Nikon user, I was looking forward to a higher MP offering. But not at that price. Could I afford it - yes. But would I pay that kind of money - no. As an enthusiastic amateur, there's really no way I could justify it, and besides, I find myself being offended by Nikon's pricing policy, and I refuse to submit to it. I plan on laughing my head off when the D700X becomes available at a considerably reduced price (at least I hope I will be :-)
All that said, thanks for posting your views. As always, an informative read.
-
Thanks for the read. Insightful and to the point. Glad to see a review without pages of pixel peeping and a greater focus on field usage.
favorite line?
If ... Canon has the balls to move their 5D series upmarket in terms of build quality and features, it'll all be over but the shouting
Cheers
-
Thanks for the write up Michael.
As far as the pricing of the D3x goes, I don't like it either. My view is that Nikon selected this price point for the following reasons:
- They wanted to be the most expensive because in the end most people associate price with performance,
- They have anticipated the fact that the crisis would impact their volume a lot regardless of the price point, and decided to pick a price point that would make sure they would not loose money,
- They knew that in the end it would still be cheaper for high end Nikon shooters to buy a D3x compared to a switch to another system even if it features a similarly specced camera at a much cheaper price,
- They are really confident in the performance of the D3x compared to its competition, and from what I have seen rightfully so,
- They know that the price point of the D3x is going to impact strongly the price point of the D700x whenever they decide to release it. A bit of a stretch, but if Nikon M1/Mx were real, its price point would also be read relative to the D3x,
- They know that the end of the road is fairly close for the 35mm upgrade craze. The current level is sufficient for high end gallery A2 prints and the additional gains to be had with more megapixels will be very small for various well documented reasons. Many people will simply not upgrade after the D3x so money has to be made now,
- Canon and Nikon have agreed to keep the price of their flagship high (the 2 cameras are within 800 US$ in Japan),
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For starters, I just love that cover photo on today's up-date.
Turning to grubbier stuff, you've heard the expression "where they sit is where they stand", so I'll put on my economist's hat and suggest the following. There is a niche market for a 24 MP Nikon DSLR: well-healed prosumers and professionals (preferably with tax deductions) who have an investmnent in Nikon lenses and want the highest resolution and most robust body the company can offer them. Demand for the D3x amongst this group, while some may grumble, is what we call largely "inelastic" - i.e. the change of volume sold will vary less than proportionately relative to the change of price, and on the supply side, costs may well be somewhat ineasltic within a volume range they could contemplate. So by charging 8000 rather than 5000 they may well lose some sales, but they maximize revenue. We should assume they have market research people who study their target audience carefully and understand both their production economics and demand elasticity very well.
-
What MarkDS said.
Too many people have been peering at the fish guts, trying to come up with complicated rationales for the D3x price. I think Nikon simply picked a price that would maximize their return, knowing at some point there'd necessarily be a D700x that would pretty efficiently cannibalize the D3x. So, they're making hay while the sun shines, charging the same list price as Canon did with their 1DsIII. That's all. No big deal. The D700x will be coming along sooner or later, probably (I think) for $4000 or so, and that *will* fly off the shelves.
JC
-
............. The D700x will be coming along sooner or later, probably (I think) for $4000 or so, and that *will* fly off the shelves.
JC
Well, in this economic environment, there's a lot of uncertainty going forward. There's a growing consensus in that part of the economics profession which doesn't have a vested interest in soothing peoples' nerves that the cycle has not bottomed: there remains much more deleveraging of debt positions and market "resetting" to be done before it turns around, the destruction of demand may well be exceeding the pace of government spending intended to prop it up and the timing of the turnaround, likely to be very gradual, is unpredictable but could be protracted. In these conditions, what do camera manufacturers do? Four-thousand is still a big outlay on a non-essential consumer item in this context. What exactly is the market for new toys when people feel so much economic implosion around them? (There may well be a niche that is comparatively recession-proof, but it is probably small.) And knowing there will be a turnaround one of these months or years, how do they make spending decisions on technological development? Most likely they have a long-term vision on that question, but the timing for commercializing the fruits of this effort in a competitive context would be the major issue each of them must address. I can visualize that if I were a camera manufacturer I don't want to fall behind technologically, I don't want to lose market share, and I need new models to fuel cash flow, but I don't want to lose money on every camera I make which doesn't sell. It will be very interesting to observe how each of them handles this mess.
-
I can visualize that if I were a camera manufacturer I don't want to fall behind technologically, I don't want to lose market share, and I need new models to fuel cash flow, but I don't want to lose money on every camera I make which doesn't sell. It will be very interesting to observe how each of them handles this mess.
I guess that one key question in this context for a Japanese company would be "where to produce our high end models"...
Nikon has always produced all their higher end models in the Sendai factory, located 250 kms North East of Japan, and all the rest in Thailand.
Considering that the strenght of the Yen is one of the main factors working against their margins, it would be very tempting to produce in Thailand since the Bhat has been less affected... now are they going to risk putting their key IP outside of Japan?...
This is probably one of their key concerns right now and a question that will have very deep and long lasting impacts on the way some key Japanese companies do business.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it is still essentially an A900 sensor
I wonder on what facts this often appearing claim is based. I don't see any likeness between these sensors, except for the format and the numer of pixels in one dimension.
-
Bernard, since last June, the THB has devalued by 21% relative to the Yen and 12% relative to the USD, so indeed, depending on what it costs them to shift production, that may well be an option for some. The big risk in such a decision,however, is what will happen to the value of the THB over time. Recall that in 2003/04 it was in the range of 41~42 to the USD, and as the Thai economy strenghtened and the USD weakened, the THB revalued considerably. Another such cycle could well occur when international demand recovers and Thailand's traditional export markets gain some strength, so timing of decisions and the duration of a marginal foreign exchange advantage become risk factors that are hard to evaluate. As for control over IP, not really too clear how much the locus of production really matters. The design and engineering work probably remains firmly anchored in Japan, and I would assume that what poaching there is happens regardless of where the patent owners' products are made.
-
Well, in this economic environment, there's a lot of uncertainty going forward. There's a growing consensus in that part of the economics profession which doesn't have a vested interest in soothing peoples' nerves that the cycle has not bottomed: there remains much more deleveraging of debt positions and market "resetting" to be done before it turns around, the destruction of demand may well be exceeding the pace of government spending intended to prop it up and the timing of the turnaround, likely to be very gradual, is unpredictable but could be protracted. In these conditions, what do camera manufacturers do? Four-thousand is still a big outlay on a non-essential consumer item in this context.
I actually think the D700x users would fit in the inelastic demand niche group along with the D3x users, and that was one reason that we heard so much grumbling -- the group demand was there, but the price seemed unreasonable even for those with tax deductions. (Many of them -- like Bernard, who is writing on this thread -- at first said the price was too much, but they eventually bought one anyway.) I think the potential D700x buyers are as you describe the D3x buyers, well-healed prosumers and professionals who really think they *need* that sensor and that level of response, but for whom the $8,000 was a bridge too far. Many people on these forums said, you know, if it were only $6,000 or so, I would have gone for it. My feeling is that if they can afford $6,000, they could probably afford $8,000, but refused, much like Michael did, because they felt they were being ripped off. They are not, however, a guy for whom a D700x is a whim or a status symbol...IMHO.
But really, who knows? I certainly agree with you about the cycle -- the fear sloshing around the world seems uncontrollable, and the current US administration (for which I voted) seems to be deliberately making things worse, rather than better. (Maybe *deliberately* is too strong; but maybe not.)
JC
-
Gabor, wouldn't the on chip AD be a pretty striking similarity? Either way, some are saying the color separation of the A900 is better than the D3x, so Im still in the camp that neither is better IQ wise, just different.
-
Gabor, wouldn't the on chip AD be a pretty striking similarity?
Not for me.
1. One of them generates over 16000 levels of tones per channel, the other less than 4000,
2. one of them supports 12 AND 14bit depth, the other only 12bit,
3. one of them supports analog ISO gain up to 3200 (the A900 seems to do this), the other only up to 1600,
4. the number of pixels is not *exactly* the same.
some are saying the color separation of the A900 is better than the D3x, so Im still in the camp that neither is better IQ wise, just different.
The color separation is not strictly the characteristic of the sensor but of the color filters over the sensels. The D3X red filter has a greater transmissivity than the A900's, while the blue transmissivity is higher with the A900, for white illumination. However, the graphs of the spectral characteristics are not published by them. Finally, the color separation is the product of the demosaicing and color space conversion, i.e. it may depend on the raw processor.
-
How do you feel about the theory of the D3x doing multiple reads or multiple samples to get 14bits, thus limiting fps in 14bit mode?
The Borg was the one who mentioned that the spectral properties of the A900 as better, so I'm a bit out of my league
-
How do you feel about the theory of the D3x doing multiple reads or multiple samples to get 14bits, thus limiting fps in 14bit mode?
I have zero competence on the hardware area. I don't know if the very same sensor (this includes the same electronics on the sensor chip) could do this. Or differently expressed: if the sensor is the same, why would Sony leave this capability unused?
However, if I had a sensor capable of doing this, then I would create 16bit output with three stops higher DR, by reading several times with different ISO amplification and combining the results.
-
Hi,
We had this discussed before on these forum, and I think that "ejmartin" suggested that would be possible but would give telltale signs in the "raw" file. It seems that the D3x is using the 12 bit on chip ADCs, if that is the case they need to use som smart solution to get 14 bits. Another theory may be that there is an external readout mechanism with of the chip ADCs. There can be minor variations on on chip electronics between the D3X and the Alpha 900.
Best regards
Erik
How do you feel about the theory of the D3x doing multiple reads or multiple samples to get 14bits, thus limiting fps in 14bit mode?
The Borg was the one who mentioned that the spectral properties of the A900 as better, so I'm a bit out of my league
-
Hi,
IMHO we will still see some developments in the pixel density area. There are some reasons for it:
- Less need of low pass (AA) filtering
- There are some suggestions that many more pixels are needed for optimal quality, but I may have doubts in this regard (in my view the resolution of the eye sets a limitation of around 7-10 lp/mm.
On the other hand we ae going to have diminishing returns:
- Lenses are not sharp enough
- Diffraction limitation may be more interesting than pure resolving power, we don't shoot flat test targets, don't we?
Best regards
Erik
...
- They know that the end of the road is fairly close for the 35mm upgrade craze. The current level is sufficient for high end gallery A2 prints and the additional gains to be had with more megapixels will be very small for various well documented reasons. Many people will simply not upgrade after the D3x so money has to be made now,
...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
We had this discussed before on these forum, and I think that "ejmartin" suggested that would be possible but would give telltale signs in the "raw" file. It seems that the D3x is using the 12 bit on chip ADCs, if that is the case they need to use som smart solution to get 14 bits. Another theory may be that there is an external readout mechanism with of the chip ADCs. There can be minor variations on on chip electronics between the D3X and the Alpha 900.
Best regards
Erik
Yeah, there certainly is something interesting going on there. It appears that the D3x board is a lot more D300-like, rather than D3 like, leading some to believe that there are not ADCs off of the chip.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...+board&qf=m (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=30675756&q=bobn2+board&qf=m)
-
At the end of the day, I would be interested in seeing studio photography comparisons between the a900 and the D3x
Since we tend to do post on most shots, I wonder what photos side by side look like using the same lighting set up.
Since the higher iso's are not necessary for studio work, I wonder how different the end result would be.
-
D700 leading to D700x.
Well, it might not just be as easy as switching sensors about. For a start, what´s so clever about paying for more pixels if you are stuck with a viewfinder that can´t show the full frame that your sensor is going to give you? If the D700 had come complete with a proper full-frame finder, then the cost of the hard work would have been included at that stage and not saved up for inclusion as a new development in the price of a hypothetical x version, making that price even higher. Or will a D700x have to be built around a D3 chassis making it something else entirely? Which makes me wonder whether a D700x really is a feasible idea.
(I can´t see the protruding bit of pentaprism which houses a flash being so damn clever either. There is one on the D200 which makes changing aperture on manual lenses very awkward indeed, not something I ever noted on the film Nikons!)
Maybe what Nikon needs to do is leave the traditional 35mm body format alone now, and be brave and adventurous and use a new shape. Perhaps if it does do a MF camera that´s when the body format might change for ever. Anyway, if they have to do something so that they can incorporate a dust-prevention device along with FF sensor and a full viewfinder screen, it seems reasonable that that will demand a new or heavily revised body.
Rob C
-
As a long time Nikon user, I was looking forward to a higher MP offering. But not at that price. Could I afford it - yes. But would I pay that kind of money - no.
You join quite a number of us who took the exact same view. Like many others, I baulked at the price, and then went on to purchase a Sony A900. I could not be happier I did so.
If Nikon's intention was to make a statement with the D3x, it did so at the price of lost customers. Now, even if Nikon do bring out a D700x it is very unlikely I'll bite.
Pride comes before a fall.
Quentin
-
Michael Reichmann says that there is very little difference at low ISOs, up to 800 ISO.
Best regards
Erik
At the end of the day, I would be interested in seeing studio photography comparisons between the a900 and the D3x
Since we tend to do post on most shots, I wonder what photos side by side look like using the same lighting set up.
Since the higher iso's are not necessary for studio work, I wonder how different the end result would be.
-
At the end of the day, I would be interested in seeing studio photography comparisons between the a900 and the D3x
Since we tend to do post on most shots, I wonder what photos side by side look like using the same lighting set up.
Since the higher iso's are not necessary for studio work, I wonder how different the end result would be.
Such a comparison would indeed be mandatory if the goal is to provide guidance for photographers wondering if the difference of image quality between the 2 cameras will impact their applications or not.
I am not blaming Michael on this, but I don't believe he devoted enough time and attention to this matter to be able to tell us consitently the extend of the gap between the D3x and other DSLRs in a variety of real world shooting situations.
Just this morning, I found this 5DII sample (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lensman82/3321960126/in/photostream) at DPreview, shot at ISO200 +0.95EV in post according to the photographer. I was surprised by how noisy the oof hair looks on top of the image. Would typical high key images shot in Antartica reveal this? I don't believe so. Is this pixel peeping? That really depends on the application.
I have already linked the image shown below (at that time focusing on the fact that it is a 510 megapixel image with infinite DoF), but the darker stones on the left were lifted at least one stop in post and are a very important part of the image. Yet there isn't any noise to be found there although the brighest parts of the image, with direct spot illumination, are not blown at all.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3612/3291931251_d89b69bca6_b.jpg)
How would the A900 and 5DII have performed here? I don't know but I know is that it would be mandatory to do this type of comparisons to get a realistic picture of their relative performance. Michael was not interested in doing this and that is why he called his report "observations" and not "review".
The image above could be achieved thanks to very accurate metering avoiding any in camera histogram clipping. Would I have shot a D3 the same way? Nope, I would have allowed a significant highlight clipping of the camera histogram because I do now know that the 2 cameras are callibrated differently as far as histogram display is concerned. Would a D3 like usage of the D3x have impacted my perception of the D3x's potential? Heck yes.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I bought the D3X after working with some of my D3 images, and wishing that they had just a little more resolution.
The D3X performs flawlessly, and compared to my P45, it is a bargain. So Nikon hasn't alienated all of it's customers....
michael
-
I bought the D3X after working with some of my D3 images, and wishing that they had just a little more resolution.
The D3X performs flawlessly, and compared to my P45, it is a bargain. So Nikon hasn't alienated all of it's customers....
michael
My rationale was very similar.
I originally started with a Kodak 645M 16mp digital back & Mamiya 645AFD but sold that outfit for various reasons (workflow, lack of support, sometimes flaky behaviour) and went back to Nikon DSLR's such as the D2x, D3 & D700. I missed the resolution in my landscape work and was frustrated with LF film & scanning. I have a big investment in Nikon & Zeiss glass so changing systems under any circumstances wasn't an option. I've done the Canon -> Nikon -> Mamiya -> Nikon switches before and NEVER again ...
Compared to the P45 that I simply can't justify or afford, the D3x is more than a bargain! I don't feel alienated, I feel finally vindicated with my support of Nikon glass when Canon was the only game in town for high DSLR MP.
I don't care how great the A900 or 5DII is for the money, I can't stick $25k+ of Nikon & Zeiss lenses on it.
-
" ... there's hardly a camera on the market that can touch the Nikon D3x in overall goodness..."
Once again, hyperbole. Comeon Michael. The D3X is a great camera, but it's not so much better than some of the others. Your own review of the A900 proves that, and the 1Ds3 is no slouch compared to the D3x by any measure. In terms of practical real world use, and for what you see in a print of almost any size, can you really say there is that much of a difference in overall "goodness"?
These days, the differences between these high end cameras are so slight that we have to strain to make a distinction. More fodder for the fanboys to chew on however....
-
Black Gold
Michael
In the photograph that you posted of Chris Sanderson, shot with your D3x and the 24-70 optic, there is a strange effect that has me puzzled.
The close-up of the wristwatch armband looks basically black; difficult to tell because of so many similar-looking rip-offs, but isn´t the watch a Rolex, in which case the band would probably be the President version and, as such, gold gold?
If I´m right, then Nikon can solve the world´s black gold problems too. Quite remarkable.
Rob C
-
Hi
Would , very very much, to know the origin of that DXO Mark graph about D3X noise, MR shows D3x noise being 6db worse than D3 and 5d2 but on DXO Mark site the graphs tell another story as can be seen selecting SNR 18% (SCREEN tab and PRINT tab) :
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../(brand3)/Nikon (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/305|0/(appareil2)/287|0/(appareil3)/297|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon)
Best regards
Lisperit
-
Agree with Lisperit, I don't know what are the DXO Mark Graph showing by MR about noise...? They are different on dxomark.com, and why not also publish the Dynamic Range graph?
alex
-
" ... there's hardly a camera on the market that can touch the Nikon D3x in overall goodness..."
Once again, hyperbole. Comeon Michael. The D3X is a great camera, but it's not so much better than some of the others. Your own review of the A900 proves that, and the 1Ds3 is no slouch compared to the D3x by any measure. In terms of practical real world use, and for what you see in a print of almost any size, can you really say there is that much of a difference in overall "goodness"?
These days, the differences between these high end cameras are so slight that we have to strain to make a distinction. More fodder for the fanboys to chew on however....
If you go to our Camera Metrics spreadsheet, Csmera Metrics (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/camera-metrics.shtml), you will see that the D3x shows "Slight" and "Moderate" differences for resolution and DxOMark respectively relative to the 1Ds3. There's no question that the Nikon feature set is an improvement over Canon in some respects, and it allows higher ISO performance at remarkable clarity considering the speeds at play here. Whether all that is worth an additional 1500 dollars is purely a matter of individual judgment, but objectively speaking on many prints you'd most likely see no difference, while under some imaging conditions the Nikon would have a clear advantage. It depends on what you're doing.
-
If you look at the camera as a whole MR's comment makes sense as I think he intended. It is the best pro level (AF/dual cards/weather proofing/viewfinder/lag/etc) camera feature and IQ wise on the market. Heck, the 1Ds mkIII still has a screen that's a disgrace and has just been recalled for yet another chapter in the saga of the mkIII AF fiasco. As such it's (D3X) probably the best DSLR on the market today when seen as a whole. Whether you need the 'best' is far more subjective.
-
If you look at the camera as a whole MR's comment makes sense as I think he intended. It is the best pro level (AF/dual cards/weather proofing/viewfinder/lag/etc) camera feature and IQ wise on the market. Heck, the 1Ds mkIII still has a screen that's a disgrace and has just been recalled for yet another chapter in the saga of the mkIII AF fiasco. As such it's (D3X) probably the best DSLR on the market today when seen as a whole. Whether you need the 'best' is far more subjective.
Ben, I wouldn't go so far as to call the 1Ds3 screen "a disgrace". At worst it's "second-best". More important though, what is this new AF recall all about? I'm interested, because I detected a focus problem with certain aspects of my 1Ds3 system and Canon Canada is charging me a heap of money combined with a time estimate that amounts to very slow service for evaluating and fixing it. (I'll be providing a report on my service experience in the Discussion Forum once I'm done with them.)
-
Ben, I wouldn't go so far as to call the 1Ds3 screen "a disgrace". At worst it's "second-best". More important though, what is this new AF recall all about? I'm interested, because I detected a focus problem with certain aspects of my 1Ds3 system and Canon Canada is charging me a heap of money combined with a time estimate that amounts to very slow service for evaluating and fixing it. (I'll be providing a report on my service experience in the Discussion Forum once I'm done with them.)
Here you go:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310...mwareupdate.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310canon1Dfirmwareupdate.asp)
And yes it can be called a Saga.
-
Ben, I wouldn't go so far as to call the 1Ds3 screen "a disgrace". At worst it's "second-best". More important though, what is this new AF recall all about? I'm interested, because I detected a focus problem with certain aspects of my 1Ds3 system and Canon Canada is charging me a heap of money combined with a time estimate that amounts to very slow service for evaluating and fixing it. (I'll be providing a report on my service experience in the Discussion Forum once I'm done with them.)
Given that the screens on all canon cameras but especially this $8000 one are a joke compared to P&S's costing a tiny fraction of the amount - I wouldn't agree. The new screens are better but they only put them in when Nikon forced them to.
-
Here you go:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310...mwareupdate.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310canon1Dfirmwareupdate.asp)
And yes it can be called a Saga.
Thanks I checked it. Good for all owners to know, but not my problem. I only use the center AF point so it doesn't apply. My problem is soft focus on the left third of the image when using the 70~300 mm IS/DO zoom at focal lengths below 300mm and wide aperture. I suspect it is a lens issue, but Canon asked me to bring in everything, so I did.
-
If you look at the camera as a whole MR's comment makes sense as I think he intended. It is the best pro level (AF/dual cards/weather proofing/viewfinder/lag/etc) camera feature and IQ wise on the market. Heck, the 1Ds mkIII still has a screen that's a disgrace and has just been recalled for yet another chapter in the saga of the mkIII AF fiasco. As such it's (D3X) probably the best DSLR on the market today when seen as a whole. Whether you need the 'best' is far more subjective.
Well, first your opinions on the 1DsIII are based on faulty information, and second, the very point I am making is that the D3X is at best incrementally better at some things (eg. lownoise at higher ISO's) than, say the 1Ds3 but not as good at others (sensor cleaning). Where do you get this idea that the dual CF cards, weather proofing, viewfinder, lag, etc are demonstrably better than on the 1Ds3?? Show me the evidence, otherwise your assertions are just picked out of thin air to augment your fan perspective. And what is with this "fiasco"? Your link refers to the 1DMark III AF issue and does not relate to the 1DsIII. I certainly have never seen any issue with this.
As for the screen issue, this has been commented on before but who cares? I only use the screen to check my histograms like most people, not for previewing what the final image will look like. For that, you need a computer. A nice gimmick to have, but certainly not at all necessary to have a higher res screen. I'm concerned about final image quality and on that basis, the D3X is a great camera, but so is the 1Ds3 and the A900.
-
As for the screen issue, this has been commented on before but who cares? I only use the screen to check my histograms like most people, not for previewing what the final image will look like
The LCD issue is really a disgrace for a high end camera. Although you have no basis for talking for "most people", you are right in the sense, that most people don't use it for verifying the focusing, because it is not good enough.
This too shows, how much Canon was spoiled before serious competition appeared. I guess Canon have learned a lot in this aspect.
-
Well, first your opinions on the 1DsIII are based on faulty information, and second, the very point I am making is that the D3X is at best incrementally better at some things (eg. lownoise at higher ISO's) than, say the 1Ds3 but not as good at others (sensor cleaning). Where do you get this idea that the dual CF cards, weather proofing, viewfinder, lag, etc are demonstrably better than on the 1Ds3?? Show me the evidence, otherwise your assertions are just picked out of thin air to augment your fan perspective. And what is with this "fiasco"? Your link refers to the 1DMark III AF issue and does not relate to the 1DsIII. I certainly have never seen any issue with this.
As for the screen issue, this has been commented on before but who cares? I only use the screen to check my histograms like most people, not for previewing what the final image will look like. For that, you need a computer. A nice gimmick to have, but certainly not at all necessary to have a higher res screen. I'm concerned about final image quality and on that basis, the D3X is a great camera, but so is the 1Ds3 and the A900.
groan....I was describing how it was defined as a pro body with those features and as such it's a better CAMERA than those such as the A900 and 5D mkII. I've never understood the point of comparing pro am cameras to pro bodies, if you need pro features then no A900 is going to cut it. Then and only then I started to compare it to the 1Ds mkIII. The D3X is by certain lights a better overall machine/tool. I can't see how that can be denied.
But feel free to get indignant about your lack of reading skills.
Oh and as for the screen, once you're focusing with LV is suddenly becomes important. Ditto trying to check focus with playback on the fuzz that is that generation of screens. But that isn't the point, in 2008 at a release price of $8000 canon released a camera with a screen that was a joke in comparison to most p&s's.
-
groan....I was describing how it was defined as a pro body with those features and as such it's a better CAMERA than those such as the A900 and 5D mkII.
When the 1DsMkII has been "defined", there was neither an A900 nor a 5DMkII on the horizon. Thus it was certainly not defined in those terms. The 5DMkII is *defined* to have better image quality than the 1DsMkIII. The A900 is far from it, not only in price.
-
I said CAMERA not chip. If you want to define the best camera then you can't see as competitor a camera that cannot be used in the rain, has a single useable AF point, , etc, etc. Otherwise you would be saying that the best all rounder was a Mamiya with a P65+ attached which is surely nonsense. Again, talking camera, a camera as a whole, the whole package of which a percent difference (at this level!) is only a part, surely a small part of the equation. I think that is what MR meant and I concur, as a whole the D3X is the most advanced and best camera on the market today. Whether you need the best tool to do the job is relative to the specific photoraphers needs. You tell the people who went to Antartica that a 5D mkII was a better camera than a 1Ds mkIII because it may or may not have a tiny IQ advantage.
-
This too shows, how much Canon was spoiled before serious competition appeared. I guess Canon have learned a lot in this aspect.
Competition is a good thing. I'm very appreciative of Nikon's work on De-assing Canon's collective head.
-
When the 1DsMkII has been "defined", there was neither an A900 nor a 5DMkII on the horizon. Thus it was certainly not defined in those terms. The 5DMkII is *defined* to have better image quality than the 1DsMkIII. The A900 is far from it, not only in price.
I think many would agree that the 5Dii does not have better image quality than the 1DsIII. Or do you strictly mean noise when you refer to image quality?
-
The LCD issue is really a disgrace for a high end camera. Although you have no basis for talking for "most people", you are right in the sense, that most people don't use it for verifying the focusing, because it is not good enough.
This too shows, how much Canon was spoiled before serious competition appeared. I guess Canon have learned a lot in this aspect.
The reason why you can't use the LCD screen for verifying anything is that no matter how big and bright the screen is it will still be too small for reliable validation of any result which really matters. Furthermore, the image you see on the screen is a low-res JPEG rendition of the file - quite a divorce from the raw data. So no, I don't care which camera we're talking about, the display image is close to worthless and the histogram is the main thing that matters at time of capture. The histogram too depends on JPEG settings in the camera, so as long as I know how to set those, and how to interpret what the histogram is telling me about the raw file, I'm in good shape.
-
I think many would agree that the 5Dii does not have better image quality than the 1DsIII
IIRC, Canon declared it (perhaps in a white paper?), that the 5D2's sensor's IQ is higher - and this would not be a surprize, given that it is much younger.
Or do you strictly mean noise when you refer to image quality?
I can't say anything re the AA filter. The color separation is a difficult issue, as Canon do not publish the spectral responses. They seem to have different color filters; tha 1DM3's red and blue transmissivity at white light is higher than that of the 5D2's. However, it is difficult to say if that is an advantage or disadvantages for either, but I have not read any complaints. The noise of the 5D2 is allegedly lower, although the sensor pattern (the vertical and mostly the horizontal lines) is more readily observable with the 5D2, that is a disadvantage.
The rest is software.
-
the image you see on the screen is a low-res JPEG rendition of the file
I meant it in live view, *before* shooting - but the 1D3 does not allow AF in Live View, which is another disadvantage.
The histogram too depends on JPEG settings in the camera, so as long as I know how to set those, and how to interpret what the histogram is telling me about the raw file, I'm in good shape.
It is in your power to coax the camera in displaying a raw-like histogram, if you accept the downside (embedded preview useless except for cursory view).
-
Where do you get this idea that the dual CF cards, weather proofing, viewfinder, lag, etc are demonstrably better than on the 1Ds3??
Does the 1ds3 enable raid 0 like dual write to CFs cards in parallel? I consider this to be one of the most important features of the d3 series if you shoot real "once in a life time" subjects.
The peace of mind I get from knowing that a total CF failure will not impact me the least bit even when I shoot a nice sunrise at 15.000 feet after a week of walking is... priceless.
As far as the screen goes, my contention is that life view is often the only suitable approach to focus accurately on some subjects. I have not used the 1ds3 screen and cannot comment on the relative value, but I for sure find the D3 series screen to be of great help when trying to achieve critical focus in live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Does the 1ds3 enable raid 0 like dual write to CFs cards in parallel? I consider this to be one of the most important features of the d3 series if you shoot real "once in a life time" subjects.
The peace of mind I get from knowing that a total CF failure will not impact me the least bit even when I shoot a nice sunrise at 15.000 feet after a week of walking is... priceless.
As far as the screen goes, my contention is that life view is often the only suitable approach to focus accurately on some subjects. I have not used the 1ds3 screen and cannot comment on the relative value, but I for sure find the D3 series screen to be of great help when trying to achieve critical focus in live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes - in actual fact the 1DSMK3 does allow for the writing of files to both CF and its secondary mini slot. Canon decided on 1 x CF and 1 x mini rather than 2 x CF. But it can write to both simultaneously.
I use the 1DSMK3 live view for landscapes regularly and get critically sharp focus.
Personally.. I am getting more than a little tired of D3X owners constantly feeling the need to purport their supposed camera superiority over everything else - it rings throughout the D3X threads and its getting very old...
I did an experiment with a colleague of mine who shoots a d3X a few days ago for my own [and his interest]. I wasnt going to post about it as it really was to satisfy our own curiosity - but I think its worth pointing out now.
We set up a shot tripod mounted with my 1DSMK3 and then D3x - both with standard 50mm lens shot at F8 ISO 100, 400 and 800. We did not shoot any other ISO as neither of us shoot much over 800.
Both files were viewed on screen on a spectraview 2 calibrated monitor - despite rendering differences neither of us could pick one as any better than another at 100%.
In the A3+ prints we made neither of us could pick which camera was which - and neither could one of my clients.
For all I know the Sony A900 may be exactly the same - all of these cameras will produce stunning images.
I think I need coffee now
-
The reason why you can't use the LCD screen for verifying anything is that no matter how big and bright the screen is it will still be too small for reliable validation of any result which really matters. Furthermore, the image you see on the screen is a low-res JPEG rendition of the file - quite a divorce from the raw data. So no, I don't care which camera we're talking about, the display image is close to worthless and the histogram is the main thing that matters at time of capture. The histogram too depends on JPEG settings in the camera, so as long as I know how to set those, and how to interpret what the histogram is telling me about the raw file, I'm in good shape.
You really should try focusing in LiveView with 100% zoom on a camera like the D3/D300/D700. If you did, maybe you would understand what all the fuss is about. As far as focusing accuracy goes, it's superior to anything else (except maybe using a loupe on the ground-glass of a large format camera).
-
You really should try focusing in LiveView with 100% zoom on a camera like the D3/D300/D700. If you did, maybe you would understand what all the fuss is about. As far as focusing accuracy goes, it's superior to anything else (except maybe using a loupe on the ground-glass of a large format camera).
Well the post one-up from yours' says he gets critically sharp focus with Canon 1Ds3 live-view - as he should. In fact I much appreciated the breath of fresh air from a real comparative field test - though I know no more about the detail of what was photographed and how the prints were evaluated, the procedure and the commentary ring true and the stated results are no surprise to me.
-
Yes - in actual fact the 1DSMK3 does allow for the writing of files to both CF and its secondary mini slot. Canon decided on 1 x CF and 1 x mini rather than 2 x CF. But it can write to both simultaneously.
I use the 1DSMK3 live view for landscapes regularly and get critically sharp focus.
Excellent then. I do personnally prefer to standardize on a single type of media for various reasons, but I am sure that others have different preferences.
Personally.. I am getting more than a little tired of D3X owners constantly feeling the need to purport their supposed camera superiority over everything else - it rings throughout the D3X threads and its getting very old...
all of these cameras will produce stunning images.
Just ignore those, it is simply a replica (in the earthquake sense of the word) of years of presecution during which the "Canon uber alles" unique line of thought has gotten on the nerves of many photographers getting excellent images from their non Canon cameras.
Objectivty is the only credible route really and the kind of tests you have performed with your friend are the way to go if you are concerned about such matters. I personnally prefer to use the little time I have shooting real images though.
The famed "it's the photographer..." has never been more true, has it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well the post one-up from yours' says he gets critically sharp focus with Canon 1Ds3 live-view - as he should. In fact I much appreciated the breath of fresh air from a real comparative field test - though I know no more about the detail of what was photographed and how the prints were evaluated, the procedure and the commentary ring true and the stated results are no surprise to me.
Maybe he does, and maybe he would find it even easier to do so with a better LCD. Your post seemed to be downplaying the importance of LCD quality, but for those using LiveView it is a very relevant consideration.
-
Excellent then. I do personnally prefer to standardize on a single type of media for various reasons, but I am sure that others have different preferences.
Don't get me wrong - I would have preferred 2 x CF for standardization as well. But flip side of the coin.. mini is smaller and its always good to be able to use either card if overseas or traveling etc.
I did drop a mini card in some snow last winter though and it promptly vanished on me - damm things are so small!
-
It's shameful that the A900 doesn't have any dual card writing capabilities. Surprisingly, I'm not too annoyed that the second memory slot is Memory Stick, since I don't use SD in anything anyways, but not having some basic two card functions in the camera is silly. That being said, it is nice to have the second slot just in case the CF slot fails or pins bend.
-
IIRC, Canon declared it (perhaps in a white paper?), that the 5D2's sensor's IQ is higher - and this would not be a surprize, given that it is much younger.
I can't say anything re the AA filter. The color separation is a difficult issue, as Canon do not publish the spectral responses. They seem to have different color filters; tha 1DM3's red and blue transmissivity at white light is higher than that of the 5D2's. However, it is difficult to say if that is an advantage or disadvantages for either, but I have not read any complaints. The noise of the 5D2 is allegedly lower, although the sensor pattern (the vertical and mostly the horizontal lines) is more readily observable with the 5D2, that is a disadvantage.
The rest is software.
Yeah, spectral response is a tough one. I've read about some 5Dii complaints, and it seems there is something to the different CFAs in the cameras, but I don't have direct experience with it myself.
-
Maybe he does, and maybe he would find it even easier to do so with a better LCD. Your post seemed to be downplaying the importance of LCD quality, but for those using LiveView it is a very relevant consideration.
Yes, I was downplaying its importance in a context of how I and many other people use it. For people doing a lot of work with live view, obviously the bigger and more brilliant the better.
-
Don't get me wrong - I would have preferred 2 x CF for standardization as well. But flip side of the coin.. mini is smaller and its always good to be able to use either card if overseas or traveling etc.
Good point indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard