Your move Canon

[Jonathan]

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.

[Hinfrance]

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.

[anglefire]

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.

[chris@seary.com]

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.

[CML-1591]

Like to see how it compares next to the D3, or is that a stupid thing to see?

[greypoint]

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

[Oldboy]

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. 

[picsfor]

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

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?

[anglefire]

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!

[picsfor]

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   

[anglefire]

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.............

[anglefire]

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!)

[jimthetrain]

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  Take a couple of hours on dial up. Good image like you say though.

[Oly Paul]

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. 

[anglefire]

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.