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 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101403NikonD3shandson.asp)'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.
Blimey, all those buttons! ???
Quote from: Jonathan on October 14, 2009, 08:14:32 AM
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....
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....
All that whizz bangery and it still doesn't have in camera image stabilisation. What a rip-off. Even £50 Samsungs have got that. ;)
Quote from: Tringle WP on October 14, 2009, 10:24:59 AM
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.
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. :D
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).
Quote from: Jonathan on October 14, 2009, 08:14:32 AM
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!
Quote from: Tringle WP on October 14, 2009, 01:46:41 PM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: anglefire on October 14, 2009, 08:17:01 PM
In Lens IS can be tuned to suit the lens in question.
In what way, exactly?
Quote from: anglefire on October 14, 2009, 08:11:52 PM
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 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamleahy/3986544602/in/pool-lumix-lx3) it's still gonna look like catch up.
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...
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. ;)
Quote from: Tringle WP on October 15, 2009, 09:12:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Tringle WP on October 15, 2009, 09:12:18 AM
It must be a 'grim oop north thing'
You know I live like 30 miles from France, right? And 20 of that is the moat :)
High ISO / low noise isn't just a darkness thing. It's about the balance of light. With a flash on camera (yes, I use flash on camera...) there is a world of difference between the shots you can get at 100 ISO and 800 ISO. Kick it up to 2K and you can light the inside of a marquee with an SB900 and only camera geeks will know it's not an ambient capture.
Proper 50 ISO would be nice. But an ND filter is going to degrade your image much less than Noise Ninja will degrade mine so we're pretty cool. Faster flash sync would be very very nice but radio controlled CLS would pretty much fix that. And Mr Lovegrove says that will be in the shops for Chrimbo for Nikonites. (Canon already have this via a 3rd party but TBH they need all the help they can get ATM).
Error 99 faults are weird - I've heard it's just the Canon "something is wrong but I don't know what" error. Like a general protection fault. Anecdotal evidence suggests that under pro use Canon kit breaks more than Nikon. But I'm sure you can find evidence the other way since we're talking anecdotes. I know one person who owns two 85 / 1.2s because he figures one is always in for repair.
Don't forget that the prosumers really do cut corners. 5DII is a very capable camera but it's not going to stand up to the same level of use as a 1 Series. Same thing with the D3 / D700. My D3 is a about 110K clicks now and needs some of the rubber regluing. Last Friday I got it soaking wet despite having another wedding on Saturday and never gave it a second thought (until the internal vf fogged up which meant I couldn't see what I was shooting). A D700 would be looking very second hand by now and I'd be planning to get the shutter replaced.
Ah, Jonathan I live 500 miles south of the moat.
And I am not a professional indoor event photographer like you, but I do nevertheless understand about the balance of light.
Besides, if I had enough cash to buy everything in my camera bag again and doubled it I would still have to sell a vital organ or two as well just to buy a D3S body :)
Look forward to seeing the no doubt excellent results you will get from the new machine when you get your hands on it.
Ok, where to start.
In Body IS. Yes it would be nice to have, but I stand by the fact that the manufacturer can tune the IS to suit the lens - resonance of the elements etc. Also you can see it working in the view finder, you can't with in body. So IMHO in lens IS is not a design error.
Hi Iso. Yes its very nice to have it and yes I would probably use it if I had it - so yes I am jealous of 102K.
I don't use ISO 800 as my standard setting, but ISO 400 is fairly common with both the 5D and MkIII. The MkIII is regularly up to ISO2500, and generally I don't use noise reduction - but I have a very good action when I do use it.
Particularly with the 5D I use ISO 800 and flash for the reasons JR gave - but this is mostly for work in plantrooms when I want the flash to illuminate the plant I'm interested in, but also get some background ambience.
Canon QC. I'm not sure if they are actually any worse than anyone else - the MkIII issue was an almighty cock up and I think that is rumbling on and on. Certainly reading the dedicated Canon forums there seems to be no more "noise" than normal.
Actually the biggest noise seems to be coming from the 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma, particularly with superficial issues like the black coatings coming off.
Although I'm definitely in the Nikon corner, and love my D90 and D60, I have to say the non-Canikon manufacturers seem to get a bit left out. Very prejudiced reviews.
The last DC mag had a group test, and the Nikon D60 beat the Sony. The D60 has a four year old sensor (it's the one from the D200 and D80). It's not a patch on the new generation of sensors (I've just moved from a D60 to a D90, even though I was saying the other week I didn't need to). And Nikon have just released another camera with this old CCD sensor (D3000).
I wanna know why the Sony didn't beat it? It has CMOS sensor, and had the best definition on the test.
Many years ago, Canon and Olympus were able to come up to speed and become big contenders, as the camera press weren't so much in the manufacturer's pockets. Don't think it will happen again.
By the way, the reason that Canon and Nikon use in-lens stabilisation is because they cater for film cameras also.
For a chuffing great telephoto, in-lens stabilisation is probably best, as it will be engineered for that particular specialist lens. However, you lose out when it comes to the smaller lenses. No-one is gonna make an image stabilised 50mm 1.4, are they?
Perhaps the best option would be to have both - the in-camera stabilisation only coming into opepration when you have a non-VR lens on the camera?
Anyway, back to the original point. I agree with Jonathan.
The new Nikon has 100,000 ISO, and you can take pictures at night.
The new Canon has.....more pixels? Yeah. Great.
Like to see how it compares next to the D3, or is that a stupid thing to see?
How did we ever manage in pre digital days?? Most of us could only dream of lenses longer than 300mm unless we bought a mirror lens. Remember Kodak Gold 1000ISO - what a breakthrough for amateur snappers that was - now if you wanted grain that gave you plenty! Now if we can't shoot clean indoor shots using 2000+ ISO equivalents we think we're hard done by and if someone asks for advice on what lens to buy on Birdforum they're told it's a waste of time considering anything under 400mm - a whopping view like a 600mm on a non crop body. Yes how on earth did anyone ever take a photo worth keeping ::) :2funny: :2funny:
I don't know about Canon catching up but yesterday I was on Mifsuds website, and was amazed by the number of Canon 1DS's in the secondhand section. :o
Quote from: greypoint on October 17, 2009, 11:25:38 AM
How did we ever manage in pre digital days?? Most of us could only dream of lenses longer than 300mm unless we bought a mirror lens. Remember Kodak Gold 1000ISO - what a breakthrough for amateur snappers that was... Yes how on earth did anyone ever take a photo worth keeping ::) :2funny: :2funny:
Because we had to pay for every shot we took, literally. A film only had 36 exposures tops (well up to 39 if you fed in in correctly) and you had to pay for the film and the development.
My 1600 and 3200 iso films were taken out of the fridge and cost me a tenner a go almost, with development on top - it was costing me almost 35p for each print i gained from an exposure - and that was only 6x4.
You definitely undertook a fair bit of effort before actually pressing the shutter button. Camera shake was not as prevalent as it is today.
Then it was more about exposure and focus.
Maybe it was because cameras were lighter and smaller and easier to hold in a secure manner. Who knows.
But i am starting to apply those same principals to my photography today and i find i don't take half as many pictures.
I think that in digital - we take them because we can do so with greater levels of success and also because it doesn't cost anything.
As we achieve greater success with previously difficult shots- we demand technology resolve issues with what are now currently difficult shots.
The Canon that has a 50mp ff sensor with an iso capacity of 408,800 with built in is, wifi, dual card slots , next gen video with sound and 50fps is not here yet - but whilst 'Moores Law' is still alive and well - it will be one day - technology just hasn't caugt up with it and the consumer demand can not afford it.
But one day... Then how will we define photography?
On the same token, post digital has improved many peoples photography (Mine definitely included!) because you can experiment at no extra cost.
One of the best films I remember was Kodak Ekta (I think!) 25ISO - I had some very large prints on the wall until recently from prints of this stuff - it was super - very fine grain and no noise to speak of - unlike the ISO 400 of the day!
And Andrew, it will not be long before we have 50Mp cameras and all the rest - bet its not more than a couple of years!
I agree Mark - it is all down to the necessity to develop technology to compete with the market leaders etc.
Kodak Extra 25 asa as you say was a really great film - always needed a tripod with it though - my hands were not steady enough to prevent camera shake.
You'd need a 'blad with a 60mp digi back to get the same quality nowadays i suspect, though i'm sure some one will prove me wrong - but that's the beauty of discussion :)
Well, depending on the wave length of light, 16Mp is considered to be the equivalent of 35mm film - hence the 1DsMkII was 16Mp!
The reality is actually less than that when you factor all the variables of film - including the developement and enlargement stages.
But coming back to the topic - Canon are rumoured to be anouncing the 1DMkIV on the 20th October - Still a 1.3crop - the 1DsMkIV being out in the spring. http://www.canonrumors.com/
And surprise, surprise, also sporting the ability to go to ISO102,400. No idea about anything else - though probably 18Mp and 11FPS.
It's not a camera I am interested in, well I am, but I have other priorities first - but when I win the lottery.............
I've found a very nice shot taken with the D3s.
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/img/pic_001b.jpg
Though to be fair, not exactly low light.
(I did insert in in the post but was a bit big in preview!)
Quote from: anglefire on October 17, 2009, 08:59:27 PM
I've found a very nice shot taken with the D3s.
(I did insert in in the post but was a bit big in preview!)
You're not kidding neither :2funny: Take a couple of hours on dial up. Good image like you say though.
Quote from: anglefire on October 14, 2009, 08:11:52 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on October 14, 2009, 08:14:32 AM
As I said on Twitter earlier.....102 THOUSAND ISO isn't high ISO. It's night vision.
But I am jealous of the twin CF slots and the virtual horizon
Mark you make this sound as if it is a new innovation, Olympus have always had twin slots except for the E-1 and the virtual horizon was introduced on the E-30 long before Nikon thought about it. I bet nikon and canon are glad olympus are still around to get innovative ideas off as usall. ;)
But I'm with Sue, what did we used to do before all this technology and would the wedding photgrapher of today have been able to cut it in the past or were wedding photographers just better then. ;):)
Paul, I too have twin slots in the MkIII, but the one is SD - I'd rather have CF :)
Horizon indication is nice to have in the way Nikon seems to do - and by the sounds of it, the olly too. But I'm happy enough with the canon :)
I don't really knock any make of camera - all do something the others don't do and it just depends what you want it to do.
Quote from: Oly Paul on October 18, 2009, 10:19:42 PM
But I'm with Sue, what did we used to do before all this technology and would the wedding photgrapher of today have been able to cut it in the past or were wedding photographers just better then. ;):)
Erm, 20 pics in front of a church using 2 rolls of 120? Maximum group size about 8? I think I could manage that.
A year or so ago was my parent's golden wedding and I saw their wedding pictures for the first time (apart from the one they have on the wall). I was amazed. For the period some really creative stuff including a picture shot during the ceremony. But the whole game has changed dramatically in the past 3 - 5 years. We do more now because we can. I have a client collecting an album today - 70 page storybook including HDR, remote camera work, drag shutter exposures and mixed lighting to give (deliberate) colour casts. Plus they are gay so I had 2 dresses to worry about :) You didn't see any of that 20 years ago.
Quote from: anglefire on October 17, 2009, 08:59:27 PM
Though to be fair, not exactly low light.
You're kidding, right?
i got a horizon indicator by swapping out the matt focusing screen that came with the 5D MkII and swapping for one with a grid.
Whilst i accept that Canon should have had this issue sorted by now - i've also got a clearer focusing screen which in turn allows me to judge the focusing more accurately.
I think ultimately we are back to choice again. But i do wish Canon would add a second cf slot to their cameras - and preferably from the 5D and 7D ranges up. If i've forked out £1500+ for a body i think we can assume i'm a tad more concerned about the outcome of my pictures than a happy snapper - and that includes system redundancy (or does that sound too much like an I.T. geek thing?)
Quote from: Jonathan on October 19, 2009, 08:03:56 AM
Quote from: anglefire on October 17, 2009, 08:59:27 PM
Though to be fair, not exactly low light.
You're kidding, right?
No I'm not - 1/1600" at f2.8 with a 400mm VR lens taking what appears to be a stationary subject is not what
I would call low light!
Assuming that it is a stationary subject, got then ISO1600, 1/400" and f2.8 would have worked too. (If I've got me stops right!)
I guess Canon are happy to spend another year on the bench.
1DMkIV (http://www.enduserblog.com/2009/10/canon-keeps-aps-h-alive-with-the-1d-mark-iv.html). Summary: like a D3S with a few more pixels, higher res video and a smaller sensor.
I honestly can't see how more pixels + smaller sensor won't = more noise. Obviously there will be a 1DSIV "soon" but it looks like Canon have surrendered sports and journalism to Nikon.
Oh and there's a new AF system (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10044-10310). Because, you know, the old one didn't work. This one apparently works with several of their lenses. And yes, I'm amazed they didn't ask Rob Galbraith to beta it. Maybe they were afraid of what he'd find......
Interesting article.
I've always pondered the fact that Canon don't do a FF action camera when Nikon have proven it to be so worthwhile. Though this does have a low mega pixel count by Canons current standards.
Would i rush out and put my deposit down ready for its release? Not a hope. The camera would have to show that all the issues of the Mk III had been cured and no new nasties had been created in resolving the old.
Also, with regards to the high iso, i can understand how they've managed to increase it a stop given the Digic IV does low light extremely well in the 5D MkII and they've got 2 of them in a MkIV - but to up it to 102400 - well that will be interesting. Not confident in what we will actually get myself at the top end. Might see the 12800 and 25600 become 'usable' but 51200 and 102400 will i think just be clutching at straws.
When i say 'usable' i mean that the pros will happily dial up to those settings knowing they will get shots the editors will be happy with that do not require some noise reduction editing first.
I hope to be proven wrong but i'm not getting my hopes up!
What's the next big sports event? Something round May/June in 2010. Must be some footie or something coming up.
My money says black lenses will outnumber white.
And unless there's some major change then that will be repeated with the next revision for 2012.
Quote from: anglefire on October 19, 2009, 07:29:09 PM
No I'm not - 1/1600" at f2.8 with a 400mm VR lens taking what appears to be a stationary subject is not what I would call low light!
Assuming that it is a stationary subject, got then ISO1600, 1/400" and f2.8 would have worked too. (If I've got me stops right!)
It's an EV of roughly 7. Which is light that you'd be just about OK reading a newspaper in. EV 6 is uncomfortable enough that you'd definitely turn a light on.
BTW is that the exif from the Nikon site? Looks more like f4 to me.
Quote from: ABERS on October 14, 2009, 08:24:44 AM
Blimey, all those buttons! ???
Heh... and its main function is the same as this cameras...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2082489438_df47b5ae4f.jpg)
Well I haven't seen a D3S at 100K ISO yet. But I'd be very very surprised if it's worse than the 1DIV. Link (http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/0,39001468,45095238p,00.htm) - right at the bottom. Why didn't Canon just say "nah, we can't do 100K ISO".
Almost unbelievably Canon's site is even harder to navigate than Nikon's so I can't actually find the official pics (anybody?) but I hear they are only showing pics up to 3,200. Which suggests they can't even come close to Nikon. Unless of course you know different.
Where's Flake when you need her? :legit:
Here you go. Pics (http://www.masterchong.com/v3/canon/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-100-cropped-official-sample-photos.html).
Forget the D3S. Looks like they are battling the D3 right now.
Quote from: Jonathan on October 20, 2009, 07:42:35 AM
I guess Canon are happy to spend another year on the bench.
1DMkIV (http://www.enduserblog.com/2009/10/canon-keeps-aps-h-alive-with-the-1d-mark-iv.html). Summary: like a D3S with a few more pixels, higher res video and a smaller sensor.
I honestly can't see how more pixels + smaller sensor won't = more noise. Obviously there will be a 1DSIV "soon" but it looks like Canon have surrendered sports and journalism to Nikon.
Noise can be handled with image processors, but only to a certain degree. If these are updated, or if Canon have found their current image processors can cut the mustard...
Quote from: Jonathan on October 20, 2009, 07:42:35 AM
Oh and there's a new AF system (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10044-10310). Because, you know, the old one didn't work.
I read that link and 'heard' static hiss... not the once-common "Oh, that's handy" noises in my head.
45-point AF system..? My 350D works fine with just the one AF point in the middle being active. Or am I missing something?
I also read someone's query as to why Canon aren't bothering with two media slots. I can't see much point in those either, to be honest. Media cards not big enough? Buy bigger. And you're going to stop to remove one media card anyway sometime, so...
Nah... I'm definitely missing a point somewhere. Surely it's not a Tweedledum/Tweedledee situation with Canon and Nikon..?
Quote from: Graham on October 20, 2009, 05:45:42 PM
Where's Flake when you need her? :legit:
She's on PhotoRadar and still dishing Nikon cameras. >:(
Quote from: Hybridphotog on October 20, 2009, 06:17:29 PM
Nah... I'm definitely missing a point somewhere.
Possibly that some people use their cameras in different ways from you ;)
The dual slot thing is interesting. Because the 1DIV has dual slots - but in the Canon stupid way. They acknowledge the need (or at least the benefit of putting it on a spec sheet) but then fail in delivery. Cos if dual slots means I have to by 2 different sets of cards then it's unlikely I'll bother. As it is, at the end of a long day I have a pocket full of raw files plus a single card with jpegs of all the day. Lose a card, corrupt a file, do something stupid and I'll be OK. It also works well for pro shooters who hand their cards to their magazine immediately after shooting (sports or catwalk fashion or news) but need to keep their own backup.
Dual card slots definitely a worth while option if you are doing a shoot for which money will be given in return for your efforts.
Even for those once in a life time shots it's worth having a second card slot for.
Did i mention i used to work in I.T. and worry about such things as data back up?
Enough people go onto forums asking about the best way to back their photos - why not have an in camera option as well if it's not gonna cost the earth?
Onto sample picks...
Nice picks from the Mk IV but i was most taken with the shot of the DJ taken with the D3s - 12800, nice pic.
I can comfortably say my 5d MkII can't match that quality at 12800 in that light.
Roll on the 1Ds MkIV - let's see what that brings...
The Nikon might be better, I've not seen any high ISO shots (Ie the expanded ones) to make any judgement on either camera. You know, I don't care either way. And JR, I guess you don't really, You aren't going to change to Canon any sooner than I will change to Nikon.
As for Nikon taking over from Canon in the sports arena, I can't say I've noticed any less beige around. But I don't really look that hard. Certainly this weekend at Mallory Park for the Rally Cross, there was a lot of Canon gear, a lot of Nikon gear, a few Sony's (I saw one) But all the big lenses were beige. No don't doubt there were some long Nikon lenses, but I didn't see them - and I went round almost the whole circuit.
But lets face it, the list price of the MkIV is so far out of reach of all except the well healed amatuer and some pro's. What the street price will be is anyones guess, but it will still be too rich for most.
And JR, can you drop the AF jibes? Yes it was a cock up. And Huge, but its over, done, dusted, life moves on. I'm bored of it!
Quote from: anglefire on October 20, 2009, 11:00:44 PM
And JR, can you drop the AF jibes? Yes it was a cock up. And Huge, but its over, done, dusted, life moves on. I'm bored of it!
Um, OK............
If I were a proper video producer then I'd be watching Reverie and going "hmm, tasty". The tech is staggeringly good and the movies from the 1DIV look jaw dropping. I might be pondering canceling my Red that I have on order. But I'd also be sniggering at Laforet and wondering why Canon didn't hire a proper director. Cos anybody from Sundance could make that camera sing.
If I were in the target market for the 1DIV I would want to know 2 things and 2 things only.
1. Is the high ISO up to it? I don't care whether it's better than last year's model I need it to be state of the art, best available. Because if I'm shooting Monday night football in the rain or hockey in a dimly lit ice arena or a basketball in a school gym I had better have kit that's at least as good as the guy next to me. My job pretty much depends on it. That's the whole reason why sports photographers deserted the D2HS in droves. It wasn't the lenses, it wasn't the build, it wasn't brand loyalty - it was image quality. Nikon was good. Canon was better.
2. Does the autofocus actually work? Because modern sports photography absolutely requires best of breed AF. If you think this isn't in doubt then head over to SportsShooter and look at any thread that mentions this camera. People who use 1DMkIIIs all day every day are all holding their breath to see if Canon got it right this time. If I was on the Canon dev team I would have paid Rob Galbraith anything he wanted to be on the beta team so that day 1 he could say "guys, don't sweat, this works". Because there's your story killed right there forever.
At the moment all we know to answer these questions are
1. ISO 3,200 looks pretty nice but on the limited shots I've seen (and there is nothing like a head to head to compare) not quite as nice as the Nikon. Though that's a close call and with more comparable images it could go either way. More importantly Canon are only releasing images up to 3,200. Nikon have released some gorgeous 12K snaps. (BTW is it just me or did Nikon hire better photographers than Canon this time round?). Some people will assume that's because they are scared of direct comparison at stratospheric ISO. Maybe it's just setting us all up for a huge "ta-dah!!" when they reveal the final answer. I certainly hope so - it's bad for everyone when one manufacturer comprehensively beats the competition.
2. Rob Galbraith was not part of the beta test. Maybe he didn't want to be. Maybe they didn't consider him relevant. Maybe he wanted to make capital out of the fact that he wasn't part of it. Who knows? Apart from Chuck Westfall and Rob Galbraith. But he didn't test it yet.
It will be a couple of months before we know the answers to these questions. My guess is that the 1DIV will feature the best AF system ever. But that Nikon will still kill it for sports sales.
Quote from: Jonathan on October 21, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
If I were a proper video producer then I'd be watching Reverie and going "hmm, tasty". The tech is staggeringly good and the movies from the 1DIV look jaw dropping. I might be pondering canceling my Red that I have on order. But I'd also be sniggering at Laforet and wondering why Canon didn't hire a proper director. Cos anybody from Sundance could make that camera sing.
I've not seen the video - but I have seen lots of posts about Tv rights issues with the video. So I guess its pretty good!
Quote from: Jonathan on October 21, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
If I were in the target market for the 1DIV I would want to know 2 things and 2 things only.
1. Is the high ISO up to it? I don't care whether it's better than last year's model I need it to be state of the art, best available. Because if I'm shooting Monday night football in the rain or hockey in a dimly lit ice arena or a basketball in a school gym I had better have kit that's at least as good as the guy next to me. My job pretty much depends on it. That's the whole reason why sports photographers deserted the D2HS in droves. It wasn't the lenses, it wasn't the build, it wasn't brand loyalty - it was image quality. Nikon was good. Canon was better.
I'm have no experience of these types of events - but if the events we are talking about are in the legue of requiring that sort of press coverage - surely they would have reasonable lighting?
Quote from: Jonathan on October 21, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
2. Does the autofocus actually work? Because modern sports photography absolutely requires best of breed AF. If you think this isn't in doubt then head over to SportsShooter and look at any thread that mentions this camera. People who use 1DMkIIIs all day every day are all holding their breath to see if Canon got it right this time. If I was on the Canon dev team I would have paid Rob Galbraith anything he wanted to be on the beta team so that day 1 he could say "guys, don't sweat, this works". Because there's your story killed right there forever.
Yeah, that's kind of a biggy. If it doesn't there will be lots of Japanese people falling on their swords!
Quote from: Jonathan on October 21, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
At the moment all we know to answer these questions are
1. ISO 3,200 looks pretty nice but on the limited shots I've seen (and there is nothing like a head to head to compare) not quite as nice as the Nikon. Though that's a close call and with more comparable images it could go either way. More importantly Canon are only releasing images up to 3,200. Nikon have released some gorgeous 12K snaps. (BTW is it just me or did Nikon hire better photographers than Canon this time round?). Some people will assume that's because they are scared of direct comparison at stratospheric ISO. Maybe it's just setting us all up for a huge "ta-dah!!" when they reveal the final answer. I certainly hope so - it's bad for everyone when one manufacturer comprehensively beats the competition.
I happened upon a thread on the Nikon area of FM this morning - and a lot of Nikon users were suggesting that the MkIV might be better than the D3s. Not many, but some. Suggests it is fairly close.
The Macro shot at ISO 3200 is nice enough - but is about 2EV brighter than the boxer Nikon produced.
And yesm the photographers Canon use generally don't do the cameras justice. Was the same with the MkIII.
I would like to see some really high ISO shots and not just exposed to the right, but proper SOOC shots.
Quote from: Jonathan on October 21, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
2. Rob Galbraith was not part of the beta test. Maybe he didn't want to be. Maybe they didn't consider him relevant. Maybe he wanted to make capital out of the fact that he wasn't part of it. Who knows? Apart from Chuck Westfall and Rob Galbraith. But he didn't test it yet.
It will be a couple of months before we know the answers to these questions. My guess is that the 1DIV will feature the best AF system ever. But that Nikon will still kill it for sports sales.
Are that many moving over to Nikon? I've not seen any stats to bear this out. May be true, but as I said before anacdotally (Spelling!) I don't see it.
As an aside, I was more than satisfied with the AF performance with my MkIII at the weekend. But it wasn't overly stressed in the most part - though the head on shots into the sun with lots of dust about to muddy the contrast seem to be ok, but I've no had time to fully check yet!
(I know I said I was bored about the AF problems of the MkIII!)
Quote from: anglefire on October 21, 2009, 09:07:49 PM
I've not seen the video - but I have seen lots of posts about Tv rights issues with the video. So I guess its pretty good!
Technically yes. As a film? Not so much.
Vincent Laforet is an outstanding photographer. As a video director well, he once gambled a lot of his own money on a Canon launch and it paid off.
I'm not saying it's not good. It could be better.
Quote
I'm have no experience of these types of events - but if the events we are talking about are in the legue of requiring that sort of press coverage - surely they would have reasonable lighting?
You'd think so wouldn't you? I guess it comes down to money. College basketball is notoriously hard to photograph. Don't forget there's a world of difference between enough light for spectators, enough for TV and enough to stop an athlete dead which might take 1/1000s
Quote
I happened upon a thread on the Nikon area of FM this morning - and a lot of Nikon users were suggesting that the MkIV might be better than the D3s. Not many, but some. Suggests it is fairly close.
Hmm. So a bunch of people who may or may not use a particular brand of camera (and may or may not be fibbing about which particular brand) are saying a camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed is better than another camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed. Whatever next?
Re your AF working - doesn't surprise me. It was never a total failure. Just that in precise, replicatable circumstances that actually happen quite a lot in the real world it wouldn't perform as it should. Some people believe the last firmware upgrade finally nailed it. Others don't. Some just won't forgive Canon for letting them down.
Quote from: Jonathan on October 21, 2009, 09:52:42 PM
Hmm. So a bunch of people who may or may not use a particular brand of camera (and may or may not be fibbing about which particular brand) are saying a camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed is better than another camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed. Whatever next?
Yep, that I'll be them! Actually the popular Canon Forum, Photography on the Net, has togs saying how good it is and togs how bad it is.
The only thing they seem to agree on is the price. Particularly in the UK, where its about 50% more than the US.
Quote
Re your AF working - doesn't surprise me. It was never a total failure. Just that in precise, replicatable circumstances that actually happen quite a lot in the real world it wouldn't perform as it should. Some people believe the last firmware upgrade finally nailed it. Others don't. Some just won't forgive Canon for letting them down.
I sent mine back into Canon and it definitely came back improved, partly firmware and partly recalibrating the peripheral AF points. But who knows what they also did in the firmware that wasn't documented.
Quote from: anglefire on October 20, 2009, 11:00:44 PM
As for Nikon taking over from Canon in the sports arena, I can't say I've noticed any less beige around. But I don't really look that hard. Certainly this weekend at Mallory Park for the Rally Cross, there was a lot of Canon gear, a lot of Nikon gear, a few Sony's (I saw one) But all the big lenses were beige. No don't doubt there were some long Nikon lenses, but I didn't see them - and I went round almost the whole circuit.
I'm reminded of a talk I attended given by a sports photographer just after the Beijing Olympics, whose name escapes me at the moment. He was one of nine photographers accredited to be in the arena on the closing ceremony.
When asked what equipment he used he said "Normally Canon, but Nikon offered all the accredited photographers a complete range of their gear for the whole Olympics, which everyone accepted. " He went on further to say, " I've no idea what the differences are between the two makes and I'm not interested, a camera is just a tool, it's what you do with it that counts".
In passing, what's beige got to do with it? :-[
Having a beige lens draws admiring and envious glances from those with lesser lenses. I once posed the question 'if all Canon L series lenses were available in white/beige or black which would you choose?' and a large proportion answered beige. Can't think why you'd want to draw attention to the fact you're walking around with expensive gear myself ::)
Quote from: ABERS on October 22, 2009, 07:47:08 AM
In passing, what's beige got to do with it? :-[
Beige is the colour of Canon high end lenses. If you ever look at the news or a sports report where the togs are jossling for 'that picture' lookk at the colour of the lenses.
Beige and they will be using Canon. Black and they will be using mainly Nikon with some Sony and a few Oly's.
Canon have given a technical reason for painting their lenses beige, but most think it is a marketing thing.
Quote from: greypoint on October 22, 2009, 08:04:04 AM
Having a beige lens draws admiring and envious glances from those with lesser lenses. I once posed the question 'if all Canon L series lenses were available in white/beige or black which would you choose?' and a large proportion answered beige. Can't think why you'd want to draw attention to the fact you're walking around with expensive gear myself ::)
Ah! I understand now. Must make a point of going out one day with the avowed intention of "beige spotting". Hope it doesn't distract me from image spotting. :legit:
It didn't stop you at Speakers Corner when Martin and myself wandered around with 'beige' for most of the day!
Quote from: picsfor on October 22, 2009, 08:48:11 AM
It didn't stop you at Speakers Corner when Martin and myself wandered around with 'beige' for most of the day!
Sorry Andrew, didn't see the beiges, perhaps that's why I do B+W?
Nothing to apologise for Alan.
It's not your fault that Canon have forced us to have lenses marked 'quality lens worth loads a money - come and mug me for your next fix' written all over them.
As i said - marketing gimmick. All we wanted was to acquire some quality glass and instead we have to walk around with beige placards saying 'this lens is made by Canon and didn't come cheap'.
Glad i only have the one of them! Though i know there are a couple more i would like that also only come in beige!
Your Sony seems to do everything you want from a camera - and that at the end of the day is all that matters.
My kit may cost more than yours - but i know which of us is giving an exhibition of our work and which of us is organising a meet to come and see it.
I think that tells the real story!
The Canon 200mm f2.8L is a wonderful lens - and it's black!
I am sure I have seen light coloured Nikon lenses. The assumption that every light coloured lens is a Canon 'L' is wrong.
Do they have it in blue? :)
I remember reading Andy Rouse's article on the reason he gave up on Canon (it was the autofocus problem). Apparently he got lots of crappy emails from people because of it, and he became quite upset about it. Maybe they should get him to use the new Canon also?
The way he described it seemed identical to the issues I had with the lowly Canon 450D. The issue was erratic, so one never knew whether a picture was going to be sharp or not. Same with my 450D.
Problem was, Canon just sent my camera back it back saying it was fixed. Luckily Warehouse Express gave me a refund and took the matter up with Canon directly. I always mention this, as it was such excellent service on their part.
The reason I mention this is not to bitch about Canon, but simply to share a test I made up that demonstrated that the problem existed. It was difficult to replicate initially, as it seemed to occur randomly. It could be either forward or back focus. Sometimes, I just couldn't get the camera to focus at all.
If you have problems with Canon AF (and yes, I'm sure it's all better now), here is the test setup that I used to demonstrate it:
-create a test chart to photograph, with lots of lines/words on
-put the camera on a tripod
-turn on the autofocus 'beep' noise
-single shot AF
-centre AF point
-use a lens with a widish aperture (such as a 50mm prime)
-set full aperture
-use highish ISO, so that camera shake is not an issue
-use the self-timer or a remote release for each shot
Now,move the camera and tripod back and forth between shots. Go forwards, backwards, backwards, backwards, forwards, backwards, forwards etc. completely randomly. Each time, get the focusing spot exactly on an area of the chart with high contrast, and half depress the shutter, ensuring that you hear the 'beep'. Take three shots each at each distance.
I did this, alongside my old Nikon D50 at the same distances, as a control. Also tried it with two lenses on each (kit and 50 prime).
For every shot, the pictures should be in focus. There may be a lack of contrast due to full aperture, but not a lack of focus. They should all be sharp. At least, that's what the Nikon did.
If you're in any doubt about your Canon's AF, try this out. If you have a few out of focus shots (about 20% in my case with the Canon), then send it back to the retailer as soon as possible and get your money back, otherwise you'll be in a game of service shop tennis with Canon.
Quote from: Simple on October 22, 2009, 03:04:22 PM
The assumption that every light coloured lens is a Canon 'L' is wrong.
As is the assumption that every L class Lens is white. (i have 3 L class lenses and only 1 of them is white)
But when you see the scrums of togs trying to get 'that shot' you can be certain that if not all, almost all of those white lenses is a Canon L class.
When you see the discussions about black and white lenses - they are often referring to Nikon and Canon because most pro togs still use either of these makes and the range of lenses used can often be differentiated by the colour.
And yes, i am fully aware that not every pro tog uses Nikon or Canon - just the large majority!
Quote from: picsfor on October 22, 2009, 05:31:33 PM
Quote from: Simple on October 22, 2009, 03:04:22 PM
The assumption that every light coloured lens is a Canon 'L' is wrong.
As is the assumption that every L class Lens is white. (i have 3 L class lenses and only 1 of them is white)
But when you see the scrums of togs trying to get 'that shot' you can be certain that if not all, almost all of those white lenses is a Canon L class.
When you see the discussions about black and white lenses - they are often referring to Nikon and Canon because most pro togs still use either of these makes and the range of lenses used can often be differentiated by the colour.
And yes, i am fully aware that not every pro tog uses Nikon or Canon - just the large majority!
Nikon do lens with a tropical grey finish, so not all Nikon's are black. ;D
And Sony do a white one too.
The reason Canon give for the beige colour is due to the flourite elements being sensitive to heat.
I would suspect the above is true - but the effect being very small in most cases - but is more of a marketing thing (especially as I can't find reference to flourite in some beige lenses!).
For what its worth, I have 2 beige L's and 2 black L's. Can't say the colour bothers me one way or another!
BTW
1. Canon have an expo in London for the next couple of days
2. My spies (OK it was Rachel) tell me there will be a 1D IV there. Maybe to touch.
Dunno if you can just wander in. Nikon's is in a couple of weeks and I think you have to register for that.
http://www.canon.co.uk/ProPhotoSolutions/
yeah - you have to register.
Got an invite but wasn't sure what i'd be doing so couldn't commit.