Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 18, 2015, 06:31:52 am
-
FYI
Development announcement here (http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/1118_dslr_01.htm) and here (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1448387262/nikon-announces-development-of-flagship-d5-digital-slr?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu). Hopefully this will not be labeled as FUD again, like it was for the Canon press release. It is just a development announcement.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Nikon don't normally stoop to this level, they must be feeling the pinch to hit D4s sales.
-
Lets hope they'll reduce the size to D800 level this time... and offer the power grip as accessory. Interchange VF would be nice...
-
Nikon don't normally stoop to this level, they must be feeling the pinch to hit D4s sales.
Indeed, these development announcements from Canon and Nikon are more a general information (also for investors) of where development is heading, rather than vaporware announcements that will never materialize. It will be interesting to see what the specifications of the new sensor will be, and if it will be another Sony sensor, and which are the other camera features.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I really want it to shoot 4K video. I hope it isn't a long way off. I need to buy something to shoot 4K early in 2016 and I was hoping it would be a Nikon.
-
My personal view is that:
- this announcement is even more lame than the Canon one,
- it probably means that they intended to announce the camera in the coming weeks but are either facing issues of some sort or decided a late spec change,
- the camera won't be the hands of photographers for at least another 6 months and Nikon considers this to be a problem
Cheers,
Bernard
-
FYI
Development announcement here (http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/1118_dslr_01.htm) and here (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1448387262/nikon-announces-development-of-flagship-d5-digital-slr?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu). Hopefully this will not be labeled as FUD again, like it was for the Canon press release. It is just a development announcement.
Cheers,
Bart
As long as an announcement increases the knowledge of the user community, then I see them as a good thing. If, however, they are not reality based, and are only intended to forestall user switching or purchases, then they are detrimental. They need to be clear between applied research and functionality already on the schedule for a product release.
-
The only interesting information i read in it is that the D5 remains a DSLR camera
I just worked with a D4s last week and i was suprised how bad the video was compared to the very decent video coming from the D810.
So a D5 with better video quality in combination with the new 24-70 VR lens would be a very nice combination for the press folks
-
The announcment, as it stands, is one of the least exciting to come from either Canon or Nikon to date.
It just doesn't seem to introduce anything new. Is there anything it does that the D4s doesn't already do very well? Frame rate? Got it. Top-level AF? Got it. Video? Got it. It seems more like a slight evolution of what is already a very good camera for that it's designed for, not a revolutionary new design.
If the suddenly said that it had a 36-50MP sensor (while retaining the frame rate), on the other hand, it would get a lot more interesting, due to the increased ability to crop for wildlife or field sports.
-
If the suddenly said that it had a 36-50MP sensor (while retaining the frame rate), on the other hand, it would get a lot more interesting, due to the increased ability to crop for wildlife or field sports.
Guess we'll have to wait for more specific info from Nikon, or one of the rumor sites. I think that whatever the specs, it will be telling as to the direction Nikon will be heading in the near future, e.g. stay with Sony, multi-sampling, put more (or less) emphasis on video, etc., or do something radically different.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hogan on the Non Announcement :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-non-announcement.html
" Early this week I wrote that the camera industry hadn’t hit bottom yet. Today I can write that Nikon hasn’t hit bottom yet. "
-
I am curious to see whether or not Lula will also feel the need to diss on this one, as they have dissed on Canon labelling the sensor (re)announcement as FUD...
Indeed, using Canon is not very popular here anymore:)
-
I am curious to see whether or not Lula will also feel the need to diss on this one, as they have dissed on Canon labelling the sensor (re)announcement as FUD...
Indeed, using Canon is not very popular here anymore:)
Unless one shoots fast action, Canon and Nikon bodies no longer really do a better job than their rivals (primarily Sony). And, for those who shoot fast action, it's hard to substantially improve upon the D4s and 1Dx in terms of high-ISO performance (due to limits of quantum efficiency and photon shot noise) or off-sensor PDAF performance (note that things like eye detection cannot be implemented on SLRs or any other design that doesn't compose and focus through the sensor).
Canon's greatest asset is its lens collection. Nikon's greatest asset is its Sony sensors.
I'd imagine Nikon would be ripe for a takeover by Sony at some stage if the trend continues.
That said, the D810 is probably the best all-round SLR for still photography at the moment - it can do everything pretty well, excels at some things (image quality, although it has recently been overtaken in pure resolution) and doesn't do anything badly. Focuses and tracks quickly and accurately, 5fps is fast enough for most things, high resolution, the most DR of any body out there, excellent low-ISO, decent high-ISO, dual cards, etc.
-
Unless one shoots fast action, Canon and Nikon bodies no longer really do a better job than their rivals (primarily Sony). And, for those who shoot fast action, it's hard to substantially improve upon the D4s and 1Dx in terms of high-ISO performance (due to limits of quantum efficiency and photon shot noise) or off-sensor PDAF performance (note that things like eye detection cannot be implemented on SLRs or any other design that doesn't compose and focus through the sensor).
Maybe, but then these workhorses are usually more rugged, better weather-sealed, have more battery capacity, and in LiveView mode the sensor can equally well see the optical/projected image, and employ whatever technology is suited then.
Features like expose on subject movement, or contrast or on-sensor phase detect focus, or eye focus, face detect and whitebalance, or, ... And it may raise the resolution bar, or add 4x or more multi-sampling capability for higher (color) resolution with reduced aliasing, very useful for product photography and reproductions. Maybe, if not patented, it can employ sensor tilt and shift. Just to name a number of things that are already available in other camera models, let alone additional innovative solutions they can come-up with.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My personal view is that:
- this announcement is even more lame than the Canon one,
- it probably means that they intended to announce the camera in the coming weeks but are either facing issues of some sort or decided a late spec change,
- the camera won't be the hands of photographers for at least another 6 months and Nikon considers this to be a problem
Cheers,
Bernard
It seems the when Nikon made a "development announcement" for the D4S, the release announcement and actual release followed in less than 2 months later. This would seem to be a far cry from canon's strategy of promising what it can't deliver for up to 2 years.
-
The announcment, as it stands, is one of the least exciting to come from either Canon or Nikon to date.
It just doesn't seem to introduce anything new. Is there anything it does that the D4s doesn't already do very well? Frame rate? Got it. Top-level AF? Got it. Video? Got it. It seems more like a slight evolution of what is already a very good camera for that it's designed for, not a revolutionary new design.
If the suddenly said that it had a 36-50MP sensor (while retaining the frame rate), on the other hand, it would get a lot more interesting, due to the increased ability to crop for wildlife or field sports.
Yup. It will be a 20-24MP version that does all the same stuff for an inflated price. Then Nikon will wonder why no one rushes out to buy it.
Maybe we will see a new AF module rather than the CAM3500 thing with a small row of cross sensors they keep tarting up since the D3.
-
Maybe, but then these workhorses are usually more rugged, better weather-sealed, have more battery capacity, and in LiveView mode the sensor can equally well see the optical/projected image, and employ whatever technology is suited then.
And that's something I wish Sony would address - a tougher, more powerful all-round mirrorless camera, built around the same great sensor they've developed.
Thing is, it's not an inherent advantage of the D4, 1Dx, D810 or 5D3 - there's no special technology which makes them that way. It's just a matter of size, and something any manufacturer could add if they so desired.
Features like expose on subject movement, or contrast or on-sensor phase detect focus, or eye focus, face detect and whitebalance, or, ...
All of which requires it to operate in live view mode, where you lose the advantages associated with it being an SLR in the first place, can't hold it up to eye level (i.e. needs to be on a tripod, since you can't realistically hold a D5 with attached lens out at arm's length and keep it steady) and still doesn't use them as well as a native mirrorless camera (due to the lack of an EVF to amplify the advantages of those things).
And it may raise the resolution bar,
This is probably the best thing it can do.
I see three major breakpoints here - 32MP, 36MP and 54MP.
At 32MP, you have the potential for 8k video. For an action/journalistic camera, that's a very big thing with regards to utility and futureproofing. Go on a wildlife shoot and take some stills and an 8k video sequence all in the same shoot. And, with the battery and processor power of an improved D4-type body, 8k video is probably doable.
At 36MP, you can do a 1.5x crop and still end up with 16MP - a very respectable total which greatly adds to the utility of the camera when shooting wildlife or sports at long distance, where, even with long lenses, you're often focal-length limited and have to crop. It's like having an inbuilt, 1.0-1.5x teleconverter - sacrifice some image quality to have the subject take up more of the frame, and, at 1.5x crop and 16MP, you still end up with acceptable quality. At this resolution, you've effectively got a FF and crop body at the same time, with all the composition advantages of having a bigger frame to play with.
At 54MP, you'd be able to get a 1.5x crop of 24MP - equal to the best crop bodies on the market today.
I'd say a significant increase in resolution (with pixel binning for those concerned about file size and who don't need to print large or crop heavily - which also eliminates moire and colour aliasing artifacts as a side-effect) would be the best thing they could do in a D5 while still retaining an OVF and mirror.
or add 4x or more multi-sampling capability for higher (color) resolution with reduced aliasing
That would make much more sense in a D820 than a D5 - if you're after resolution and reduced aliasing and your subject doesn't move, why would you go for an action camera with the lowest-resolution sensor Nikon offers, instead of the camera with just about the best IQ on the market at the moment?
Add that technology to the D810, however, and you'd have a beast for product photography.
Maybe, if not patented, it can employ sensor tilt and shift
I'm sure Sony's already patented that, given that they were talking about z-shift focusing a while back.
In any case, it would be unusable outside of live view, and, hence, would make little sense on an action camera and much more sense on a mirrorless body (or, at least, on a camera like the D810).
-
note that things like eye detection cannot be implemented on SLRs or any other design that doesn't compose and focus through the...
This isn't correct. The D810 uses its 91,000 pixels exposure sensor to detect faces and the info is shared with AF. It works pretty well.
As far as lenses go, T/S lenses are pretty much the only ones where Canon has a real world advantage at the moment. The rest is pretty much a draw. Go Nikon if you need the best super tele or a stabilized 24-70mm f2.8, go Canon if you need a 11mm f4. It was the exact opposite 2 years ago. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This isn't correct. The D810 uses its 91,000 pixels exposure sensor to detect faces and the info is shared with AF. It works pretty well.
Not at the same level as Sony's eye detection, though. You need many more pixels for that, since an eye is so much smaller than a face.
As far as lenses go, T/S lenses are pretty much the only ones where Canon has a real world advantage at the moment. The rest is pretty much a draw. Go Nikon if you need the best super tele or a stabilized 24-70mm f2.8, go Canon if you need a 11mm f4. It was the exact opposite 2 years ago. ;)
I'd give Canon the edge in superteles, if only for the 200-400 f/4 with inbuilt TC. That's a spectacular lens. The rest of the superteles are pretty much a draw.
Canon 100-400 > Nikon 80-400
Canon 70-200 > Nikon 70-200
Canon 24-70 =< Nikon 24-70
Canon 11-24 = Nikon 14-24 - Canon is wider, Nikon is faster, both are just as sharp
Canon tilt-shifts >>> Nikon tilt-shifts
-
I see no reason to move from Canon to Sony. In a studio environment where the light is controlled by me I don't need the shadows recovery and high ISO capability that the Sony sensor provides.
Yet you need the lowest possible noise, even sacrificing DR if need be (since you control the lighting anyway).
Outside of MF, that would be the D810, overexposed by 1-2 stops at ISO 64 and pulled.
Outdoors under very bright sunlight I found that EVFs are terrible to look at.
How so? It's not like you're squinting at the LCD screen (like on a MFDB or live view) and trying to make out an image in the glare. With an EVF, your eye is pressed into a cup with no outside light leak, and the image itself gives you a true approximation of what the final, unprocessed image will look like - if it looks too bright there, your exposure's probably off.
It's all about the right tool for the right job, but I still don't see a lot of commercial photographers (except those who shoot architecture) using the Sony cameras.
Plenty of wedding photographers now using them, too. And product photographers, and those who shoot professionally using aerial or submersible drones. Not to mention the pro landscape and macro shooters.
-
Yet you need the lowest possible noise, even sacrificing DR if need be (since you control the lighting anyway).
as he can get as much light as he wants and he can control contrast too it is not about S/N in deep shadows in studio in most of the cases (now certainly you can come up with the case of such subject on purpose), but S/N above those and there is no difference between modern FF sensors from Canon or Sony or Nikon/whoever makes them for Nikon (like 16mp FF)... photon shot noise is the same
-
as he can get as much light as he wants and he can control contrast too it is not about S/N in deep shadows in studio in most of the cases (now certainly you can come up with the case of such subject on purpose), but S/N above those and there is no difference between modern FF sensors from Canon or Sony or Nikon/whoever makes them for Nikon (like 16mp FF)... photon shot noise is the same
Exactly - it's about total photons captured, in other words well depth (or effective well depth) not SNR in the blacks. That means the lowest possible ISO, or even capturing multiple frames and averaging them for even less noise and greater effective well depth/lower effective ISO.
You can provide as much light as you like, but a camera can only capture so many photons before blowing out the whites. Then you need to go to multiple frames to reduce overall image noise further. Four frames with a D810 will give you an effective ISO 16.
-
1- I would never shoot overexposed in a studio to pull later. Clients look at the screen and they like to see images "properly" exposed.
Even at the expense of the final image? Where you can control dynamic range, exposing to the right, then pulling, is the easiest and best way to reduce noise in the final image.
2- I meant that IMO there is detail lost in bright areas on the EVF. But that might have been improved since my reference is the Fuji X100S (nice camera BTW) but old.
You'd better pay attention to those bright areas. The EVF image is a representation of the RAW rendered as per the current JPEG settings. If you've adjusted these settings correctly (i.e. linearised it as much as possible), if the EVF is blown, then the RAW is either also blown or close to it, and you need to reduce the exposure.
-
You can't get 8k from a 32 mpix camera sensor. Video aspect ratio is different.
-
I'm sure the image quality would improve using that method, yet in my time as an assistant I worked for many pros (mostly on fashion and advertising stuff) and none of them exposed to the right. Sometimes perfection is not needed, if it's not noticeable on a printed magazine page or online, why worry about it? A little noise never killed anyone ;)
Up until someone says, 'I want this printed big in the foyer of my hotel' or 'I want to run a triple-page spread of this', and the only answer you can give is, 'Sorry, it won't hold up'.
-
Up until someone says, 'I want this printed big in the foyer of my hotel' or 'I want to run a triple-page spread of this', and the only answer you can give is, 'Sorry, it won't hold up'.
So the real world answer is almost never ?
-
So the real world answer is almost never ?
Maybe never if you're a photojournalist or commercial photographer.
If you're reproducing fine art or shooting landscapes, it's once every few prints.
-
And that's something I wish Sony would address - a tougher, more powerful all-round mirrorless camera, built around the same great sensor they've developed.
Thing is, it's not an inherent advantage of the D4, 1Dx, D810 or 5D3 - there's no special technology which makes them that way. It's just a matter of size, and something any manufacturer could add if they so desired.
I'd suggest that making a ergonomic, rugged, water-resistant, dust-resistant, good battery-life, reasonably compact, camera is quite hard. Especially for a consumer electronics company like Sony, and especially as you want to keep your own costs low, quality high and time to market in check (Not that Canon and Nikon seems to do prioritize time to market that high).
Of course, most customers does not need these extreme features, meaning that Sony might prefer catering for the 80% of the potential customers that can live with D800-class quality in the above features. If they do so successfully (i.e. beating Canon/Nikon at everything up to and including D8x0/5Dx), I guess that their business model will be challenged.
I am convinced that Canon/Nikon _could_ offer a "D5-class" mirrorless camera if they so desired. Both have access to suitable sensors and are selling functional (if not large sensor) mirrorless solutions. I am guessing that a lot of the "war photographer" features would carry over from DSLR to mirrorless nicely. Up until now they have to chosen to.
-h
-
I'd suggest that making a ergonomic, rugged, water-resistant, dust-resistant, good battery-life, reasonably compact, camera is quite hard. Especially for a consumer electronics company like Sony, and especially as you want to keep your own costs low, quality high and time to market in check (Not that Canon and Nikon seems to do prioritize time to market that high).
Of course, most customers does not need these extreme features, meaning that Sony might prefer catering for the 80% of the potential customers that can live with D800-class quality in the above features. If they do so successfully (i.e. beating Canon/Nikon at everything up to and including D8x0/5Dx), I guess that their business model will be challenged.
I am convinced that Canon/Nikon _could_ offer a "D5-class" mirrorless camera if they so desired. Both have access to suitable sensors and are selling functional (if not large sensor) mirrorless solutions. I am guessing that a lot of the "war photographer" features would carry over from DSLR to mirrorless nicely. Up until now they have to chosen to.
-h
They could do it, but not in an A7-sized body. It would have to be D810-sized in order to have similar performance and protection.
Mirrorless cameras are inherently easier to make rugged, as they have fewer (and lighter) moving parts, and lighter parts in general, making them easier to cushion against shock.
-
They could do it, but not in an A7-sized body. It would have to be D810-sized in order to have similar performance and protection.
I'm sure they will with an A9 series which will be more like the Leica SL
Right now though, small size needs to be something that attracts people to mirrorless cameras since EVFs and AF are not quite there yet.
-
I'm sure they will with an A9 series which will be more like the Leica SL
Right now though, small size needs to be something that attracts people to mirrorless cameras since EVFs and AF are not quite there yet.
EVFs and AF aren't quite there because of the small bodies.
Big SLRs have dedicated AF chips and more battery power to drive bigger lenses faster. The PDAf works exactly the same way.
Give an SLR a weak battery and take away the processing power (to match a size-conscious mirrorless camera) and it would underperform just as much in the AF department. It's not the mirror or second AF sensor that makes for an SLR's fast AF...
-
Hogan on the Non Announcement :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-non-announcement.html
" Early this week I wrote that the camera industry hadn’t hit bottom yet. Today I can write that Nikon hasn’t hit bottom yet. "
I fully agree with him, He save me from typing a lengthly rant. Nikon should have fired the people at the top of the company during the "recovery" from the D600 debacle. And do in a public manner (not to humiliate them, but to say: we are changing and adapting to the modern world) They still don't understand the modern world, or the link between perception and reality and social media. This is not like Canon technology preview, Canon did show hardware and they have a new 50mpixel camera.
We do have a take were this could make 'some sense' : If they are in worse condition than it seems, that is, if they don't have access to Sony sensors or toshiba ones and they don't have any alternative. They could focus on getting new hardware with new specifications but we are talking about Nikon, a slow paced company. Desperation could be related to the incoming of a new Canon pro body that will nail Nikon as the "perceptual" 3th place. Maybe they have nothing to show or talk about?. Sony, an electronics company knows how to keep people attention and play the market.
If they solved the issue with the sensors (either from Sony or Samsung http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8930601010/samsung-nx1-discontinued-in-europe-rumors-say-yes), and they do have new camera technology (the autofocus on the Nikon 1 series is second to none in the segment) it will show that Nikon management is simply out of touch with the modern world.
I know that some "old school" photographers will tell me that the rapid pace of Sony is counterproductive, that "pro tools" don't behave like that in the market, that it "hurts the resealing price" etc. Nikon needs to decide if they are targeting the past of the future.
Best regards,
-
It is on schedule Nikon wise for a D5 to be released in the first quarter of 2016. It has been 4 years since the D4 was released and it came 4 years after the D3 which came a little less than 3 years after the D2x, though Nikon was under the gun to come out with a full frame DSLR with Canon selling great numbers of the 5D starting in 2005. I switched over to Canon to get the better high ISO performance and better autofocus performance their cameras provided. I switched back to Nikon with the D3 to get a pro build full frame camera and the new Nikon zoom lenses developed for this camera though at the expense of mediocre autofocus performance.
The big gain with the D5 will be the greatly increased number of autofocus sensors and hopefully much greater viewfinder coverage with cross type AF sensors. This would be reason enough for me to add one to my kit. My wife has the Olympus E-M1 camera and I was surprised at how much better the autofocus system was than that of my D810. The camera's electronic viewfinder is also great as I can see in near darkness and not take a shot and then check the rear LCD to see how it turned out and with the electronic viewfinder the camera shows what different EV settings will do before the shutter is released which is way kool.
A bonus would be a shutter as quiet as that on the D810. It is also time for Nikon to have built-in Bluetooth and a built-in GPS receiver. I can turn them off as I do with a smartphone to conserve battery power but I should have the option and this functionality should be provided on a $6500 camera and not just the $300 P&S cameras like the Nikon Coolpix AW130. It would be nice to have both card slots use the same type of memory card which ended with the D3 and is not found only in the D7200 and D750 cameras.
For wedding, wildlife, landscape, and product photography I have never needed to use a ISO setting above 6400 and 99% of the time I am at ISO 4000 or less. Making a night scene look like high noon with ISO 120,000 results in images that kill the mood and distort the scene. I can see it for sports which is artificial to start with considering the artificial lighting and artificial grass but that is about it.
-
It is on schedule Nikon wise for a D5 to be released in the first quarter of 2016. It has been 4 years since the D4 was released and it came 4 years after the D3 which came a little less than 3 years after the D2x, though Nikon was under the gun to come out with a full frame DSLR with Canon selling great numbers of the 5D starting in 2005. I switched over to Canon to get the better high ISO performance and better autofocus performance their cameras provided. I switched back to Nikon with the D3 to get a pro build full frame camera and the new Nikon zoom lenses developed for this camera though at the expense of mediocre autofocus performance.
The big gain with the D5 will be the greatly increased number of autofocus sensors and hopefully much greater viewfinder coverage with cross type AF sensors. This would be reason enough for me to add one to my kit. My wife has the Olympus E-M1 camera and I was surprised at how much better the autofocus system was than that of my D810. The camera's electronic viewfinder is also great as I can see in near darkness and not take a shot and then check the rear LCD to see how it turned out and with the electronic viewfinder the camera shows what different EV settings will do before the shutter is released which is way kool.
A lag-free EVF (or one with imperceptible lag) would be fantastic.
I'd say a more useful thing than simply having more AF points would be more intelligent AF - things like combination AF for eye/face tracking, using pattern recognition or manual selection for acquisition and densely-spaced PDAF points for tracking. Without some way to actually use all those AF points, selecting between 400 different points just becomes too time-consuming, and all the AF dots end up blocking up a lot of the viewfinder.
A bonus would be a shutter as quiet as that on the D810. It is also time for Nikon to have built-in Bluetooth and a built-in GPS receiver. I can turn them off as I do with a smartphone to conserve battery power but I should have the option and this functionality should be provided on a $6500 camera and not just the $300 P&S cameras like the Nikon Coolpix AW130. It would be nice to have both card slots use the same type of memory card which ended with the D3 and is not found only in the D7200 and D750 cameras.
What would be useful is a USB port for charging, instead of having to take out the battery and put it in a charger. Quite often, a single battery will last all day, and USB chargers are now ubiquitous. Not to mention the many portable lithium-ion phone/device chargers which use USB, and which themselves can be charged via a car charger or solar panel. Add to that USB or WiFi transfer for transferring select files to phones, tablets and other devices too.
For wedding, wildlife, landscape, and product photography I have never needed to use a ISO setting above 6400 and 99% of the time I am at ISO 4000 or less. Making a night scene look like high noon with ISO 120,000 results in images that kill the mood and distort the scene. I can see it for sports which is artificial to start with considering the artificial lighting and artificial grass but that is about it.
I'd probably go up to 12800. Sometimes you just need that extra bit of shutter speed to capture a moving subject, or to prevent star trails from appearing in the night sky.
That said, output needs to be as clean as possible - a clean ISO 6400 or 12800 is far more useful than the ability to shoot at ISO 204800.
-
As Sony is claiming up to 500,000 shots on the shutter It would be wise for Nikon to try for the same. OK with a DSLR with higher fps that is somewhat of a tougher ask. Nikon will definitely need to sell on its remaining advantages for sports etc.
At the likely price of a D5, leaving aside limitation on Live View and OVF, it also needs to be equal or better than what a future A7s Mark 3 will be for low light and video as well.
That is going to require some highly original ideas as well as top of the line engineering design. Is Nikon that sort of company for that future ? The D8xx and D7xx style cameras must sell in many multiples of the D4 so is the reward for effort there however good the camera is ?
-
As Sony is claiming up to 500,000 shots on the shutter It would be wise for Nikon to try for the same.
The D4/D4s shutter is rated for 400.000 actuations, which is not that different. Besides, shutter ratings are not a great selling point for professionals. They just give you a general idea of how much a shutter should last, but it is expected for a high end camera to last a long time and in the event of a failure you can get it replaced for free or really cheap compared to the price of a new camera body. A shutter failing is not the end of the world, and there are more important things to look for in a pro body.
Personally I wish Nikon would learn how to properly stick rubber to their cameras.
-
The D4/D4s shutter is rated for 400.000 actuations, which is not that different. Besides, shutter ratings are not a great selling point for professionals. They just give you a general idea of how much a shutter should last, but it is expected for a high end camera to last a long time and in the event of a failure you can get it replaced for free or really cheap compared to the price of a new camera body. A shutter failing is not the end of the world, and there are more important things to look for in a pro body.
Unless you have a plentiful supply of cameras to hand, then a shutter failure is a life or death situation. I don't live in a mega city with 24/7 couriers or camera stores and shoot mainly in remote locations.
Yes the difference between 400,000 and 500,000 is not great,but Nikon like Canon over the last few years have both a perception and reality problem with certain pro and enthusiast photographers. The sort that read various magazines,trade journals and do try to keep up on the internet. Nikon D600 anyone ?
-
Personally I wish Nikon would learn how to properly stick rubber to their cameras.
:) i agree also on the d810 the rubber comes off... ( battery door)
-
Unless you have a plentiful supply of cameras to hand, then a shutter failure is a life or death situation. I don't live in a mega city with 24/7 couriers or camera stores and shoot mainly in remote locations.
Surely you bring more than one camera along on a trip or an important shoot, though? I've never had a shutter fail (as a landscape photographer, I don't think any of my cameras has even reached 20k activations; I borrow action bodies when I go and shoot wildlife) but I've lost cameras to volcanoes, seawater, cold (later recovered), sandstorms, a bear and an elephant, among other things.
Yes the difference between 400,000 and 500,000 is not great,but Nikon like Canon over the last few years have both a perception and reality problem with certain pro and enthusiast photographers. The sort that read various magazines,trade journals and do try to keep up on the internet. Nikon D600 anyone ?
Canon probably more so than Nikon. The sensor/DR issue has really hurt over the last few years, among all but the action/high ISO crowd.
-
Over the last few years I've set up time lapse shoots with an intervalometer and a Nikon D200 or D300. Both of those bodies have gone way past the shutter actuations they were rated for. Way, way past. That doesn't mean the next shot it won't die. But just saying.
-
EVFs and AF aren't quite there because of the small bodies.
It is probably possible to make a better EVF and better AF if you can increase body size by 2x (and/or increase battery size accordingly). That is not to say that mirrorless would be strictly better than SLR in every concievable way had their body been larger.
Big SLRs have dedicated AF chips and more battery power to drive bigger lenses faster. The PDAf works exactly the same way.
The PDAF of a Sony A7rII does not work in exactly the same way as the PDAF of a Nikon D810, nor does its actual performance match it as far as I know. A hypothetical Sony A9 would probably not either.
Give an SLR a weak battery and take away the processing power (to match a size-conscious mirrorless camera) and it would underperform just as much in the AF department. It's not the mirror or second AF sensor that makes for an SLR's fast AF...
You are of course allowed to say this, but I think that you are wrong.
-h
-
It is probably possible to make a better EVF and better AF if you can increase body size by 2x (and/or increase battery size accordingly). That is not to say that mirrorless would be strictly better than SLR in every concievable way had their body been larger.The PDAF of a Sony A7rII does not work in exactly the same way as the PDAF of a Nikon D810, nor does its actual performance match it as far as I know.
Then tell me exactly how they differ. Both rely on information collected from a sensor - in the case of the SLR, a separate sensor using light reflected from the mirror, and, in the case of the mirrorless body, the actual imaging sensor. Both use two lines of pixels pointed at opposite sides of the lens to detemine whether the target is in focus. In both cases, it's determined by a processor, which then sends a signal to the lens telling it to move in one direction or the other, as well as how far. The only differences are the location of the sensor (on the imaging sensor vs a separate AF array), the processor (multifunction or dedicated AF processor) and the power delivered to the lens to make it move - all of which are quantitative differences, not qualitative onesm. They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.
-
They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.
And everything may include better lens AF technology and, your guess is as good as mine, engineers with more experience serving the most demanding action shooters?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Then tell me exactly how they differ. Both rely on information collected from a sensor - in the case of the SLR, a separate sensor using light reflected from the mirror, and, in the case of the mirrorless body, the actual imaging sensor. Both use two lines of pixels pointed at opposite sides of the lens to detemine whether the target is in focus. In both cases, it's determined by a processor, which then sends a signal to the lens telling it to move in one direction or the other, as well as how far. The only differences are the location of the sensor (on the imaging sensor vs a separate AF array), the processor (multifunction or dedicated AF processor) and the power delivered to the lens to make it move - all of which are quantitative differences, not qualitative onesm. They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.
A quick look at examples of the two suggests that the differences in constraints/solution is significant. While this does not preclude on-sensor PDAF from offering equal (or even better) performance that off-sensor PDAF, it makes it dodgy to assume anything like "they are built on the same principles, thus mirrorless will have the same AF performance as a D4 when only the camera house is made big enough."
(http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/77/p579/phase-detect_drawing.jpg)
(http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.static.img-dpreview.com%2Fpreviews%2Fcanon-eos-70d%2Fimages%2Ffujifilm%2Fdiagram.jpg&signature=3BkfS4pC7QiLwsXM4qvwFT9Y7LE%3D)
Marianne has a great theoretical/practical explanation of traditional PDAF systems in the link below, unfortunately I have only read a part of it, and my comprehension is probably a subset of that again:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3713509#forum-post-54211961
-
Yes the difference between 400,000 and 500,000 is not great,but Nikon like Canon over the last few years have both a perception and reality problem with certain pro and enthusiast photographers. The sort that read various magazines,trade journals and do try to keep up on the internet. Nikon D600 anyone ?
I agree that both have real problems and perception problems. With respect to the D600, that kinda baffles me. Nikon tended in the past to be very good with the mechanicals. They are not so great with software. Hence, I think that they are less suited than Canon to do proper regression testing as functionality moves from hardware to software/firmware.
I did not own a D600, but I do know that a lot of the kerfuffle is internet driven. There were people that had the issue and then the loud group that didn't even own the camera writing and reviewing the camera on the issue that they didn't have.
-
SLR af sensors can be much bigger than a pixel and work in a feedback loop without any heavy processing or slow readout from a sensor array. So if mirrorless can even come close in speed and low light I'll be impressed.
-
A quick look at examples of the two suggests that the differences in constraints/solution is significant. While this does not preclude on-sensor PDAF from offering equal (or even better) performance that off-sensor PDAF, it makes it dodgy to assume anything like "they are built on the same principles, thus mirrorless will have the same AF performance as a D4 when only the camera house is made big enough."
(http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/77/p579/phase-detect_drawing.jpg)
(http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/w/TS560x560?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.static.img-dpreview.com%2Fpreviews%2Fcanon-eos-70d%2Fimages%2Ffujifilm%2Fdiagram.jpg&signature=3BkfS4pC7QiLwsXM4qvwFT9Y7LE%3D)
Marianne has a great theoretical/practical explanation of traditional PDAF systems in the link below, unfortunately I have only read a part of it, and my comprehension is probably a subset of that again:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3713509#forum-post-54211961
Right - that's how a PDAF system works. Any PDAF system. It's the same principle in an SLR as in a mirrorless camera. It's the same sensor data going to the processor for AF, and, once it reaches the processor, the pathway is identical in both types of camera. The only difference is that the source of data in an SLR is pixels on a separate sensor recording light reflected from the mirror, whereas the source of data on a mirrorless camera is pixels on the imaging sensor itself. The data itself is the same, the pathway from raw sensor data to lens movement is the same, the only difference is the size and power of the components that make up that pathway (and you can even equalise for lenses by using the same lens on both systems).
-
Using the CMOS imaging sensor for PDAF suggests there would be a lot more overhead within the AF loop. So it would probably be slower.
Also, using imaging sensor pixels brings up the issue of pixel color sensitivity, which may not be present with dedicated panchromatic pixels in dedicated AF sensor.
-
Right - that's how a PDAF system works. Any PDAF system. It's the same principle in an SLR as in a mirrorless camera. It's the same sensor data going to the processor for AF, and, once it reaches the processor, the pathway is identical in both types of camera. The only difference is that the source of data in an SLR is pixels on a separate sensor recording light reflected from the mirror, whereas the source of data on a mirrorless camera is pixels on the imaging sensor itself. The data itself is the same, the pathway from raw sensor data to lens movement is the same, the only difference is the size and power of the components that make up that pathway (and you can even equalise for lenses by using the same lens on both systems).
The off-sensor AF module in the image contains elements in the optical path that cannot (to my understanding) be placed in the path between lens and image sensor. If you still want to use the camera for taking pictures, that is.
If you want to discuss semantics about what "working in exactly in the same way" means, then by all pick any definition you want. If you are suggesting that mirrorless will be superior in any possible way to DSLR once larger cameras available "because PDAF", then my point still stands: the PDAF module of my 7D cannot possibly be integrated onto the image sensor of a mirrorless camera. Another PDAF module can (and allready is) integrated, though, and for all that I know it can offer excellent performance.
-h
-
I guess that this leak, probably resulting from the theft of a D5 prototype...
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/17/more-nikon-d5-pictures-leaked-online.aspx/
... may explain the announcement made by Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It seems that the D5 should be announced tomorrow:
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/05/nikon-d5-detailed-specifications-cf-and-xqd-versions-coinfirmed.aspx/#more-100830
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The AF speed in the Nikon 1 series seems to suggest that sensor PDAF can be extremely rapid.
-
It seems that the D5 should be announced tomorrow:
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/05/nikon-d5-detailed-specifications-cf-and-xqd-versions-coinfirmed.aspx/#more-100830
Cheers,
Bernard
Hoping for 4K video. It would be nice if they announced a successor to the D810 with 4K video that wasn't $6,000. I'm really pleased with the D810, but I must have 4K video this year.
-
Bernard,
It seems that the D5 should be announced tomorrow...
Touchscreen comes to the (35mm format) DSLR.
-
It's been officially announced together with a pro DX body called D500. ;)
The spec sheets of both cameras sounds near perfect to me.
I find the contrast btwn LL (where these 2 cameras simply got zero comments) and Fred Miranda (with hundreds of forum comments) pretty interesting. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, it's more than a rumor, it's available for pre-order: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1214153-REG/nikon_1558_d5_dslr_camera_body.html
-
It's been officially announced together with a pro DX body called D500. ;)
The spec sheets of both cameras sounds near perfect to me.
I find the contrast btwn LL (where these 2 cameras simply got zero comments) and Fred Miranda (with hundreds of forum comments) pretty interesting. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard - any idea(s) why there is an apparent difference between the two forums? I do not have time to visit the other forum. Perhaps one reason may be that people here are in awe of the latest back from Phase 1?
Sean
-
Hi Bernard - any idea(s) why there is an apparent difference between the two forums? I do not have time to visit the other forum. Perhaps one reason may be that people here are in awe of the latest back from Phase 1?
That could be, although I am personally interested in both cameras for different applications.
Realistically, if the AF of the D5 is as good as Nikon claims, it probably is more of a breakthrough than the P1 100mp back in terms of pushing the enveloppe of what images can be captured.
I guess that the crowd at LL is very much into compact cameras these days, typically mirrorless. There seems to be a widespread belief that full size DSLRs have no more value. For some of my applications they remain by far the best solution though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hope these small designs are a temporary phase. I have a Leica M which I love for some things but in general the dSLR to Medium Format sort of form is more to my liking. That said, it needs to be hand holdable for what I do.
-
Hi,
Comparing P1's IQ 3 100MP back to Nikon D5, I cannot see what relevance AF has. You will never get 100 MP without careful and deliberate focusing, mirror lock up and things like that. With a good workflow, a Phase One camera may reach 100 MP. They have both leaf shutters and and electronic first shutter curtain, two ways of reducing vibrations from shutter.
Do you really think, as a landscape photographer, that you will get better images out of a 20 MP "pro oriented DSLR" than out of your "landscape photographer oriented" D810?
Sorry, being enthusiastic is OK, but being a realist is also OK! Still friends?
Best regards
Erik
That could be, although I am personally interested in both cameras for different applications.
Realistically, if the AF of the D5 is as good as Nikon claims, it probably is more of a breakthrough than the P1 100mp back in terms of pushing the enveloppe of what images can be captured.
I guess that the crowd at LL is very much into compact cameras these days, typically mirrorless. There seems to be a widespread belief that full size DSLRs have no more value. For some of my applications they remain by far the best solution though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you really think, as a landscape photographer, that you will get better images out of a 20 MP "pro oriented DSLR" than out of your "landscape photographer oriented" D810?
Sorry, being enthusiastic is OK, but being a realist is also OK! Still friends?
Best regards
Erik
Do you really think, as a sports or nature photographer, that you have time to set up a triple, activate live view, and achieve perfect micro-focus ... in absolutely optimal light ... on a fast moving player or animal?
I agree, being enthusiastic is okay, but comparing apples to oranges is not.
Still friends? :)
-
It's been officially announced together with a pro DX body called D500. ;)
LOL! I got tired of waiting for this upgrade and took advatage of the discount last month to move on to a D810 from my D300. Will likely gift the D300 to my daughter as the resale value is not worth the hassle.
-
a pro DX body called D500. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
After looking at the specs, it does seem like the D500 is the perfect "can't complain about a thing" APS-C option.
-
Hi John,
My response was addressed to Bernard, who shoots landscape a lot.
But my take is that you would probably choose the D5 for action and high ISO and a camera like the D810 or the 5Ds/5DsR for landscape work, where you need the detail and can take the time.
Personally, I am shooting Sony A7rII and I see me phasing me over to Canon lenses as I think they offer better quality at a lower price than Sony lenses and give me the option of using a HCam Master TS on the Sony, which is not usable with Sony lenses.
Still friends…
Best regards
Erik
Do you really think, as a sports or nature photographer, that you have time to set up a triple, activate live view, and achieve perfect micro-focus ... in absolutely optimal light ... on a fast moving player or animal?
I agree, being enthusiastic is okay, but comparing apples to oranges is not.
Still friends? :)
-
Hi,
Comparing P1's IQ 3 100MP back to Nikon D5, I cannot see what relevance AF has. You will never get 100 MP without careful and deliberate focusing, mirror lock up and things like that. With a good workflow, a Phase One camera may reach 100 MP. They have both leaf shutters and and electronic first shutter curtain, two ways of reducing vibrations from shutter.
Do you really think, as a landscape photographer, that you will get better images out of a 20 MP "pro oriented DSLR" than out of your "landscape photographer oriented" D810?
Sorry, being enthusiastic is OK, but being a realist is also OK! Still friends?
Erik,
I meant within their respective domains of applications obviously.
I have been doing stitches in the hundreds of megapixels for many years and rarely feel limited by stitching. 100mp in a back doesn't enable much I wasn't able to do already, and certainly not much more than what 80mp backs were able to do already. As discussed in depth elsewhere, the combination of features in the IQ3 100MP makes it potentially appealing, but pure image quality for ladscape will be incremental at best.
On the other hand I also shoot fast action subjects using the D750, refered to by many users as having the best available AF until now, and although it is very good there are still many images I cannot capture with it yet.
So I am saying that there is much more room for technological imprivement in the domain of auto focusing than there is in terms of very high image quality.
Does that make more sense?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
I don't disagree. It is sort of horses for the courses.
Personally, I do a lot of stitching, but it is mostly to increase field of view, as an alternative to cropping.
Regarding AF accuracy, I don't really have a problem as I don't normally shoot action and often focus manually with live view. Now, just as an example, I have seen your images of Japanese horseback riders shooting arrows, they are just great and I see the need of accurate AF for that kind of shooting.
Roger Cicala at Lensrentals had some studies on AF accuracy and found that older generation Canons and Nikon were lacking in accuracy. He also found that late generation Canon cameras 1DX, 7DII and 5DIII had accurate AF when combined with late generation lenses. Don't know about Nikon.
For me, it is like that for what I do, I always prefer the highest resolution camera I can find/afford. Just wish I could also afford the best lenses. And oh yes, I would like to be able to carry those lenses to the places were I need them most.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I meant within their respective domains of applications obviously.
I have been doing stitches in the hundreds of megapixels for many years and rarely feel limited by stitching. 100mp in a back doesn't enable much I wasn't able to do already, and certainly not much more than what 80mp backs were able to do already.
On the other hand I also shoot fast action subjects using the D750, refered to by many users as having the best available AF until now, and although it is very good there are still many images I cannot capture with it yet.
So I am saying that there is much more room for technological imprivement in the domain of auto focusing than there is in terms of very high image quality.
Does that make more sense?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In the Nikon D5 specs we see the camera reaches an amazing ISO 3.280.000. Of course I'm not expecting a high quality image with such low exposure, but the figure is so high I wonder how the Nikon D5 sensor's DR may behave.
- Let's assume at ISO 3.280.000 the camera provides just 2 stops of really usable photographic DR (less would be ridiculous), this is equivalent to 4 stops in the DxOMark DR scale.
- We also know that sensors become ISOless at high ISOs (typ. above ISO3200), i.e. they loose a whole stop of DR for every stop ISO is pushed in the high ISO range
With these constraints, the D5 sensor can only become truly ISO invariant at very high ISO values, which is something new. Otherwise it would have an astronomical DR at base ISO:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/nikond5.png)
Any thoughts? can this sensor be something really new to achieve these astronomical ISO figures in just one generation step?
Regards
-
Any thoughts? can this sensor be something really new to achieve these astronomical ISO figures in just one generation step?
Hi Guillermo,
Too early to tell, but I presume noise reduction (not uncommon for Nikon) will play a major role.
Cheers,
Bart
-
- Let's assume[/img]
Let's assume that Nikon did ISO by tag and that's it...
-
Better high ISO is IMHO a great bonus, but AF is IMHO really the area where Nikon has generated high expectations with this camera.
Yes, having 1+ stop better compared to the D750 would already be wonderful (good ISO12800 instead of usable ISO6400), two stops would be out of this world. Nikon claims 3 stops better performance. I am not sure I believe them, but I am not too worried. Great ISO12800 and usable ISO25600 would be sufficient for my needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Personally, I am shooting Sony A7rII and I see me phasing me over to Canon lenses as I think they offer better quality at a lower price than Sony lenses and give me the option of using a HCam Master TS on the Sony, which is not usable with Sony lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik, another question: sometime ago, in another thread, you told us that you had done an experiment by putting a certain Canon lens on the A7rII and found it to be sharper than the equivalent Sony lens (sorry I can't remember the details; this forum has become very lively since the announcement of the P1 100 MP back and there has been much to read). My question is: you must have had to use an adapter on the A7rII and so how was the autofocus on the Canon lens? I temporarily have problems with visual sharpness in one eye (though no problems with colour recognition/gamut) so I will be relying on a camera's autofocus (at least for most of the year) until my eye problem is treated.
Sean
-
Unless one shoots fast action, Canon and Nikon bodies no longer really do a better job than their rivals (primarily Sony). And, for those who shoot fast action, it's hard to substantially improve upon the D4s and 1Dx in terms of high-ISO performance (due to limits of quantum efficiency and photon shot noise) or off-sensor PDAF performance (note that things like eye detection cannot be implemented on SLRs or any other design that doesn't compose and focus through the sensor).
Canon's greatest asset is its lens collection. Nikon's greatest asset is its Sony sensors.
I'd imagine Nikon would be ripe for a takeover by Sony at some stage if the trend continues.
That said, the D810 is probably the best all-round SLR for still photography at the moment - it can do everything pretty well, excels at some things (image quality, although it has recently been overtaken in pure resolution) and doesn't do anything badly. Focuses and tracks quickly and accurately, 5fps is fast enough for most things, high resolution, the most DR of any body out there, excellent low-ISO, decent high-ISO, dual cards, etc.
I totally agree!!! It is harder and harder to sell the latest DSLR models and outdo the D3, D4, 1Dx series. Similar to us, wedding photographers. It is harder and harder to be genuine and create more interesting and different wedding photos every year.
-
Hi Sean,
Presently I have two Canon lenses that I use with the latest Metabones (4T or something) adapter. The two lenses are the 24/3.5 TSE LII that is a manual focus lens, the other is the 16-35/4L. I also have plans to buy a 24-70/28 LII, but it has to wait as I got way over budget on both travel and camera buys in 2015.
The 16-35/4L works well on the A7rII. AF speed is OK, at least the way I am shooting. Would I shoot sports and stuff like that it would be slow.
The electronics coupling works decently well. But, I have seen some odd behaviour, even if it was infrequent. I had the camera locking up a couple of times (2-3) and happened that the lens did not stop on exposure. That could be because battery power dropping. Last time it happened, like two months ago it was just before battery went belly up.
This is my second Metabones, the first one was not reliable at all. So there are bad samples.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik, another question: sometime ago, in another thread, you told us that you had done an experiment by putting a certain Canon lens on the A7rII and found it to be sharper than the equivalent Sony lens (sorry I can't remember the details; this forum has become very lively since the announcement of the P1 100 MP back and there has been much to read). My question is: you must have had to use an adapter on the A7rII and so how was the autofocus on the Canon lens? I temporarily have problems with visual sharpness in one eye (though no problems with colour recognition/gamut) so I will be relying on a camera's autofocus (at least for most of the year) until my eye problem is treated.
Sean
-
Hi,
Me asking same questions. Let's assume a full well capacity of say 150000 electrons/pixel. So base ISO gives 150000 electrons/pixel. Let's assume base ISO = 100.
Than 3280000 ISO exposure would just collect something like five electrons per pixel, at saturation. Metaphysics involved?
Best regards
Erik
In the Nikon D5 specs we see the camera reaches an amazing ISO 3.280.000. Of course I'm not expecting a high quality image with such low exposure, but the figure is so high I wonder how the Nikon D5 sensor's DR may behave.
- Let's assume at ISO 3.280.000 the camera provides just 2 stops of really usable photographic DR (less would be ridiculous), this is equivalent to 4 stops in the DxOMark DR scale.
- We also know that sensors become ISOless at high ISOs (typ. above ISO3200), i.e. they loose a whole stop of DR for every stop ISO is pushed in the high ISO range
With these constraints, the D5 sensor can only become truly ISO invariant at very high ISO values, which is something new. Otherwise it would have an astronomical DR at base ISO:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/nikond5.png)
Any thoughts? can this sensor be something really new to achieve these astronomical ISO figures in just one generation step?
Regards
-
Me asking same questions. Let's assume a full well capacity of say 150000 electrons/pixel.
That would be nice. However, according to Eric Fossum state of the art is around 3000e-/um^2. Most cameras today are around 2.2-2.4ke-/um^2 (e.g. A7SII, D750, D7200, a7RII), Canons typically less than 2k. The D5 at 150k would mean about 3600e-/um^2.
The only camera that gets close to that is the D810 at around 3300e-/um^2 and I always wondered what tricks they use to manage to achieve that.
Jack
-
Let's assume that Nikon did ISO by tag and that's it...
There would still not be enough photons recorded to make a very usable image from. There must be something else than a mere tagging going on to make the resulting image palatable. Either multiple readouts (CMOS can be non-destructively read-out multiple times to average the read-noise), or some sort of binning, or plain blurring (or salt and pepper noise removal) to reduce the photon shot noise from those few photons with read-noise combined.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There would still not be enough photons recorded to make a very usable image from.
usable for whom ? for a PJ shooting OOC JPG in a situation when even a web sized B/W photo worth a lot for as long as it is actually taken and ISO by tag starts for example (I exaggerate on purpose) from HI-1 ? you are not seriously thinking that D5 is intended for shooting landscapes @ nominal ISO 3million...
-
Hi Erik,
any particular reason you chose the Canon over the Sony 16-35 f4?
Are you not pleased with your ZA24-70, since you consider the Canon solution? Must say that I am very pleased with my ZA24-70 f2.8 on my A7R2 (and with the Sony 16-35 f4).
Hi Sean,
Presently I have two Canon lenses that I use with the latest Metabones (4T or something) adapter. The two lenses are the 24/3.5 TSE LII that is a manual focus lens, the other is the 16-35/4L. I also have plans to buy a 24-70/28 LII, but it has to wait as I got way over budget on both travel and camera buys in 2015.
The 16-35/4L works well on the A7rII. AF speed is OK, at least the way I am shooting. Would I shoot sports and stuff like that it would be slow.
The electronics coupling works decently well. But, I have seen some odd behaviour, even if it was infrequent. I had the camera locking up a couple of times (2-3) and happened that the lens did not stop on exposure. That could be because battery power dropping. Last time it happened, like two months ago it was just before battery went belly up.
This is my second Metabones, the first one was not reliable at all. So there are bad samples.
Best regards
Erik
-
To stay on topic..... I think that Nikon have nothing to envies to sony on the sensor side. The D4/D4s sensor is exceptional, you'll see the D5 sensor is even more exceptional. In the genetic of those sensors there is no Sony dna at all and I find the color response of the Nikon sensors more pleasing (imho).
-
I've read on Thom Hogan's site that both the D5 and D500 sensors have new CFAs. They are also both 20.9MP, and while the D5 sensor is clearly labeled as a Nikon design, there's no info on the D500 but it might as well be a scaled down version.
Sony seems to be able to scale up and down pixel wells based on density needed, so this might be something very similar.
-
To stay on topic..... I think that Nikon have nothing to envies to sony on the sensor side. The D4/D4s sensor is exceptional, you'll see the D5 sensor is even more exceptional. In the genetic of those sensors there is no Sony dna at all and I find the color response of the Nikon sensors more pleasing (imho).
Indeed, the colors I used to get from my D3 were probably the nicest I have ever seen among the cameras I have owned. And that is with a CFA filter than was supposed to be weak.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/albums/72157603669118868
I can only think of cost as the reason why Nikon isn't developping a high res version of their sensor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think it is for cost too. Renesas/Nikon design always been very good technology (paired with good processor and algorithms).
(http://www.hulyssbowman.com/Savings/Box.jpg)
We will see how DXO rate it but I'm a bit done with numbers :D
The pixel fashion is sooo 2010... now ppl will seek colour perfection !
-
...
Indeed, the colors I used to get from my D3 were probably the nicest I have ever seen among the cameras I have owned. And that is with a CFA filter than was supposed to be weak.
...
Bernard
I agree, the D3 was a very nice camera - i also like the colors about best.
I think the D810 is second best. ( better than the d800e)
-
I can't wait for used D3 to drop in price after this, always loved the feel and the colors from it. Early this year prices were very low, but I had too many expenses to afford one, and now that I have some more money they have gone back up to 2014 levels.
-
I agree, the D3 was a very nice camera - i also like the colors about best.
I think the D810 is second best. ( better than the d800e)
For me, the D3X colors were the best I've ever gotten, including with the D800. The D3/s colors were ok, but nothing special.
-
The pixel fashion is sooo 2010... now ppl will seek colour perfection !
Only to manipulate the colors and oversaturate the files later.
At least for landscapes...
-
I think it is for cost too. Renesas/Nikon design always been very good technology (paired with good processor and algorithms).
This is a pretty amazing image for ISO 51200, even considering it's a well-lighted subject to begin with And there's still one more stop to 102400 in the range of "supported" settings.