Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Josh-H on February 01, 2016, 05:00:24 am
-
http://blog.jholko.com/2016/02/01/canon-announce-the-eos-1dx-mkii/ (http://blog.jholko.com/2016/02/01/canon-announce-the-eos-1dx-mkii/)
In Brief:
Fastest shooting EOS-1D, capable of up to 14 fps* full-resolution RAW or JPEG, and up to 16 fps* in Live View mode with new Dual DIGIC 6+ Image Processors.
Achieves a maximum burst rate of up to 170 RAWs in continuous shooting at up to 16 fps, and 4K movies using CFast™ cards in the new CFast 2.0™** slot.
Experience less noise in higher ISO images via a new 20.2 Megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor, with an ISO range of 100–51200; expansion to ISO 409600.
Improved AF performance through 61-point High Density Reticular AF II system with 41 cross-type points, improved center point focusing sensitivity to -3 EV and compatibility down to f/8***.
Accurate subject tracking for stills and video with new EOS Intelligent Tracking and Recognition AF with 360,000-pixel metering sensor.
4K video (4096 x 2160) up to 60 fps (59.94), with an 8.8-Megapixel still frame grab**** in camera. Full 1080p HD capture up to 120 fps for slow motion.
Dual Pixel CMOS AF & Movie Servo AF for high speed, high frame rate and continuous autofocus during video shooting.
View and control high quality stills and videos via the 3.2-inch touch panel LCD with 1.62 million dots.
Increased resolution and fine detail, with lens aberration correction and diffraction correction via new in-camera Digital Lens Optimizer technology.
Built-in GPS***** provides geotag information including auto time syncing with Universal Time Code via satellites.
The new optional Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E8A is compatible with IEEE 802.11ac/n/a/g/b, supporting both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi® bands.
Durable and rugged magnesium alloy body with dust- and-weather resistance for demanding shooting situations.
-
Hi Josh,
I'm not sure that Canon has announced it yet, but there are reports and images of it on the internet.
BTW my info (http://digicame-info.com/2016/01/eos-1d-mark-ii.html) says it's capable of 16 frames/sec.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, if you want the official press release.. just sit tight for a few hours :D
I did mention 16FPS - but thats only in Live View mode.
-
Sounds like an excellent pro camera. I don't need one, not being a pro.
-
Sounds like an excellent pro camera. I don't need one, not being a pro.
optional wifi ...
-
optional wifi ...
But built-in GPS with a great looking prism... it reminds me of some of those Russian spy planes with radar antennas protuding out of the fuselage. ;)
If the rumored 800 mbps spec for video is confirmed, this may be one of the best 4K video cameras around.
For the rest it would seem that the still specs are pretty underwhelming, but real world AF performance will be by far the single most important characteristic of this camera for its intended usage, so the spec sheet pretty much tells us nothing. We can assume it will be better than anything before it, what we don't know is whether it will be as better/similar/worse than the D5. But then again, they are likely to be so close in overall performance that few people will consider switching, so the only question that matters is "is it better enough than the 1Dx to motivate current users to upgrade?".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But built-in GPS with a great looking prism... it reminds me of some of those Russian spy planes with radar antennas protuding out of the fuselage. ;)
If the rumored 800 mbps spec for video is confirmed, this may be one of the best 4K video cameras around.
For the rest it would seem that the still specs are pretty underwhelming, but real world AF performance will be by far the single most important characteristic of this camera for its intended usage, so the spec sheet pretty much tells us nothing. We can assume it will be better than anything before it, what we don't know is whether it will be as better/similar/worse than the D5. But then again, they are likely to be so close in overall performance that few people will consider switching, so the only question that matters is "is it better enough than the 1Dx to motivate current users to upgrade?".
Cheers,
Bernard
I can tell you having already seen the camera in action, held it and used it that real world ISO is probably close to 3 stops better than the current 1DX (which is still brilliant). AF is also improved considerably and IMO is the best I have ever tried or used. As a user of 2 1DX's in my day to day photography the update to ISO performance and AF make it a no brainer upgrade.
-
Josh,
3 stops better? Like in ISO51,200 as good as ISO6,400?
That would be very impressive.
Was that raw or jpg?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lets just clarify before we get carried away.. I am referring to what I call the usable ISO range. That is ISO 100 - ISO 12,000. After that I loose interest in shooting subjects I cant see in the dark.
-
Lets just clarify before we get carried away.. I am referring to what I call the usable ISO range. That is ISO 100 - ISO 12,000. After that I loose interest in shooting subjects I cant see in the dark.
Ok, but you still consider 6,400 on the 1Dx II as good as 800 on the 1Dx?
Is that raw vs raw, jpg vs raw or jpg vs jpg?
cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok, but you still consider 6,400 on the 1Dx II as good as 800 on the 1Dx?
Is that raw vs raw, jpg vs raw or jpg vs jpg?
cheers,
Bernard
Not sure I could have been clearer.. but hows this......
YES.
RAW vs. RAW.
-
I would like to know more about the new sensor and cleaning up the blacks, this hints at an improved DR.
When the 50mp D5 came out I wondered if that was the last throw of the dice for the old tech, I would expect to see any dr/sensor readout improvments to filter down fairly quickly to the 5.
I shoot with a 1D X at the moment but the 5 is becoming more suitable to my needs these days.
-
Not sure I could have been clearer.. but hows this......
YES.
RAW vs. RAW.
Thanks for the confirmation. Considering how surprising your findings are, I just wanted to be sure I had correctly understood them. ;)
We have never seen in the past an improvement of more than 1+ stops btwn successive generations of cameras, but Canon was able to pull 3 stops this time around.
Extremely impressive!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lets just clarify before we get carried away.. I am referring to what I call the usable ISO range. That is ISO 100 - ISO 12,000. After that I loose interest in shooting subjects I cant see in the dark.
That's interesting as I have held onto the 1D X because all things considered I haven't seen a better low light option out there.
-
Australia, as always, is the first at announcements.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBRTmOcmksT/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BBRTmOcmksT/)
(https://scontent-mxp1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/12558452_1129631290394442_996148158_n.jpg)
Specs will sure come soon once all the countries got in on the news.
-
Australia, as always, is the first at announcements.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBRTmOcmksT/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BBRTmOcmksT/)
(https://scontent-mxp1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/12558452_1129631290394442_996148158_n.jpg)
Specs will sure come soon once all the countries got in on the news.
Looks like we were at the same event Mark
Hope you sampled the olives they had.. they were fantastic :-)
-
Thanks for the confirmation. Considering how surprising your findings are, I just wanted to be sure I had correctly understood them. ;)
We have never seen in the past an improvement of more than 1+ stops btwn successive generations of cameras, but Canon was able to pull 3 stops this time around.
Extremely impressive!
Cheers,
Bernard
If Canon had improved the low light by 3 stops I think it would of been the headline as that would be a major sensor upgrade, something completely new and a knock out blow.
A bit of over enthusiasm which happens, I would like it to be 3 stops better, I doubt very much they achieved that.
-
Canon High ISO in the field Report (https://www.facebook.com/CanonAustralia/videos/10153860992049763/) Abraham doesn't mention stops - but if you doubt.. then just do your own testing in due course.
-
Canon High ISO in the field Report (https://www.facebook.com/CanonAustralia/videos/10153860992049763/) Abraham doesn't mention stops - but if you doubt.. then just do your own testing in due course.
Have i missed something ? the link is all about 4k video not raw high iso is that the correct link?
-
Have i missed something ? the link is all about 4k video not raw high iso is that the correct link?
Not that the video spec doesn't look useful for those that need it.
-
Experience less noise in higher ISO images via a new 20.2 Megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor, with an ISO range of 100–51200; expansion to ISO 409600.
I'm not a Canon shooter, nor would I be popping for a $5000+ camera, but to me this is the key. Canon has always had exceptionally functional cameras, but for the past 5 years or so the sensor development has lagged.
-
According to this http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2016/02/02/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-hands-on-review/#null the ADC is now on chip. This is good news if this is correct.
-
Here's hoping that the ISO improvement filters down to the small cameras soon. I could go for a 6D2.
-
According to this http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2016/02/02/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-hands-on-review/#null the ADC is now on chip. This is good news if this is correct.
Yes, very exciting news. We'll soon know what that brings in terms of DR, once the Raw files become available and can be decoded by RawDigger.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just saw there is a "heat pipe" in the design to help with 4K video and heat build up. May also help with high iso shooting also.
Paul C
-
According to this http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2016/02/02/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-hands-on-review/#null the ADC is now on chip. This is good news if this is correct.
I am curious about the details: putting ADC units on the sensor chip could mean (a) putting a few at the corners or the chip, to reduce the signal path compared with using off-board ADCs, or (b) putting one at the end of every column of photo-sites, as in the column-parallel ADC approach already adopted by everyone except Canon.
But perhaps I should not worry so much about the internal details, and instead wait to see the actual results about noise levels, pattern noise, dynamic range and so on.
UPDATE: This patent that Canon filed a few days ago might clarify:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09247161&IDKey=&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpdfpiw.uspto.gov%2F
It seems to be describing the column-parallel approach: see claim 9 towards the end.
-
On-sensor processing now done on sensor, confirmed by Canon in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsCTuDlIOD0
I have no doubt Canon will (as in the past) produce a white paper for those interested in such details.
-
Looks like we were at the same event Mark
Hope you sampled the olives they had.. they were fantastic :-)
Haha! Sorry, I'm not Mark! But I would've loved to attend that event and taste the olives.
-
Another Hands on Report - note the ISO REPORT (http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?b=1) ;D ;D ;D
One thing that is noticeable is the incredible lack of noise in the shadows, something that has always plagued DSLRs. Well the 1DX II solves that, and because of it frees us all to really push our images creatively during post processing whilst retaining the quality to compete at a top professional level. Check this, ISO 32,000 in grim weather, underexposed deliberately to darken background. Looks like ISO 8000 on the 1DX. Legend.
-
Another person confusing the words Canon and DSLRs. ;-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Another Hands on Report - note the ISO REPORT (http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?b=1) ;D ;D ;D
Hi Josh,
High ISO has mostly to do with under exposure, and the way that it is compensated or not. Compensation can be done by changing ADC gain, or it can be merely a tag in the EXIF for the Rawprocessor to apply an exposure push (digital amplification). We have yet to see in more detail what Canon has done.
So the important news about the new sensor is that it uses on sensor chip amplification, which should produce less noise than the previous method of pre-ADC and post-ADC amplification. Assuming they have used low noise components, we could see similar results as from the Sony modern sensors, adding some 2.5 stops of DR.
But underexposure still means that due to Photon shot noise statistics, High ISO exposures will be more noisy and with lower DR than properly exposed lower ISO shots.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am curious about the details: putting ADC units on the sensor chip could mean (a) putting a few at the corners or the chip, to reduce the signal path compared with using off-board ADCs, or (b) putting one at the end of every column of photo-sites, as in the column-parallel ADC approach already adopted by everyone except Canon.
But perhaps I should not worry so much about the internal details, and instead wait to see the actual results about noise levels, pattern noise, dynamic range and so on.
UPDATE: This patent that Canon filed a few days ago might clarify:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09247161&IDKey=&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpdfpiw.uspto.gov%2F
It seems to be describing the column-parallel approach: see claim 9 towards the end.
http://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1536
this is what Canon can do (even the text about a different, non production, sensor one can assume that they have manufacturing capability to do something like this for Canon 1Dx II sensor) =
Hirofumi Totsuka of Canon presented a 250 Mpixel APS-H size imager : 1.5 um pixel pitch (4 sharing) made in 0.13 um technology node. The device is consuming 1.97 W at full resolution 5fps. An interesting build-in feature of this sensor is the following : ALL pixel signals are converted by column SS-ADCs with a single ramp, but in front of the ADC, each column has its own PGA that can be switched to 4x or 1x gain, depending on the signal level. So when the pixels are sampled, a first check is done to look whether the signal is above or below a particular reference level, and then the right gain of the PGA is set to 1x or 4x. Simple method, but I think that the issues pop up in the reconstruction of the signal at the cross-over point between the two settings of the PGA.
-
Its been pretty quiet regarding the new camera ...... has anyone seen any new reviews or examples? Supposedly some pros have had them for awhile now but I can't find much evidence online.
-
Its been pretty quiet regarding the new camera ...... has anyone seen any new reviews or examples? Supposedly some pros have had them for awhile now but I can't find much evidence online.
The 1DXII is still displayed in major retailers WW as being available at the very end of April/beginning of May, which is also aligned with the initial Canon annoucement. It doesn't seem too surprising that actual (non paid by Canon) user reports aren't out yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds great, if you shoot action in low light and don't need to crop. Ideal for photojournalists and sports - which, I suppose, is Canon's main target.
My targets tend to either not move, or be small/far enough that I need the ability to crop significantly while retaining lots of pixels. would gladly sacrifice frame rate for it. Will wait for the 5Ds2, 1Dxs or A9...
-
Sounds great, if you shoot action in low light and don't need to crop. Ideal for photojournalists and sports - which, I suppose, is Canon's main target.
My targets tend to either not move, or be small/far enough that I need the ability to crop significantly while retaining lots of pixels. would gladly sacrifice frame rate for it. Will wait for the 5Ds2, 1Dxs or A9...
Great to hear that you are not interested in this camera.
Will you share with us a full list of all the bodies that don't meet your needs? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds great, if you shoot action in low light and don't need to crop. Ideal for photojournalists and sports - which, I suppose, is Canon's main target.
My targets tend to either not move, or be small/far enough that I need the ability to crop significantly while retaining lots of pixels. would gladly sacrifice frame rate for it. Will wait for the 5Ds2, 1Dxs or A9...
I know what you mean - I have really struggled to make a living from my Canon DSLR's over the past 14 years or so. Personally I'm hanging on for the 1DXs mk1V. Hopefully that will have 100mp, 25 fps, and ISO 750,000. If they can keep the price down too that would be a real bonus.
Jim
-
I know what you mean - I have really struggled to make a living from my Canon DSLR's over the past 14 years or so. Personally I'm hanging on for the 1DXs mk1V. Hopefully that will have 100mp, 25 fps, and ISO 750,000. If they can keep the price down too that would be a real bonus.
Jim
Don't need more than 1fps or ISO over 3200.
Shooting landscapes, I'd certainly struggle with a 20MP sensor these days, when printing 2.5m wide. Just like an action photographer would probably struggle with 4-5fps or less-than-ideal AF.
-
Its been pretty quiet regarding the new camera ...... has anyone seen any new reviews or examples? Supposedly some pros have had them for awhile now but I can't find much evidence online.
Id post my findings having lived with and used the camera.. (and paying for it- actually I purchased a 2nd one if that tells you anything) but seriously.. its such an anti Canon forum and there are so many Nikon fan boys waiting to pounce that it just isn't worth it. Id rather spend my time enjoying my photography.
-
Id post my findings having lived with and used the camera.. (and paying for it- actually I purchased a 2nd one if that tells you anything) but seriously.. its such an anti Canon forum and there are so many Nikon fan boys waiting to pounce that it just isn't worth it. Id rather spend my time enjoying my photography.
There is nothing like shooting.
I was under the impression that you were mostly into landscape, how is the 1DXII better than a 5Ds for your applications if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is nothing like shooting.
I was under the impression that you were mostly into landscape.
Cheers,
Bernard
Then you really don't know my photography. And the answer to your question is self evident.
-
Then you really don't know my photography. And the answer to your question is self evident.
Ah ok, I just spent 10 minutes going through the folios on your site... great images... 95% of them landscape. But I guess your site isn't representative of your work then. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Id post my findings having lived with and used the camera.. (and paying for it- actually I purchased a 2nd one if that tells you anything) but seriously.. its such an anti Canon forum and there are so many Nikon fan boys waiting to pounce that it just isn't worth it. Id rather spend my time enjoying my photography.
It's not an anti-Canon forum.
It's a landscape photography forum. Therefore, any gear is mostly going to be looked at with respect to its suitability for landscape and nature photography - a field in which high dynamic range and low-ISO image quality is of great importance.
For the last few years, Canon has fallen behind on that front, so has received a lot of criticism.. But, before that, when DR was more-or-less equal, it was Nikon who were getting bashed, firstly for lack of a full-frame body until the D3, then for lack of a high-resolution option (other than the overpriced D3x), while Canon was in the limelight due to the high-resolution (for the time) 1Ds3 and 5D2, which, for the first time, allowed us to ditch MF film.
Now that Canon's sensors appear to be in the ballpark again, with the 80D showing similar ISO-vs-DR to Nikon and Sony crop sensors, and the 1Dx2 appearing to use the same on-sensor ADC technology, that will likely change. Although it may be a while before that trickles around to landscape photographers, since the high-resolution 5Ds was only released last year and we'll have to wait until the 5Ds2 comes around with a new sensor.
-
It's a landscape photography forum.
It's not - it's a photography forum.
... with a host of subforums including at least two dedicated to 'landscape' as well as iPhone, computers, lighting, motion and even a coffee corner.
-
It's not - it's a photography forum.
... with a host of subforums including at least two dedicated to 'landscape' as well as iPhone, computers, lighting, motion and even a coffee corner.
There's 'landscape' in the title and web address for a reason...
-
There's 'landscape' in the title and web address for a reason...
If one were to follow your logic and powers of deduction then it would also follow that there's a defining reason why my name is that of The Lord.
Stop being silly.
-
If one were to follow your logic and powers of deduction then it would also follow that there's a defining reason why my name is that of The Lord.
Stop being silly.
It's called 'Luminous Landscape'. Most of the articles are about landscape, nature and other non-action photography, when they're not specifically about gear (which also tends to be reviewed from a landscape/non-action perspective). There are two forums dedicated to landscape and nature photography, and precisely none dedicated to any other type of photography.
-
If one were to follow your logic and powers of deduction then it would also follow that there's a defining reason why my name is that of The Lord.
Stop being silly.
Manoli,
Be nice. We have a reputation for courtesy in this forum. So don't get too personal, and don't ask for the impossible :)
Edmund
-
Id post my findings having lived with and used the camera.. (and paying for it- actually I purchased a 2nd one if that tells you anything) but seriously.. its such an anti Canon forum and there are so many Nikon fan boys waiting to pounce that it just isn't worth it. Id rather spend my time enjoying my photography.
Hey Josh, forget all the haters, what is your experience with the camera? Hows the files? Increased DR? Have you pulled an 8 mgpxl still from the video footage like they said is possible? have you used Autofocus while filming video? Hope you can shed some light for us.
-
Hey Josh, forget all the haters, what is your experience with the camera? Hows the files? Increased DR? Have you pulled an 8 mgpxl still from the video footage like they said is possible? have you used Autofocus while filming video? Hope you can shed some light for us.
I am working on a review of the camera - stand by for that....Ill just say for now...
The files from the 1DX MKII are superb. The increased ISO capabilities are pretty incredible and I think the vast majority of people will be pretty amazed at how clean the files are. I have not pulled an 8mpx. still from video as that isn't my cup of tea. I have only dabbled with the auto focus with video (I'm not a video guy). For stills though its the best AF of any camera I have ever used. Think of the camera as a hot rod version of the original 1DX. A few more pixels, vastly improved high ISO capabilities, better AF and I really appreciate the extra cross types out to the edges for wildlife, a couple of extra frames per second, and better DR.
-
Please do post your review or a link to your review when it is ready. I am a Canon user with many lenses I like, my workhorse is the 6D, which is fine because I have been shooting mostly manual focus or situations that can use simple AF.
-
I am curious to see a showdown between the 1Dx Mk II and the Nikon D5.
Even though I recently switched to Nikon, I still like Canon products (well, many of them). In looking at the specs online, I think Canon 1Dx Mk II is going to be the better overall buy than the Nikon D5. At least as far as video capabilities go.
As far as image quality/low ISO, I'm pretty sure the Nikon D5 will be ahead of the newer Canon, most likely only negligibly, but ahead nonetheless. Canon will have the edge in FPS, but I think Nikon's autofocus system is going to be better (marginally), its image quality will be better (marginally), and its high ISO capabilities will be better (probably marginally as well).
I expect the Canon 1Dx Mk II To be significantly better in its 4K video capabilities. Therefore, if any photographer is going to use 4K, to any appreciable degree, the 1Dx II will be the choice to get.
If, however, 4K video capabilities are only of anecdotal interest, I think the Nikon D5 will eclipse the 1Dx Mk II in extreme action/low light situations. But that's just a guess.
It will be nice to see Canon's flagship camera at or near the top. Right now, quality wise, this is the current state of competition among them:
- Of the top 10 FF cameras being made, Nikon has 5, Sony 4, and Canon's only entry (its best, the 5DSr) is at the bottom :-[
- Of the top 10 APS-C cameras being made, Canon doesn't have a single entry in the top 10, while Nikon owns the top 5, straight, with Sony and Pentax splitting 2 and 3 apiece, respectively.
(And that doesn't even include the recent D500 which is about to be released ...)
- Prime lens-wise, Canon only has 2 of the top-10 prime lenses (the 400 and 600, which don't break the top 5), while Nikon has 4 (the 200, 300, 400, and 600, two of which are in the top 5), with Leica and Zeiss each having 2 as well.
- Canon does have some awesome zoom lenses, with 4 out of the top 10, including the class-leading 200-400, with Nikon having 4 also, with Sigma making 2 of the best zooms out there.
(Sources: SenScore (http://"http://www.senscore.org") | LenScore (http://"http://www.lenscore.org"))
Again, I will be very eager to see the qualitative difference between the two flagships, after the full reviews/tests get made across the board.
(I think it is already a foregone conclusion that the D500 will blow the 7D II out of the water ...)
Jack
-
John a few observations.
As far as image quality/low ISO, I'm pretty sure the Nikon D5 will be ahead of the newer Canon, most likely only negligibly, but ahead nonetheless.
Whilst its speculation to compare - I would disagree with this based on my experience with both cameras at this point in time. My thoughts might change as I get more time with the D5 (having only handled and used this camera very briefly). 1DX MKII I feel at this point has the edge in the mid range ISO area 800-6400. Which really is where it matters most. I think the D5 will have the edge at the very top ISO's.
Canon will have the edge in FPS, but I think Nikon's autofocus system is going to be better (marginally), its image quality will be better (marginally), and its high ISO capabilities will be better (probably marginally as well).
We know Canon beats the Nikon by 2FPS. Neither here nor there. I suspect though Canon also has the edge in Auto focus, Again based on my limited time with both cameras. The Nikon seemed to hunt more in back light situations than the Canon.
I expect the Canon 1Dx Mk II To be significantly better in its 4K video capabilities. Therefore, if any photographer is going to use 4K, to any appreciable degree, the 1Dx II will be the choice to get.
Agreed
Of the top 10 FF cameras being made, Nikon has 5, Sony 4, and Canon's only entry (its best, the 5DSr) is at the bottom :-[
These ratings that only take into account sensor scores are like only measuring horsepower in a car. Its not the full picture. When Im lying in the snow in -20 in a blizzard photographing a back lit subject in low light with a long lens. Thats when the real measure of the camera is found for me and in my experience.
Just some thoughts and observations based on my initial experiences with the D5 (limited experience) and the 1DX MKII (still limited at this point).
-
John a few observations.
Whilst its speculation to compare - I would disagree with this based on my experience with both cameras at this point in time. My thoughts might change as I get more time with the D5 (having only handled and used this camera very briefly). 1DX MKII I feel at this point has the edge in the mid range ISO area 800-6400. Which really is where it matters most. I think the D5 will have the edge at the very top ISO's.
We know Canon beats the Nikon by 2FPS. Neither here nor there. I suspect though Canon also has the edge in Auto focus, Again based on my limited time with both cameras. The Nikon seemed to hunt more in back light situations than the Canon.
Agreed
These ratings that only take into account sensor scores are like only measuring horsepower in a car. Its not the full picture. When Im lying in the snow in -20 in a blizzard photographing a back lit subject in low light with a long lens. Thats when the real measure of the camera is found for me and in my experience.
Just some thoughts and observations based on my initial experiences with the D5 (limited experience) and the 1DX MKII (still limited at this point).
Appreciate the feedback sir.
Since you're using both, I am anxious to learn of your opinions over time.
When I first switched to Nikon, I was more comfortable with my Canon ergonomics, and didn't fully-adjust to my D810 for awhile.
Now, after several months, I am quite pleased with the handling of the D810, though I would welcome some changes that I mentioned in the other thread.
Anyway, after you get used to the D5, and use it for enough time for it to be second nature as well, I would welcome reading your feeback.
Your photography is exceptional, so appreciate you taking the time to post. (The fact that you're being given these cameras to test speaks for itself.)
Jack
-
As far as image quality/low ISO, I'm pretty sure the Nikon D5 will be ahead of the newer Canon, most likely only negligibly, but ahead nonetheless.
I would expect the opposite.
Canon has finally incorporated A/D conversion onto the sensor itself, and is using this technology in the 1Dx2 sensor. The other sensor they used it on - the 80D - showed immediate and drastic image quality improvements over its predecessor. This is evident on this chart here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2070D,Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D). As you can see, the ISO-vs-DR curve - representing the SNR at any given ISO - is much more linear and no longer plateaus at lower ISOs, while remaining the same at higher ISOs. This indicates a much lower read noise contribution to overall noise; almost all the noise is due to photon shot noise.
On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII). The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.
For the first time in years, Canon will likely have an offering which exceeds its Nikon counterpart in image quality.
Canon will have the edge in FPS,
That's already announced.
but I think Nikon's autofocus system is going to be better (marginally),
Why would you think that? Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable.
I expect the Canon 1Dx Mk II To be significantly better in its 4K video capabilities. Therefore, if any photographer is going to use 4K, to any appreciable degree, the 1Dx II will be the choice to get.
If, however, 4K video capabilities are only of anecdotal interest, I think the Nikon D5 will eclipse the 1Dx Mk II in extreme action/low light situations. But that's just a guess.
For this segment of the market, video is a very big thing - likely even bigger than the ability to shoot at ISO 102400.
It's a photojournalists camera. Increasingly, photojournalists need to shoot video clips as well as stills, as more and more magazines and newspapers move online, or even to an online-only model.
In future years, a journalism-oriented camera which doesn't shoot top-quality video is going to get increasingly left behind.
(I think it is already a foregone conclusion that the D500 will blow the 7D II out of the water ...)
If it didn't, that would be a problem. It's a pro-oriented body - essentially a D5 with a crop sensor, for applications where pixel density matters - against a high-end, but hardly top-level body released more than 18 months earlier.
-
Hi,
I guess we will know more when Bill Claff or DxO have data for the 1DX MKII.
With regard to the 7DII, a new version may be around the corner, I guess now that Canon has a new CMOS sensor in the 80D.
Best regards
Erik
I would expect the opposite.
Canon has finally incorporated A/D conversion onto the sensor itself, and is using this technology in the 1Dx2 sensor. The other sensor they used it on - the 80D - showed immediate and drastic image quality improvements over its predecessor. This is evident on this chart here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2070D,Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D). As you can see, the ISO-vs-DR curve - representing the SNR at any given ISO - is much more linear and no longer plateaus at lower ISOs, while remaining the same at higher ISOs. This indicates a much lower read noise contribution to overall noise; almost all the noise is due to photon shot noise.
On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII). The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.
For the first time in years, Canon will likely have an offering which exceeds its Nikon counterpart in image quality.
That's already announced.
Why would you think that? Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable.
For this segment of the market, video is a very big thing - likely even bigger than the ability to shoot at ISO 102400.
It's a photojournalists camera. Increasingly, photojournalists need to shoot video clips as well as stills, as more and more magazines and newspapers move online, or even to an online-only model.
In future years, a journalism-oriented camera which doesn't shoot top-quality video is going to get increasingly left behind.
If it didn't, that would be a problem. It's a pro-oriented body - essentially a D5 with a crop sensor, for applications where pixel density matters - against a high-end, but hardly top-level body released more than 18 months earlier.
-
I would expect the opposite.
Well, bully for you.
Your expectations are yours.
Mine are that Canon has under-delivered time and again.
On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII). The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.
How laughable.
You're comparing the 80D's "improvements" to Canon's own previous shortcomings ::)
Why don't you try comparing Canon's new 80D to Nikon's old D7200, HERE (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200), so you can be on point as to a discussion about how Canon's new might compare to Nikon's new ;)
Canon's new still can't "get it up" to where an old Nikon is, so as I said, Canon under-delivers, yet again.
On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII). The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.
Once again, you're being ridiculous. You're now comparing Nikon to Nikon (and Sony).
The subject, sir, is Nikon compared to Canon :o
And HERE (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5) is that comparison of old.
As I said, I think they will be comparable, but that Nikon will have the edge. Time will tell.
For the first time in years, Canon will likely have an offering which exceeds its Nikon counterpart in image quality.
Based on all of the current, relevant facts and comparisons (not Canon vs. Canon, but Canon vs. Nikon), I doubt it.
Why would you think that? Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable.
Do I need your permission to think something?
I said I think Nikon's AF system would be better than Canon's, marginally, and then you asked me "why" I would think that ... and then went on to say how Nikon's AF was better than Canon's last time too, albeit marginally :-[
Based on the specs, I think the same thing will happen again this year.
For this segment of the market, video is a very big thing - likely even bigger than the ability to shoot at ISO 102400.
It's a photojournalists camera. Increasingly, photojournalists need to shoot video clips as well as stills, as more and more magazines and newspapers move online, or even to an online-only model.
It's also a wildlife photographer's camera.
In future years, a journalism-oriented camera which doesn't shoot top-quality video is going to get increasingly left behind.
True.
If it didn't, that would be a problem. It's a pro-oriented body - essentially a D5 with a crop sensor, for applications where pixel density matters - against a high-end, but hardly top-level body released more than 18 months earlier.
Canon's 7D Mark II and its brand new 80D BOTH FALL SHORT (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200) of the old Nikon D7200 ... and I can't imagine Nikon's not elevating beyond its own elder/paler model with the highly-anticipated, brand new "has everything on it" D500.
So you think what you want to think and, if it's okay with you, I will think what I want to think.
But at least put up the appropriate graphs ... and you may find yourself drawing different conclusions ;)
Jack
-
How laughable.
You're comparing the 80D's "improvements" to Canon's own previous shortcomings ::)
Why don't you try comparing Canon's new 80D to Nikon's old D7200, HERE (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200), so you can be on point as to a discussion about how Canon's new might compare to Nikon's new ;)
Canon's new still can't "get it up" to where an old Nikon is, so as I said, Canon under-delivers, yet again.
Might I remind you that Canon's crop sensor is 1.6x crop, whereas Nikon's is 1.5x crop?
Nikon's crop sensor is 14% larger than Canon's. Of course it's going to perform better.
D5 vs 1Dx2 is different. The sensors are the same size. Moreover, while Canon has updated their sensor to on-chip A/D conversion, Nikon appears to have gone backwards.
Once again, you're being ridiculous. You're now comparing Nikon to Nikon (and Sony).
The subject, sir, is Nikon compared to Canon :o
And HERE (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5) is that comparison of old.
As I said, I think they will be comparable, but that Nikon will have the edge. Time will tell.
Based on all of the current, relevant facts and comparisons (not Canon vs. Canon, but Canon vs. Nikon), I doubt it.
Nice. You're comparing a brand-new Nikon to a four-year-old Canon based on technology that everyone already knows is deficient compared to the best in sensor tech. You really have no grasp of logic, do you?
We're comparing change between generations of sensors - in Nikon's case based on measured results, in Canon's case based on what we know they've done technology-wise in the new sensor, and extrapolating from another range of Canon sensors that also uses the new technology.
In Nikon's case, the D5 falls more than a stop short at low ISO compared to the D4s. This is measured fact. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5)
The same chart also shows that the D5's high-ISO performance is about half a stop better than that of the D4s. But the same set of data also shows that the D5's sensor is no better at high ISO than the Sony A7r2. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) Therefore, Nikon has sacrificed low-ISO performance, but this sacrifice has not gained them a lead at high ISO against other sensors which have not made this sacrifice.
In Canon's case, the 1Dx falls just over a stop short of the D4 (released around the same time) at low ISO, while matching it almost exactly at high ISO (apart from the ones pushed in firmware). (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D4) But that was produced using the old Canon off-sensor ADC. Look at what happens when you add two years of progress, plus an on-sensor ADC, to a Canon sensor. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) It's gained over a stop at low ISO, and the relationship between ISO and DR has become linear - just like all the other sensors with on-sensor ADC. The 1Dx2 has had four years of refinement over the 1Dx, and also uses on-sensor ADC.
Now look at the new D5 vs the four-year-old 1Dx. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5) Low-ISO performance is more-or-less identical. The D5 is just over half a stop better at high ISO.
But that's against a four-year-old sensor. The new 1Dx2 sensor uses on-chip ADC. The 80D vs 70D comparison shows that this linearises the lower part of the graph to match the upper ISO portion. Just applying that change - and nothing else - to the old 1Dx sensor would net a DR of over 11.5 at ISO 100 by their scale (which uses a 20:1 SNR as the noise threshold), putting it well over the measured 9.36 of the D5. Even applying a much more conservative 1-stop improvement at low ISO, that puts it at 10.07 - again, better than the Nikon. As for high-ISO performance, it's almost impossible for Canon not to have made a half-stop improvement in four years, which would match the new Nikon.
Need I make it any clearer? Spell it out syllable-by-syllable in capital letters?
Do I need your permission to think something?
I said I think Nikon's AF system would be better than Canon's, marginally, and then you asked me "why" I would think that ... and then went on to say how Nikon's AF was better than Canon's last time too, albeit marginally :-[
Based on the specs, I think the same thing will happen again this year.
When did I say that the D4's AF beat the 1Dx's? The D4s beats the 1Dx. But it's also two years newer, and is a model Canon didn't release a competing model against.
It's also a wildlife photographer's camera.
It's also a camera for a lot of action-related things - most of which are essentially photojournalism in some form. Whether the thing you're shooting is a high-speed car chase, a soccer match or a cheetah running down an impala, the output is usually to media of some form, and, increasingly, that also means video output for web or broadcast, not just newspaper and magazine prints.
-
Might I remind you that Canon's crop sensor is 1.6x crop, whereas Nikon's is 1.5x crop?
Nikon's crop sensor is 14% larger than Canon's. Of course it's going to perform better.
Might I remind you that better = better, does it not?
D5 vs 1Dx2 is different. The sensors are the same size. Moreover, while Canon has updated their sensor to on-chip A/D conversion, Nikon appears to have gone backwards.
I disagree.
I am pretty sure Nikon leadership is smarter than you.
As I showed on another thread the D810 owns the low ISO area (or did at its release), and Nikon is therefore letting the D810/D900 handle the "low ISO fans" ... while creating the D5 to own the high-action/high-ISO department ...
Nikon hasn't "gone backwards," what they've done is create two different, specialized tools, each leading the pack in their respective areas, as this graph (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810) shows ;)
Nikon owns the base ISO and the high ISO territory ... while Canon is "champion of the middle" :-\
We're comparing change between generations of sensors - in Nikon's case based on measured results, in Canon's case based on what we know they've done technology-wise in the new sensor, and extrapolating from another range of Canon sensors that also uses the new technology.
"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
You are projecting some "new" leadership in Canon, who (in fact) now has only 1 camera in the top 10 of two classes (the 5DSr), which means Canon only occupies 1 spot in 20 available spaces, and it occupies the bottom rung of FF DSLRs at the moment ... while not a single Canon shows on the top 10 of APS-Cs ...
Nikon, meanwhile, owns 10 of 20 possible "top spots" in DSLR camera positions ...
My thinking is Canon will fall short again, based on the overwhelming evidence.
In Nikon's case, the D5 falls more than a stop short at low ISO compared to the D4s. This is measured fact. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4S,Nikon%20D5)
The same chart also shows that the D5's high-ISO performance is about half a stop better than that of the D4s. But the same set of data also shows that the D5's sensor is no better at high ISO than the Sony A7r2. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) Therefore, Nikon has sacrificed low-ISO performance, but this sacrifice has not gained them a lead at high ISO against other sensors which have not made this sacrifice.
In Canon's case, the 1Dx falls just over a stop short of the D4 (released around the same time) at low ISO, while matching it almost exactly at high ISO (apart from the ones pushed in firmware). (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D4) But that was produced using the old Canon off-sensor ADC. Look at what happens when you add two years of progress, plus an on-sensor ADC, to a Canon sensor. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) It's gained over a stop at low ISO, and the relationship between ISO and DR has become linear - just like all the other sensors with on-sensor ADC. The 1Dx2 has had four years of refinement over the 1Dx, and also uses on-sensor ADC.
Now look at the new D5 vs the four-year-old 1Dx. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5) Low-ISO performance is more-or-less identical. The D5 is just over half a stop better at high ISO.
Again, I think you are failing to realize what Nikon is doing: leaving base ISO scores to the D810 (and, soon, D900), while making the D5 the tool of choice in the high ISO world ...
You are stuck in the insanity of believing "one" camera will ever be "the best at everything" ... which isn't going to happen.
Nikon is committed to producing the best base ISO camera, which it did, and producing the best high ISO camera, which it did, leaving the rest to be mediocre.
The D500 will be the best APS-C, the D5 the best high-ISO/action FF, and the D900 will once again be the best base ISO FF (that is my prediction).
The same chart also shows that the D5's high-ISO performance is about half a stop better than that of the D4s. But the same set of data also shows that the D5's sensor is no better at high ISO than the Sony A7r2. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) Therefore, Nikon has sacrificed low-ISO performance, but this sacrifice has not gained them a lead at high ISO against other sensors which have not made this sacrifice.
In Canon's case, the 1Dx falls just over a stop short of the D4 (released around the same time) at low ISO, while matching it almost exactly at high ISO (apart from the ones pushed in firmware). (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D4) But that was produced using the old Canon off-sensor ADC. Look at what happens when you add two years of progress, plus an on-sensor ADC, to a Canon sensor. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII) It's gained over a stop at low ISO, and the relationship between ISO and DR has become linear - just like all the other sensors with on-sensor ADC. The 1Dx2 has had four years of refinement over the 1Dx, and also uses on-sensor ADC.
Now look at the new D5 vs the four-year-old 1Dx. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5) Low-ISO performance is more-or-less identical. The D5 is just over half a stop better at high ISO.
But that's against a four-year-old sensor. The new 1Dx2 sensor uses on-chip ADC. The 80D vs 70D comparison shows that this linearises the lower part of the graph to match the upper ISO portion. Just applying that change - and nothing else - to the old 1Dx sensor would net a DR of over 11.5 at ISO 100 by their scale (which uses a 20:1 SNR as the noise threshold), putting it well over the measured 9.36 of the D5. Even applying a much more conservative 1-stop improvement at low ISO, that puts it at 10.07 - again, better than the Nikon. As for high-ISO performance, it's almost impossible for Canon not to have made a half-stop improvement in four years, which would match the new Nikon.
Need I make it any clearer? Spell it out syllable-by-syllable in capital letters?
No. You just need to wake up and smell the coffee ... and finally recognize what's really happening (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/coffee.png)
It's also a camera for a lot of action-related things - most of which are essentially photojournalism in some form. Whether the thing you're shooting is a high-speed car chase, a soccer match or a cheetah running down an impala, the output is usually to media of some form, and, increasingly, that also means video output for web or broadcast, not just newspaper and magazine prints.
You said, "Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable," which was essentially parroting what I said about the new AF systems: Nikon's will be better again (and it is), though only marginally.
It's also a camera for a lot of action-related things - most of which are essentially photojournalism in some form. Whether the thing you're shooting is a high-speed car chase, a soccer match or a cheetah running down an impala, the output is usually to media of some form, and, increasingly, that also means video output for web or broadcast, not just newspaper and magazine prints.
We agree on the video disparity favoring Canon ... only.
On the rest, we disagree. Completely.
Do carry on though :D
Jack
-
Might I remind you that better = better, does it not?
In this case, no it does not. I'm using the performance of the crop sensor to gauge the performance of Canon's on-chip ADC, not the performance of the sensor as a whole.
In this case, better = better per unit area of sensor, not per whole sensor. Otherwise you could just say that medium format trumps everything, by virtue of being larger (practicality and lens availability aside), despite CCD sensors being, area-for-area, worse than almost any CMOS sensor currently on the market.
I disagree.
I am pretty sure Nikon leadership is smarter than you.
You haven't the slightest clue who I am, so don't presume anything.
As I showed on another thread the D810 owns the low ISO area (or did at its release), and Nikon is therefore letting the D810/D900 handle the "low ISO fans" ... while creating the D5 to own the high-action/high-ISO department ...
You haven't shown anything except empty rhetoric. Where is the data that backs up your claims?
So far, none of the graphs you've posted actually back up anything you've said - all of them have basically compared the D5 to old Canon cameras, then somehow drawn the conclusion that, since they're better than the old cameras, they're also better than the new one.
Nikon hasn't "gone backwards," what they've done is create two different, specialized tools, each leading the pack in their respective areas, as this graph (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810) shows ;)
Then explain why the D4s has measurably better low-ISO performance than the D5, while only losing by half a stop at high ISO. You'd expect at least a half-stop improvement in several years of sensor evolution anyway, so it's hardly that they've sacrificed ISO 100-1600 just to gain half a stop at high ISO. That's going backwards by any measure.
Like every other company, Nikon is trying to maximise its profits, not create the best sensor or the best camera. This means making optimal use of its resources.
Nikon does not make its own sensors - it designs them and gets someone else to make them. On-sensor ADCs add an extra layer of complexity to the sensor. More complex sensors require more advanced fab plants, which sell their services for a higher price and so cost Nikon more money. These sensors are necessary for a non-action camera where detail is everything. For a low-resolution action camera, which primarily lives at ISO 800 and up, it just makes for a much-more-expensive sensor without greatly benefiting its primary purpose. So, skimp on the unnecessary parts of the sensor and pocket the change.
Nikon owns the base ISO and the high ISO territory ... while Canon is "champion of the middle" :-\
Your graph doesn't show anything about the 1Dx2, nor can anything about the 1Dx2 be inferred from it. All it shows is that a brand-new Nikon sensor beats the 1Dx and 5Ds at high ISO (being about the same at low ISO) and the D810 beats both at low ISO.
We are looking at the performance of the 1Dx2 as compared to the D5, not the 1Dx and not the 5Ds. The 1Dx2 sensor is not the 1Dx sensor, and not the 5Ds sensor.
All we know for sure about the sensor at the moment is that:
- It is a 20MP sensor
- It uses on-sensor A/D conversion
Also, from being 4 years newer, it would be reasonable to assume that high-ISO performance has been improved significantly - say, by about a stop - as this is a general trend that occurs with every camera.
It is demonstrated, from the 70D/80D example, that on-sensor ADC linearises the low-ISO SNRs to match the relationship seen in the higher ISOs. If that were applied to the 1Dx sensor, even with no other changes, it would already give a DR of 11-12 stops (by the 20:1 SNR threshold). So, just that one change, without any other upgrade to the four-year-old sensor, would have the sensor beating the D5 below ISO 800 and matching it up to 1600. Then it only needs half a stop of high-ISO improvement - very reasonable over 4 years - to beat the D5 at high ISO as well.
There's almost no way the D5 can have a better sensor than the 1Dx2, assuming the measurements on the website are correct and what Canon has told us about the new sensor is also correct.
"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
You are projecting some "new" leadership in Canon, who (in fact) now has only 1 camera in the top 10 of two classes (the 5DSr), which means Canon only occupies 1 spot in 20 available spaces, and it occupies the bottom rung of FF DSLRs at the moment ... while not a single Canon shows on the top 10 of APS-Cs ...
Nikon, meanwhile, owns 10 of 20 possible "top spots" in DSLR camera positions ...
I'm not projecting anything onto Canon. I'm merely pointing out what Canon has already demonstrated in the recent 80D - a huge improvement in low-ISO SNR. The numbers are there in front of you, for everyone to see. And the new 1Dx2 sensor uses the same technology, so one would expect the same jump in performance.
Past statistics are meaningless when one side introduces technology that significantly alters their cameras. They hold some weight when you're talking about slow, evolutionary change, but the shift to on-chip A/D conversion is not evolutionary change.
Just look back a few years and see how badly Nikon sensors were trailing Canon. Canon had the 1Ds2, 1Ds3 and 5D2, while Nikon couldn't even produce a full-frame sensor, or a half-decent CMOS. If you made a list back then, pretty much all the top sensors were Canon. Then Nikon got their hands on Exmor and everything changed.
My thinking is Canon will fall short again, based on the overwhelming evidence.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.
Again, I think you are failing to realize what Nikon is doing: leaving base ISO scores to the D810 (and, soon, D900), while making the D5 the tool of choice in the high ISO world ...
They're not doing that at all. They're segmenting cameras by application, not by ISO capability. That would be a pretty dumb way to segment cameras, since action photographers still shoot ISO 100-400 in good light, and non-action photographers still shoot high ISO when shooting non-action in dark conditions.
You are stuck in the insanity of believing "one" camera will ever be "the best at everything" ... which isn't going to happen.
I never said that. Quit putting words into my mouth so you can argue against straw men.
Nikon is committed to producing the best base ISO camera, which it did, and producing the best high ISO camera, which it did, leaving the rest to be mediocre.
The D500 will be the best APS-C, the D5 the best high-ISO/action FF, and the D900 will once again be the best base ISO FF (that is my prediction).
Are you a Nikon executive?
If not, how do you know what Nikon is committed to producing? All that can be assumed is that Nikon is committed to maximising its profit.
Even if they were committed to producing the best of everything doesn't mean that they are actually going to achieve it. There are other companies out there who are equally keen on beating Nikon, and have many times the resources (Sony and Canon).
No. You just need to wake up and smell the coffee ... and finally recognize what's really happening (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/coffee.png)
Either you have no grasp on logic, or no grasp on mathematics.
You said, "Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable," which was essentially parroting what I said about the new AF systems: Nikon's will be better again (and it is), though only marginally.
What do you think 'D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable' means? IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE EQUAL, not that the D4 is marginally better than the 1Dx.
The D4s doesn't count. Canon didn't bother releasing a competitor against it.
In other words:
D4 = 1Dx
D4s = no Canon equivalent
D5 = 1Dx2
On what basis are you saying Nikon's will be better, anyway? There's no track record of one company's action camera having better AF than the other's, when both were released around the same time. D3 = 1D3, D3s = 1D4, D4 = 1Dx, so it's likely that D5 = 1Dx2.
We agree on the video disparity favoring Canon ... only.
On the rest, we disagree. Completely.
Do carry on though :D
Jack
You can't argue with fanboys.
For the record, I primarily shoot Sony.
-
It just struck me that Canon marketing is still hoping that not only people dong action photography will purchase 1DXII bodies, while Nikon appears to have a more realistic understanding of the market in 2016.
Nikon has focused all the improvements of the D5 on the areas that matter for action, starting with AF on moving subjects and they have focused their pre-release marketing exclusively on photographers doing action (including wildlife).
On the other hand Canon has focused the improvements of their flagship body also on low ISO DR improvement (of limted falue for action) and extended their marketing to also include photographers, such as our very own Josh, who are mostly known as landscape photographers.
I would expect the 1DXII to be a better generic tool while the D5 will shine as a speciality camera.
Future will tell who was right here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It just struck me that Canon marketing is still hoping that not only people dong action photography will purchase 1DXII bodies, while Nikon appears to have a more realistic understanding of the market in 2016.
Nikon has focused all the improvements of the D5 on the areas that matter for action, starting with AF on moving subjects and they have focused their pre-release marketing exclusively on photographers doing action (including wildlife).
On the other hand Canon has focused the improvements of their flagship body also on low ISO DR improvement (of limted falue for action) and extended their marketing to also include photographers, such as our very own Josh, who are mostly known as landscape photographers.
I would expect the 1DXII to be a better generic tool while the D5 will shine as a speciality camera.
Future will tell who was right here.
Cheers,
Bernard
Canon may have done that, but I'm expecting the 1Dx2 to eclipse the D5, outshining it in some areas and equalling it in all the others.
The sensor should outshine the D5 at low ISO and there's no reason to think it won't at least equal it at high ISO (half a stop of improvement in high ISO performance in 4 years is a more than reasonable expectation).
It shoots 2fps faster.
It is likely to perform better in video.
AF performance should be very similar - historically, Canon and Nikon action bodies released at the same time have had very similar AF performance.
Just because Canon's sensor will likely allow it to be a better low-ISO and general-purpose tool doesn't mean that the D5 will automatically be a better specialty fast-action camera - it's possible to be both at the same time.
Canon's been out of the sensor game for the last four years due to lack of an on-chip ADC, but the bodies have always been more than competitive with Nikon. Now that they appear to have fixed the sensor (and Nikon appears to have opted for a cheaper option), and retain their longstanding advantage in video, there's no reason the 1Dx2 won't entirely eclipse the D5.
-
In this case, no it does not. I'm using the performance of the crop sensor to gauge the performance of Canon's on-chip ADC, not the performance of the sensor as a whole.
You are insane. Better at every measurement = better at every measurement.
In this case, better = better per unit area of sensor, not per whole sensor. Otherwise you could just say that medium format trumps everything, by virtue of being larger (practicality and lens availability aside), despite CCD sensors being, area-for-area, worse than almost any CMOS sensor currently on the market.
No. Medium format is unwieldy and only better at low ISO.
That is why no one uses them in Africa, for sports, etc.
You haven't the slightest clue who I am, so don't presume anything.
That is only because you lack the cajones to sign your name to what you say. :-[
You haven't shown anything except empty rhetoric. Where is the data that backs up your claims?
So far, none of the graphs you've posted actually back up anything you've said - all of them have basically compared the D5 to old Canon cameras, then somehow drawn the conclusion that, since they're better than the old cameras, they're also better than the new one.
Again, you are insane.
You laud the 80D and yet it is the "new camera" that falls short of the elder D7200. (The graph clearly showed this.)
Why don't we discontinue this waste of time and see what the real numbers come out to?
Then explain why the D4s has measurably better low-ISO performance than the D5, while only losing by half a stop at high ISO. You'd expect at least a half-stop improvement in several years of sensor evolution anyway, so it's hardly that they've sacrificed ISO 100-1600 just to gain half a stop at high ISO. That's going backwards by any measure.
Like every other company, Nikon is trying to maximise its profits, not create the best sensor or the best camera. This means making optimal use of its resources.
Nikon does not make its own sensors - it designs them and gets someone else to make them. On-sensor ADCs add an extra layer of complexity to the sensor. More complex sensors require more advanced fab plants, which sell their services for a higher price and so cost Nikon more money. These sensors are necessary for a non-action camera where detail is everything. For a low-resolution action camera, which primarily lives at ISO 800 and up, it just makes for a much-more-expensive sensor without greatly benefiting its primary purpose. So, skimp on the unnecessary parts of the sensor and pocket the change.
Your graph doesn't show anything about the 1Dx2, nor can anything about the 1Dx2 be inferred from it. All it shows is that a brand-new Nikon sensor beats the 1Dx and 5Ds at high ISO (being about the same at low ISO) and the D810 beats both at low ISO.
We are looking at the performance of the 1Dx2 as compared to the D5, not the 1Dx and not the 5Ds. The 1Dx2 sensor is not the 1Dx sensor, and not the 5Ds sensor.
All we know for sure about the sensor at the moment is that:
- It is a 20MP sensor
- It uses on-sensor A/D conversion
Also, from being 4 years newer, it would be reasonable to assume that high-ISO performance has been improved significantly - say, by about a stop - as this is a general trend that occurs with every camera.
It is demonstrated, from the 70D/80D example, that on-sensor ADC linearises the low-ISO SNRs to match the relationship seen in the higher ISOs. If that were applied to the 1Dx sensor, even with no other changes, it would already give a DR of 11-12 stops (by the 20:1 SNR threshold). So, just that one change, without any other upgrade to the four-year-old sensor, would have the sensor beating the D5 below ISO 800 and matching it up to 1600. Then it only needs half a stop of high-ISO improvement - very reasonable over 4 years - to beat the D5 at high ISO as well.
There's almost no way the D5 can have a better sensor than the 1Dx2, assuming the measurements on the website are correct and what Canon has told us about the new sensor is also correct.
Wow, you have a lot of time to waste, theorizing.
If you were important, in any respect, you wouldn't be wasting this kind of time doing so.
I'm not projecting anything onto Canon. I'm merely pointing out what Canon has already demonstrated in the recent 80D - a huge improvement in low-ISO SNR. The numbers are there in front of you, for everyone to see. And the new 1Dx2 sensor uses the same technology, so one would expect the same jump in performance.
Past statistics are meaningless when one side introduces technology that significantly alters their cameras. They hold some weight when you're talking about slow, evolutionary change, but the shift to on-chip A/D conversion is not evolutionary change.
Just look back a few years and see how badly Nikon sensors were trailing Canon. Canon had the 1Ds2, 1Ds3 and 5D2, while Nikon couldn't even produce a full-frame sensor, or a half-decent CMOS. If you made a list back then, pretty much all the top sensors were Canon. Then Nikon got their hands on Exmor and everything changed.
"If this, if that," that is all you are doing, quite frankly, projecting.
If you were my mother's brother, you'd be my uncle.
But you're not.
This simple fact is no (repeat NO) sensor rating body rates Canon sensors anywhere near the top.
Let the facts prove a change here, not your conjectures.
The facts show the only thing the Canon 80D surpasses is the pale, sickly 70D, which itself flounders in the mid-bottom of the heap.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.
The plural of conjecture is not fact.
They're not doing that at all. They're segmenting cameras by application, not by ISO capability. That would be a pretty dumb way to segment cameras, since action photographers still shoot ISO 100-400 in good light, and non-action photographers still shoot high ISO when shooting non-action in dark conditions.
We disagree. I see no reason to digress infinitely, disagreeing ad nauseum.
You ignore all the evidence and speak in if-clauses.
I never said that. Quit putting words into my mouth so you can argue against straw men.
Can't argue against a man who never shuts up and is afraid to sign his name to what he says, either :-[
Are you a Nikon executive?
Are you?
If not, how do you know what Nikon is committed to producing? All that can be assumed is that Nikon is committed to maximising its profit.
How can you, genius?
Even if they were committed to producing the best of everything doesn't mean that they are actually going to achieve it. There are other companies out there who are equally keen on beating Nikon, and have many times the resources (Sony and Canon).
I think they already have achieved it.
Nikon has 5 of the top 10 FF cameras, specs-wise, to Canon's 1.
Nikon has 5 of the top 10 APS-C cameras, specs-wise, to Canon's 0.
Nikon has 4 of the top 10 prime lenses, while Canon, Zeiss, and Leica share only 2.
Nikon and Canon each share 4 of the top 10 zoom lenses, with Sigma owning 2.
Of 40 possible top positions, Nikon owns 18, Canon owns 9, with Leica, Zeiss, and Sigma each owning 2. (Pentax has 3 I think.)
If that isn't total domination, then we simply can't continue a conversation.
Either you have no grasp on logic, or no grasp on mathematics.
Repeat that in a mirror, and make sure you smile.
What do you think 'D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable' means? IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE EQUAL, not that the D4 is marginally better than the 1Dx.
The D4s doesn't count. Canon didn't bother releasing a competitor against it.
In other words:
D4 = 1Dx
D4s = no Canon equivalent
D5 = 1Dx2
On what basis are you saying Nikon's will be better, anyway? There's no track record of one company's action camera having better AF than the other's, when both were released around the same time. D3 = 1D3, D3s = 1D4, D4 = 1Dx, so it's likely that D5 = 1Dx2.
Do you ever shut up?
You can't argue with fanboys.
Not a fanboy, just a guy who dumped Canon after 8 years of waiting for them to produce something that made me want to buy.
The truth is, it is hard to argue with nameless people who never shut up, type on-and-on-and-on, because they have too much time on their hands, and have no accountability for what they say.
For the record, I primarily shoot Sony.
I feel my life is complete now, knowing that, thank you.
Jack
-
Canon may have done that, but I'm expecting the 1Dx2 to eclipse the D5, outshining it in some areas and equalling it in all the others.
....there's no reason the 1Dx2 won't entirely eclipse the D5.
I agree 100% with you and wish you a great day!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are insane. Better at every measurement = better at every measurement.
By that argument, crop sensor is a total waste of time, because it's beaten in almost every measurement by a bigger sensor.
No. Medium format is unwieldy and only better at low ISO.
Not the latest CMOS sensors. They score better in SNR than full-frame sensors, even at high ISO. Hence, they're better.
Better is better, so MF Sensors are better than full frame sensors. That was your argument, wan't it?
Oh, right, of course it makes no sense.
That is why no one uses them in Africa, for sports, etc.
Obviously.
That is only because you lack the cajones to sign your name to what you say. :-[
Or that my professional and political positions do not allow me to post independently under my own name.
Again, you are insane.
You laud the 80D and yet it is the "new camera" that falls short of the elder D7200. (The graph clearly showed this.)
So, a 1.5x crop sensor beats a 1.6x crop sensor. Big deal.
The relevant point is that the 80D beats the old 70D by such a degree - due mostly to the on-sensor ADC - that, if the same thing were applied to the 1Dx2, it should beat the D5 by a significant amount.
For the record, the D7200 also beats the D5 at low ISO. I guess the D5 is crap, then?
Wow, you have a lot of time to waste, theorizing.
If you were important, in any respect, you wouldn't be wasting this kind of time doing so.
Blah, blah, blah, more ad hominem attacks.
"If this, if that," that is all you are doing, quite frankly, projecting.
Welcome to Science 101. Extrapolating from existing data and theory and coming up with a hypothesis that can later be tested is about the most basic thing you can do in science.
If you were my mother's brother, you'd be my uncle.
But you're not.
This simple fact is no (repeat NO) sensor rating body rates Canon sensors anywhere near the top.
Go back eight years and you could say the same about Nikon.
New technology changed that overnight.
Let the facts prove a change here, not your conjectures.
Then show me the numbers. On the 1Dx2, not on old cameras.
Can't? Then show me how you came to your conclusions via the data at hand, and let the data speak for itself.
The facts show the only thing the Canon 80D surpasses is the pale, sickly 70D, which itself flounders in the mid-bottom of the heap.
And the fact which you're conveniently ignoring is that you can't directly compare a Canon crop sensor to anything other than another Canon crop sensor, because nothing else shares the 1.6x format.
We disagree. I see no reason to digress infinitely, disagreeing ad nauseum.
You ignore all the evidence and speak in if-clauses.
I've presented the numbers and charts for everyone to see and explained my reasoning one step at a time.
You either haven't read them, or prefer to sling ad hominem attacks than to actually explain why they're wrong or explain how you came to your conclusion.
Can't argue against a man who never shuts up and is afraid to sign his name to what he says, either :-[
I've put the arguments out there.
Or is it so important for you to have a person to attack that you are unable to counter an argument in a way that stands on its own.
Good luck getting published in any scientific journak.
Are you?
How can you, genius?
I never said I was, or that I could. But I never claimed to know what Nikon was planning either, beyond the base profit motive of all companies.
I think they already have achieved it.
Nikon has 5 of the top 10 FF cameras, specs-wise, to Canon's 1.
Nikon has 5 of the top 10 APS-C cameras, specs-wise, to Canon's 0.
Nikon has 4 of the top 10 prime lenses, while Canon, Zeiss, and Leica share only 2.
Nikon and Canon each share 4 of the top 10 zoom lenses, with Sigma owning 2.
Of 40 possible top positions, Nikon owns 18, Canon owns 9, with Leica, Zeiss, and Sigma each owning 2. (Pentax has 3 I think.)
If that isn't total domination, then we simply can't continue a conversation.
Change the date and change Nikon for Canon, Kodak, IBM, Lotus or WordPerfect and it would be equally true.
All of them lost dominance because their competitors either obtained a new technology to give them an advantage or corrected a major flaw that put them back on an even footing.
On-sensor ADC is such a technology. It was the thing that put Nikon in front in the first place. Now Canon also has it.
Repeat that in a mirror, and make sure you smile.
I could say that about three-quarters of your posts.
Do you ever shut up?
Not a fanboy, just a guy who dumped Canon after 8 years of waiting for them to produce something that made me want to buy.
The truth is, it is hard to argue with nameless people who never shut up, type on-and-on-and-on, because they have too much time on their hands, and have no accountability for what they say.
I feel my life is complete now, knowing that, thank you.
Jack
I don't like personal attacks in any argument, but you have taken it so far I see no reason not to respond in kind. You are the rudest, most condescending person I have dealt with all week, and seem incapable of carrying out a reasoned argument without attacking the other side's credentials, reputation or person. Your inability to address the question without attacking the person is nothing short of childish, and I sincerely hope, for the sake of those around you, that your real-life personality is nothing like that which is projected online.
And a good day to you, too.
-
Hi,
While this discussion is going on a guy named Josh Holko has won a couple of gold medals for Artic photography, and printed some 54" prints from Iceland, all shot on Canon…
I would say that I got the impression that Mr. "Shadowblade" has some good insights in the techniques of his photography, based on his postings. Regarding John's enthusiasm for Nikon is just like his enthusiasm for Canon, just a 2-3 months ago.
Yes, i think that on chip ADCs are a big step forward for Canon. If the EOS-1DX MKII has those, it is a good thing.
Both Canon and Niokon are great systems and we are going to see a lot of developments from both companies.
Best regards
Erik
By that argument, crop sensor is a total waste of time, because it's beaten in almost every measurement by a bigger sensor.
Not the latest CMOS sensors. They score better in SNR than full-frame sensors, even at high ISO. Hence, they're better.
Better is better, so MF Sensors are better than full frame sensors. That was your argument, wan't it?
Oh, right, of course it makes no sense.
Obviously.
Or that my professional and political positions do not allow me to post independently under my own name.
So, a 1.5x crop sensor beats a 1.6x crop sensor. Big deal.
The relevant point is that the 80D beats the old 70D by such a degree - due mostly to the on-sensor ADC - that, if the same thing were applied to the 1Dx2, it should beat the D5 by a significant amount.
For the record, the D7200 also beats the D5 at low ISO. I guess the D5 is crap, then?
Blah, blah, blah, more ad hominem attacks.
Welcome to Science 101. Extrapolating from existing data and theory and coming up with a hypothesis that can later be tested is about the most basic thing you can do in science.
Go back eight years and you could say the same about Nikon.
New technology changed that overnight.
Then show me the numbers. On the 1Dx2, not on old cameras.
Can't? Then show me how you came to your conclusions via the data at hand, and let the data speak for itself.
And the fact which you're conveniently ignoring is that you can't directly compare a Canon crop sensor to anything other than another Canon crop sensor, because nothing else shares the 1.6x format.
I've presented the numbers and charts for everyone to see and explained my reasoning one step at a time.
You either haven't read them, or prefer to sling ad hominem attacks than to actually explain why they're wrong or explain how you came to your conclusion.
I've put the arguments out there.
Or is it so important for you to have a person to attack that you are unable to counter an argument in a way that stands on its own.
Good luck getting published in any scientific journak.
I never said I was, or that I could. But I never claimed to know what Nikon was planning either, beyond the base profit motive of all companies.
Change the date and change Nikon for Canon, Kodak, IBM, Lotus or WordPerfect and it would be equally true.
All of them lost dominance because their competitors either obtained a new technology to give them an advantage or corrected a major flaw that put them back on an even footing.
On-sensor ADC is such a technology. It was the thing that put Nikon in front in the first place. Now Canon also has it.
I could say that about three-quarters of your posts.
I don't like personal attacks in any argument, but you have taken it so far I see no reason not to respond in kind. You are the rudest, most condescending person I have dealt with all week, and seem incapable of carrying out a reasoned argument without attacking the other side's credentials, reputation or person. Your inability to address the question without attacking the person is nothing short of childish, and I sincerely hope, for the sake of those around you, that your real-life personality is nothing like that which is projected online.
And a good day to you, too.
-
I don't like personal attacks in any argument, but you have taken it so far I see no reason not to respond in kind. You are the rudest, most condescending person I have dealt with all week, and seem incapable of carrying out a reasoned argument without attacking the other side's credentials, reputation or person. Your inability to address the question without attacking the person is nothing short of childish, and I sincerely hope, for the sake of those around you, that your real-life personality is nothing like that which is projected online.
And a good day to you, too.
Your feigned halo in this is comical.
If you don't like personal attacks, perhaps you shouldn't use them (or, perhaps, you should slow down in your typing and realize you frequently use them, or imply them).
You are the most important person I've ever dealt with this week ... who seems to have all the time in the world to ramble on.
My real life personality is that I deal with people of all walks of life ... face-to-face, eye to eye .... at all hours of the day and night ... whether I am hunting down a fraud suspect, or interviewing an executive as to his involvement in a contractual obligation. Yours seems to be more, ahem, academic ...
I hope you have a nice day as well.
Jack
-
Regarding John's enthusiasm for Nikon is just like his enthusiasm for Canon, just a 2-3 months ago.
Thanks for the (not so) veiled jab, Erik.
I have checked out your site and seen your attempts at technical articles. Admire the effort.
FYI, 2-3 months ago, I was dumping my Canon gear for Nikon gear.
Last year, though, you're right ... I was still hopeful.
Now that I have switched, I can understand why Nikonians are the way they are. History + sincerity + quality.
I enjoy shooting again :D
Jack
PS: I have also seen your snapshots on your new SmugMug page, congrats, looks like fun!
-
This thread serves as an example of how to take a timely, relevant and factual discussion and rubbish it.
Those who wish to get into personal slanging matches might be less unwelcome on another better-known, bigger forum and leave this one.
Topic locked.
Should I see further examples of this silliness, the author will be permanently banned. I encourage readers to report this kind of behaviour to the Moderator so that I can get a quicker handle on it.