Your move Canon

[Jonathan]

As I said on Twitter earlier.....102 THOUSAND ISO isn't high ISO.  It's night vision.

Very very glad I didn't buy another D3 a month ago.

Here's the new best DSLR in the world.

Anybody want to buy some stuff?  I have lights and a couple of D2Xes to sell.....I need to raise about £4K.

[ABERS]

Blimey, all those buttons!

[magicrhodes]

I have lights and a couple of D2Xes to sell.....I need to raise about £4K.

Erm fifty quid and a wham bar... and the contents of my penny jar.... it's a big penny jar for a D2x???

I'll collect it....

[Jonathan]

Any serious offers?  They go for less than you expect now.

Come over and try them both then take your pick of 2.  Or buy both....

[Hinfrance]

All that whizz bangery and it still doesn't have in camera image stabilisation. What a rip-off. Even £50 Samsungs have got that.

[Jonathan]

All that whizz bangery and it still doesn't have in camera image stabilisation. What a rip-off. Even £50 Samsungs have got that.

Wanna see my snaps from the w/e at a "slowish" speed?  1/13s on my trusty 70 - 200 and it's sharp enough for a magazine cover.  In camera IS means I need to spend another 4K every time they upgrade it (or 8K for 2).  Brand new improved 70 - 200 VR is £2K.  None of my other lenses need it.

[Hinfrance]

Different world Jonathan. 

All I know is that my 28-300 was half the price of the one my friend and neighbour bought for his Canon, and lighter too, because it doesn't have all the IS gubbins in it. It's like unsprung mass on a car of motorcycle, the heavier the bits hanging off the end are the more work it is to keep it on the straight and narrow.

And to be honest, I don't need more than 4 stops of stabilisation.

But then this isn't my livelihood, it is yours and you have to have the state of the art kit no matter what inherent defects there are in the basic design concepts. Just as long as you're happy. 

[Forseti]

For the wedding photographer, stills + motion certainly appear to be the future.

http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/2009/10/nikon-d3s-sample-video-stills-and-motion-portrait/

http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/ ..... (short video follows the review).

[anglefire]

As I said on Twitter earlier.....102 THOUSAND ISO isn't high ISO.  It's night vision.

Yes, but whilst they have put in the option to go that high, is it actually any use?
Anyone can under expose a shot and bring it back in post, all they are doing is amplifying the signal in Cam.

What would be more use, depending on your photography bent, is to have native ISO100 or 50 to avoid the use of ND filters when taking pictures of water or slow speed panning on a bright day.

But I am jealous of the twin CF slots and the virtual horizon and probably the 3D AF thingy.

Actually it looks a really good cam and if I was a Nikon user would be raiding the piggy bank. As it is, I'll wait for the next 1D from Canon and not buy that either as if I'm honest, what bodies I have do what I need - but I would like some more glass!

[anglefire]

Different world Jonathan. 

All I know is that my 28-300 was half the price of the one my friend and neighbour bought for his Canon, and lighter too, because it doesn't have all the IS gubbins in it. It's like unsprung mass on a car of motorcycle, the heavier the bits hanging off the end are the more work it is to keep it on the straight and narrow.

And to be honest, I don't need more than 4 stops of stabilisation.

But then this isn't my livelihood, it is yours and you have to have the state of the art kit no matter what inherent defects there are in the basic design concepts. Just as long as you're happy. 

Actually I find a heavier lens easier to keep steady. And in camera IS will always be a compromise. In Lens IS can be tuned to suit the lens in question.

[Hinfrance]

In Lens IS can be tuned to suit the lens in question.

In what way, exactly?

[Jonathan]

Anyone can under expose a shot and bring it back in post, all they are doing is amplifying the signal in Cam.

Yeah.  But nobody can do it that well.  In an unusual fanboi move one of my desktops is now a rather nice image of a boxer.  You can see every drop of sweat and the blood vessels in his eye.  The toning and detail in the gloves is staggering.  It was shot at 6,400 ISO.

Saying that 102K is unneccessary is rather like saying that Porsches don't need to be able to do 160 MPH.  They don't - but that means that 100 is right in their comfort zone.  And if you're cruising at 70 and everything gets a bit heavy you have plenty of headroom.

Let's be honest I've only printed one 12K ISO picture big for a client.  But on the D3 I use ISO 800 almost every day.  Early indications are that I can happily use 3,200 as a medium ISO setting on the D3S.  And yes, when I want to show off I can shoot in situations I can't see in.

Let's see what Canon say on the 20th.  But IMO they are still trying to catch up the D3.  Nikon are smothering them ATM - better low light on D3, better detail resolution on D3X.  And now night vision.  Unless the 1DSIV comes with a Richard Avedon button it's still gonna look like catch up.

[picsfor]

Without a doubt Canon are playing catch up.
They are busy putting right he wrong that was the introduction of the 1D mkIII and also of the appalling quality control that seems to have beset some of their high end cameras.
Example - a guy at my local camera shop was telling me how he had recently sold 3 (yes 3) 1Ds MkIII's to a customer on the same day and within a week 2 of those had to replaced with Error 99 faults.
£5k and it dies within a week? And not once but twice!!!

Canon have some serious QC issues to resolve and a high end pro body that has been surpassed by it's little brother the 5D MkII (same IQ, treble the usable high iso range along with HD Video all for half the price).

Jonathan has always made the point that Nikon could really do with the Canon Marketing department -  i think right now Canon need their Marketing Dept more than ever.

As for how much high iso does a photographer need? Well i wouldn't complain about having 408,800 as a workable iso setting.
For those of us that shoot quite a bit in low light - the high iso is what we want the most (having 21 ff mp is a bonus).

However, as has been said, i'm not a pro - i'm just a very lucky owner of a 5D MkII and do not depend on such advances to pay my mortgage or rent, to put food on the table or feed the family.
If i were a pro - i would be watching in the wings with eager anticipation and have my deposit on the new toys...

[Hinfrance]

The Canon QC problems are considered to be so bad here that in the second hand value tables in Chasseur d'Images there are just dashes against the 1Ds.

The pursuit of decent higher ISO performance can only be a good thing for the comfort zone reason that Jonathan gives. It must be a 'grim oop north thing' because I rarely use anything more than 200 ISO and often wish I had 25 or less available to enable more dof management without having to screw ND filters on.

Anyroad up, I have no doubt that the D3S is one superb and reliable piece of kit and ideal for a successful pro like Jonathan.

I still think that in lens IS is a design dead end though.

[picsfor]

The pursuit of decent higher ISO performance can only be a good thing for the comfort zone reason that Jonathan gives.

Anyroad up, I have no doubt that the D3S is one superb and reliable piece of kit and ideal for a successful pro like Jonathan.

I still think that in lens IS is a design dead end though.

High ISO is for people who take different pictures to yourself. ND filters would do no favours to those trying to get that Sparrowhawk grabbing its prey mid air, or the 'Tornado' steam engine rushing past or that rare air display shot. High ISO gives the option to up the TV and get that shot. Believe me - when i took my 5D Mk II out on its inaugural trip in June and cranked up the ISO to 25600 at 22:30 pm i was more than surprised to be offered TV values of 1/1000th on Brighton Pier. i end up coming back to an ISO of 1600 which still gave me 1/400th sec. You would doubtless have seen different picture opportunities and i can think of several that would use a tripod and filters etc. Sadly most of my shots are taken in low light scenarios and high ISO is a must for me - and I'm not a pro like Jonathan - just some one who wants to get the best result when taking a picture.

In Lens IS or in Body IS? Canon or Nikon? Full Frame or Crop Sensor?

These verily come into the realm of personal choice. As do Windows Vista or Mac Os X,Ford or Vauxhall.

'Oop North' is no different to 'darn sarf' except you apparently have a poorer quality of life and less money to spend according to the press.
But one thing you do have - an abundance of great photographers with an enormous variety of kit.