 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / August 200721MP 1Ds Mark III Announced
Hi All, The 1Ds Mark III officially announced: http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071 Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in news:46c957eb$0$6925 $afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au: > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071 Good news for Hard rive manufacturers LOL Mick Brown Ain't that the truth :) Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in news:46c957eb$0$6925 > $afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mick Brown > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wayne Pretty impressive, but you can get a medium format Mamiya ZD for $1,000 less. >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Pretty impressive, but you can get a medium format Mamiya ZD for $1,000 > less. Mamiya says US$9,999. Where are you seeing it for US$7,000??? http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281 David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Hey David, did you notice the 1ds mkiii's pixel pitch? :) > Hey David, did you notice the 1ds mkiii's pixel pitch? :) Nope. Haven't computed it yet. Sheesh. I must be getting old. (Or fried by the heat.) Let's see. 21.1 MP implies that'd be 8.2MP in a 1.6x camera or 9.4MP in a 1.5x camera. 5616 x 3744 => 3744/24 = 156 pixels per mm, or 6.4 microns. That's a Nyquist frequency of 78 lp/mm, and you'd like 50% MTF at around 75% of that, so that's 58 lp/mm. 800/58 = 13.8, so the beast will probably be, like the D2x, a tad soft at f/16. (Has the heat fried my math???) So for max sharpness, you're going to be shooting at f/8 and f/11 a lot with lenses under 100mm. Of course, my reading of figure 5 on this page indicates that there's no point to bothering with a 14-bit A/D converter on either this or the 40D. (Note that the 10MP D200 is a straight line down from its ISO 100 performance, which means that the ADC + electronics are adequate to pull out all the sensor is giving at ISO 100.) It sure looks to me that 14 bits only will be making sense on the 1DIII and 5DII (if such a creature appears at 16MP). http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > Hey David, did you notice the 1ds mkiii's pixel pitch? :) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > (Has the heat fried my math???) No calculator, no idea :) 6 microns seems right. Right about as big as the d200's pixels :) > So for max sharpness, you're going to be shooting at f/8 and f/11 a lot with > lenses under 100mm. lateral CA can be a serious problem on the d200. I think it'll be a nightmare to find lenses to use on the 1dsmkiii (if you look at pixels). > Of course, my reading of figure 5 on this page indicates that there's no > point to bothering with a 14-bit A/D converter on either this or the 40D. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.sum... Yes, that's what one would conclude from that page. Probaly the case. Let's see what the advantage of 14 bit ADCs are for the 10mp camera (the 1dmkiii or whatever the right name is), I am curious. Do you know of any test or practical demonstration? A few days ago, I attempted to go to dpreview to check if anybody had done it; instead, I ended up having an argument in the nikon forum with some pompous idiot who claimed that the size of the diffraction spot depends on the focal length (he also claimed that photons have a length equal to their wavelength, and other things of this sort...). So if there's a test somewhere there about the 14-bit ADCs, I missed it :) Any links? > So if there's a test somewhere there about the 14-bit ADCs, I missed > it :) Any links? http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/76001165 This is levels 0-255 (in the green channel) out of the 14256 levels of a 1Dmk3 ISO 100 file, with 14-bit, 12-bit, 11-bit, and 10-bit precision from the original RAW. The mathematical conversions to RGB are all performed with the same precision, though, as they were padded with zeros to replace the truncated bits. My padding of the zeros is probably key in getting almost exactly the same results between 14-bit and 12-bit, and unfortunately, the masses are going to draw the wrong conclusions about why they seem to get better results with the 14-bit files; it may very well be that most or all of the benefit comes from forcing conversion software to use two more bits of precision; something they should have been doing anyway. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > So if there's a test somewhere there about the 14-bit ADCs, I missed > > it :) Any links? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with the same precision, though, as they were padded with zeros to replace > the truncated bits. I didn't understand. How did you truncate, did you simply replace the 2 lowest bits by zeros or what? > My padding of the zeros is probably key in getting almost exactly the same > results between 14-bit and 12-bit, and unfortunately, the masses are going > to draw the wrong conclusions about why they seem to get better results > with the 14-bit files; it may very well be that most or all of the benefit > comes from forcing conversion software to use two more bits of precision; > something they should have been doing anyway. acl <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:1187693762.920561.175810 @57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > I didn't understand. How did you truncate, did you simply replace the > 2 lowest bits by zeros or what? Yes. Integer division, and then multiplication by the same number (4, 8, and 16 for 12-, 11-, and 10-bit, respectively). What someone who knows how to parse DNG files can do, is write a program that does this within DNG files, for any camera with DNG. It would be a more universal test, and doesn't depend on my manual conversion if you don't trust it. Uncompressed DNGs would be the easiest to do this with; the RAW data sits in a very simple form after the headers. I wrote code that alters uncompressed DNGs for the 20D only, but it's on a dead (or sleeping) HD. For a specific camera, you can just write the code to read and re-write the RAW data. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > acl <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:1187693762.920561.175810 > @57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes. Integer division, and then multiplication by the same number (4, 8, > and 16 for 12-, 11-, and 10-bit, respectively). Thanks. I can't really see any difference between the 12- and 14-bit results. It would be interesting to see how much difference to the 12- bit result doing the interpolation in 12-bits would make. It'll also depend on the algorithm used. > What someone who knows how to parse DNG files can do, is write a program > that does this within DNG files, for any camera with DNG. For me, C is 2 lines a day, so I won't do it :). > It would be a > more universal test, and doesn't depend on my manual conversion if you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > For a specific camera, you can just write the code to read and re-write the > RAW data. I've used dcraw -D to get raw data, and read the resulting file using someone else's code (I'm not a programmer and this is too low-level for my "abilities"). My routines are in Lisp. It was a miserable week. Anyway, do you know for sure what dcraw does to the data before outputting it if I use dcraw -D (actually dcraw -D -T)? I fourier transformed some blackframes to look at the noise spectrum and got strange results for some cameras. I'm not sure if it's dcraw, the camera's processing, or the routines I used to read the resulting tiff (but I can't see anything in them that alters the data). > I've used dcraw -D to get raw data, and read the resulting file using > someone else's code (I'm not a programmer and this is too low-level > for my "abilities"). My routines are in Lisp. It was a miserable week. The routines I used to read the files are in C, I write in Lisp, hence the misery... Have you tried a speech therapist, I believe they can fix that :) It has to be 15-20 years since I programmed in LISP. Why LISP for this application? Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >> I've used dcraw -D to get raw data, and read the resulting file using >> someone else's code (I'm not a programmer and this is too low-level >> for my "abilities"). My routines are in Lisp. It was a miserable week. > > The routines I used to read the files are in C, I write in Lisp, hence > the misery... > Have you tried a speech therapist, I believe they can fix that :) > It has to be 15-20 years since I programmed in LISP. Why LISP for this > application? When all you have is a hammer... :) I'm not a programmer. I taught myself various languages when I was a child (talk about a misspent youth!), but of course in a completely disorganised way, so I'm actually rubbish at coding. I also think in a completely disorganised way, which doesn't help. Then I lost interest (or transferred it to physics, to be precise). Some time ago, while writing my phd thesis, I got bored and decided to teach myself lisp: the perfect excuse to procrastinate. But my programs are clunky, to put it mildly :) I don't use it for number crunching, which I try to avoid, normally. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to acl <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk>], who wrote in article <1187737407.769354.287480@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>: > > What someone who knows how to parse DNG files can do, is write a program > > that does this within DNG files, for any camera with DNG. > > For me, C is 2 lines a day, so I won't do it :). No C needed - if dcraw can MERGE a header from one DNG file with a TIFF of "very raw" data. a) Convert DNG to TIFF; b1) use -fx of ImageMagick to do the transformation; or b2) convert to .txt via ImageMagick, use any scripted tool to edit .txt, convert back to TIFF; c) Merge the modified TIFF into the DNG file. (I have no idea whether 'c' is available). Hope this helps, Ilya > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to > acl [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > (I have no idea whether 'c' is available). Hey this imagemagick fx looks very interesting! Maybe I'll download it tonight if I have some time. Thanks! [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to John Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>], who wrote in article <Xns999322A247F6jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196>: > My padding of the zeros is probably key in getting almost exactly the same > results between 14-bit and 12-bit I see no reason why any explanation is needed. According to http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/, table 4, 1D mII has read noise about 17 electrons at iso100. Add to this electron noise, and you get noise about 20 electrons. With full well close to 64K, this gives noise of 20 units. log2(20)>4; There is practically no need to have more than 16-4=12 bits for storage. (Correct appropriately for mkIII; I do not know relevant numbers.) Hope this helps, Ilya > > Hey David, did you notice the 1ds mkiii's pixel pitch? :) > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Expect Leica, Zeiss and Olympus OM WAs to get even more expensive on Ebay. David, I've always enjoyed your posts here. Can you help me understand the mathematics of: > Let's see. 21.1 MP implies that'd be 8.2MP in a 1.6x camera or 9.4MP in a > 1.5x camera. > > 5616 x 3744 => 3744/24 = 156 pixels per mm, or 6.4 microns. This is NOT a criticism of your post. On the contrary, it's a sincere attempt on my part to understand the mathematics of sensor size, pixel size, and overall image quality. In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the 1Ds Mark III would compare to my D2Xs. I've thought of swapping systems when the 1Ds Mark III was released, but I'm not so sure now. Thanks in advance, John >> Hey David, did you notice the 1ds mkiii's pixel pitch? :) > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the 1Ds Mark III > would compare to my D2Xs. I've thought of swapping systems when the > 1Ds Mark III was released, but I'm not so sure now. They are two different cameras for two different purposes and there's no point in trying to make a comparison. The 1D Mk III is more on par with the D2xs. If you don't need high ISO performance stick with the D2 series. The FF sensor on the 1Ds would be nice, but at $8,000 it is much smarter to get a 5D for your WA needs and keep the D2xs or buy the 1D Mk III and 5D. As a Nikon shooter I have to admit that the Mk III and 5D will deliver more than what you need, especially if you use your Nikkors on them.. Rita > This is NOT a criticism of your post. On the contrary, it's a sincere > attempt on my part to understand the mathematics of sensor size, pixel size, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compare to my D2Xs. I've thought of swapping systems when the 1Ds Mark III > was released, but I'm not so sure now. I'll simplify the math for ya: Canon > Nikon. >> This is NOT a criticism of your post. On the contrary, it's a sincere >> attempt on my part to understand the mathematics of sensor size, pixel size, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Canon > Nikon. Rumour has it, that situation changes in 3 hours. >> Canon > Nikon. >> > Rumour has it, that situation changes in 3 hours. He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. As for lenses, Canon is about 35-years behind Nikon when it comes to WA lenses. Rita >>> Canon > Nikon. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a year to totally trash the Mk III. As for lenses, Canon is about > 35-years behind Nikon when it comes to WA lenses. It'll be very interesting to see what comes in a few hours - actually the press conference starts at 1pm JST, so about 5 hours from now. For sure Bjørn Rørslett and many other photogs have been flown to Tokyo - Bjørn has even posted on DPReview since arriving. "Trash" the 1dIII? I suspect that the D3 will do so in some aspects if ultimate high iso performance and frame rate is the issue, but my guess is that the price will be closer to the 1DsIII - nearly double the 1D. As such, it won't be in my Xmas stocking. The D300 will almost certainly trump the 40d, but it's not likely to be $1299 either. >> He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give >> Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. As for lenses, Canon is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For sure Bjørn Rørslett and many other photogs have been flown to > Tokyo As much as I love Nikon I'm not feeling the excitement. Nikon wore me out with all these friggen consumer DX zooms when all I wanted was some 400mm+ glass with VR. > - Bjørn has even posted on DPReview since arriving. > "Trash" the 1dIII? > I suspect that the D3 will do so in some aspects if ultimate high iso > performance and frame rate is the issue, but my guess is that the > price will be closer to the 1DsIII - nearly double the 1D. As such, > it won't be in my Xmas stocking. And I agree, I sure as hell won't be plugging down more than $5K for a disposable body. Even the 18-month rule has the "laws of diminishing returns" factored in. > The D300 will almost certainly trump the 40d, but it's not likely to > be $1299 either. If you sold you D200 for $1,300 you can get a shiny new D300 for the small price of $400. Paying $400 to upgrade after 18-months of hard use on a D200 is a bargain Rita >>> Canon > Nikon. >>> >> Rumour has it, that situation changes in 3 hours. > > He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give Nikon a > year to totally trash the Mk III. ROFL. They're still nowhere close to even the 1DsII. And that's been more than 3 years. And won't be until they go FF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give >> Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. > > ROFL. They're still nowhere close to even the 1DsII. And that's been > more than 3 years. And won't be until they go FF. I never mentioned the 1Ds. You're correct that Nikon won't be competing on the FF field. Nikon will make a decent 1D Mk III killer. They need VR on the long lenses. This is what drove me to buy the Mk III. Hopefully I'll be seeing a 500/4L IS soon. Rita >>> He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give >>> Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on > the FF field. Nikon will make a decent 1D Mk III killer. ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for sports and PJ work. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan David, Why do you say the D2X (or D2Xs I assume) is a joke for sports and PJ work? What's deficient in it? Thanks, John >>>> He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give >>>> Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > David, > > Why do you say the D2X (or D2Xs I assume) is a joke for sports and PJ > work? What's deficient in it? Lack of high ISO performance. Also, for available light work, one tends to use one's lenses wide open. The extremely fine pixel pitch will mean that one will see the softness due to lens abberations. This isn't as much of a problem as I make it out to be, though, because it's only shorter lenses for which this is really an issue. The 1DsIII will have similar problems. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > David, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > John He's winding you up - trolling. OTOH don't even think about buying a D2X at anywhere near retail price. The now announced D3 absolutely trumps it, and the D300 looks like it might also trump it - and only costs US$1800. > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message > . . . [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for > sports and PJ work. Joke, you say? With the D3 the joke's on Rita B. and thee! It looks like Rita's going to be much more active on eBay in the coming months. :) You may have already read up on it, but if not, this from DPReview: > It's here, after perhaps the longest period of speculation ever > Nikon has today lifted the covers on their first full-frame digital [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > as we can into a preview. The D3 will be available in November, at > around US$5000. http://dpreview.com/ Selected quotes from the preview : > FX Format Image Sensor > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > which contribute to delivering results with Nikon’s signature ‘look and feel’ > of rich accurate colours, smooth skin gradations and exceptional detail. > Shutter Unit > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deliver unmatched durability and accuracy even in the most > demanding of conditions. > Designed for definition > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > View function premiered in the D3 and D300. Unlike other live view > technologies, autofocus in possible in all Nikon Live View modes. > Flexible Image Storage > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > written to one card and the JPEG version to the other. Image files can > also be selected and copied from one card to the other after shooting. > Wireless Networking > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all thumbnails on each camera simultaneously, selecting (‘pulling’) the > images they need, while the photographers continue shooting. > Five New NIKKOR Lenses > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (Vibration Reduction), the AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, AF-S 500mm > f/4G ED VR and AF-S 600mm f/4G ED VR. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp >> ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for >> sports and PJ work. > > Joke, you say? With the D3 the joke's on Rita B. and thee! It > looks like Rita's going to be much more active on eBay in the coming > months. :) The D2x remains a joke, with D2x owners being the ones who have the most to be unhappy about. > You may have already read up on it, but if not, this from DPReview: > >> It's here, after perhaps the longest period of speculation ever >> Nikon has today lifted the covers on their first full-frame digital >> SLR, the new 12.1 megapixel D3. It looks like a great camera. In its weight and price class. But it doesn't provide any increase in image quality over what I've had for almost two years (it'll be a full two years the day the first D3 is shipped). >> and even a virtual >> horizon function which can tell you when you're holding the camera >> perfectly level. As before, being dizzy, this is the feature I need Canon to steal! David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>>> ROFL. They're still nowhere close to even the 1DsII. And that's been >>>>> more than 3 years. And won't be until they go FF. >>>> >>>> I never mentioned the 1Ds. You're correct that Nikon won't be competing >>>> on the FF field. Nikon will make a decent 1D Mk III killer. >>> ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for >>> sports and PJ work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The D2x remains a joke, with D2x owners being the ones who have the > most to be unhappy about. Nope. As anyone can see, my reply was not about the D2x, it was about the D3, and as the quotes from previous replies show, the comment was about not only the D3's FF sensor, but that Nikon now has a top notch camera for sports and PJ work. >> You may have already read up on it, but if not, this from DPReview: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > almost two years (it'll be a full two years the day the first D3 is > shipped). Why should it have to be the ultimate camera for all types of photography? Canon doesn't produce one. As with the D3, Canon makes cameras that excel in certain, but not all areas. Do you really think that cameras designed to be great for "sports and PJ work" need to have the highest possible image quality? Criticizing the D3 on this count is almost as silly as comparing it to the best P&S cameras and saying that the D3 comes up short because it doesn't take videos. In both cases, that's not what it was designed for. >>> and even a virtual horizon function which can tell you when >>> you're holding the camera perfectly level. > > As before, being dizzy, this is the feature I need Canon to steal! You're in for a long wait. The first Canon camera to have that feature will be available Sept. 2010 in the Powershot S11 IS, the first of the 18x18's which will boost the 12x lens to 18x, and will cram 18mp into the same size 1/2.5" sensor. :) > >> ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for > >> sports and PJ work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The D2x remains a joke, with D2x owners being the ones who have the most to > be unhappy about. Actually it's still a nice camera. But I agree, they'll be unhappy now; especialy ones who bought it eg yesterday at normal price: compare its specs and price to the D300... Ouch! I think we're now definitely beyond the point where each generation of dslrs is substantially better than the previous. Things seem to be stable, with incrememental improvements (marketing noise notwithstanding). >> The D2x remains a joke, with D2x owners being the ones who have the >> most to be unhappy about. > > Actually it's still a nice camera. It's unique in that it has/had 12 MP at a fine pixel pitch. It is one of the noisiest DSLRs made in recent years, though, as far as read noise is concerned. It has more read noise at ISO 100 than the 1Dmk3 has at ISO 1600. It's a camera that works best in controlled lighting; not for action in dark places. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>> He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give >>>> Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for > sports and PJ work. ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, too! And yet they got good photos anyway! Signaturewww.mattclara.com > ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, > too! And yet they got good photos anyway! Did they, really? Most of the action sports and wildlife photos in low light from the age of film look pretty poor (IQ-wise), IMO. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, > > too! And yet they got good photos anyway! > > Did they, really? Most of the action sports and wildlife photos in low > light from the age of film look pretty poor (IQ-wise), IMO. I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent shots. What sports were you interested in that they happened in low light? I think you're making sh.t up, is what I think. Helps your argument, I guess. -- www.mattclara.com > > Did they, really? Most of the action sports and wildlife photos in low > > light from the age of film look pretty poor (IQ-wise), IMO. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > light? I think you're making sh.t up, is what I think. Helps your > argument, I guess. http://img.nytstore.com/IMAGES/NSAPNL12L_EXTR.JPG Here is a famous sports photograph from the old days. Looks like crap compared to modern day photos. And the color is way off. >> I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of >> Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Here is a famous sports photograph from the old days. Looks like crap > compared to modern day photos. And the color is way off. What do you expect from daylight film under all of those lights? And Ameche had been taking steroids so he should have been disqualified. In spite of it all, a good evening for the Bronx. :) >>> I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of >>> Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And Ameche had been taking steroids so he should have been > disqualified. In spite of it all, a good evening for the Bronx. :) Wow, jpegging was really lousy back then. > ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, too! > And yet they got good photos anyway! The DC3 in its time was a very good passenger plane, today it would be a joke as a passenger plane. Time moves on, technology gets better and expectations raise. Scott >> ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, >> too! And yet they got good photos anyway! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Scott Apt statement. For those who don't remember, the DC3 was the workhorse of the airlines back in the 1930s and '40s. It was powered by two internal combustion engines and had an interesting design feature: in order to be light enough to fly when fully loaded, the wings were rather flexible. It was a rather unnerving sight to look out the window and see the wing tips going up and down over a range of four to six feet. What was "fully loaded"? In its original configuration it would seat 21 passengers (seven rows, two seats on one side of the aisle, one on the other); later, some were configured to hold up to 24. I remember being on a fully loaded flight which encountered rough air; I and one other person were the only two passengers who weren't making use of the whoopie bags. In comparing the history of air travel and photography, the DC3 was fairly close to the equivalent of the wet plate camera. Time marches on, but some people just sit down and mope. Allen >Time marches on, but some people just sit down and mope. Some people are so taken in by new technology that they automatically assume it must be an improvement on older technologies. And once having invested expensively in the new technology, they flat deny that old technologies had anything to offer, for fear of buyer's remorse. Fortunately for the rest of us, these people are totally transparent. >> Time marches on, but some people just sit down and mope. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Fortunately for the rest of us, these people are totally transparent. For myself I have photos using the old technology (film) and the new (digital) and I see a large improvement in in image quality since moving to digital. For a while I did both film, when I needed higher resolution then I could get from my 3MP digital, and digital when I wanted a clean low noise image. But with even 6MP DSLRs there is little point if any in shooting 35mm, and with 8 I see no point in it. With MF and a decent scanner you can get very good results, but then many if not most sports are not suitable to being shoot with MF. I know basketball is shoot with fixed MF cameras and remote flash units, but this is not the norm for sports shooting. Am I taken with digital photography? sure, but not because it is new but because of the results I get from it. If you are saying that you got better sports photos, or even as good, using film as you do with digital I would like to see both what you were getting with film and what you are getting with digital. Scott > The DC3 in its time was a very good passenger plane, today it would be a > joke as a passenger plane. Time moves on, technology gets better and > expectations raise. Yes, and these days quite a bit of plastic and epoxy is used. I heard a news story about a week ago that mentioned a new method used to build bridges which substitutes plastic for the steel encased in concrete. It was said to result in a greater serviceable life per bridge of about 50 years. But don't tell you-know-whoA. :) >> ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, >> too! And yet they got good photos anyway! > > The DC3 in its time was a very good passenger plane, today it would be a > joke as a passenger plane. Time moves on, technology gets better and > expectations raise. DC3s are still in service as passenger planes - you can charter them and/or go on scheduled tourist flights around here. IIRC the stewardesses still serve scones with cream and jam, and tea or coffee in proper cups. What I don't see are DC8s, 707s, and Concorde airliners flying in. Brand new airliners don't fly faster, don't fly higher, and if the interior decor was up to date, then a passenger's clues as to whether they were on a 50 year old 707 or brand new airbus would be in subtle details like cabin width and the skinny looking old engines. Most people wouldn't even notice. >>> He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give >>> Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the long lenses. This is what drove me to buy the Mk III. Hopefully I'll > be seeing a 500/4L IS soon. Why not get a AFS VR 400mm f2.8 /500mm f4 / or 600mm f4 Nikkor? Sell the 1DIII while there's still a market. >> I never mentioned the 1Ds. You're correct that Nikon won't be >> competing on the FF field. Nikon will make a decent 1D Mk III [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why not get a AFS VR 400mm f2.8 /500mm f4 / or 600mm f4 Nikkor? > Sell the 1DIII while there's still a market. This might be in the cards. Fortunately I got the Mk III at a decent pricepoint and stand to make a couple hundred dollars selling it used. The announcement of the long lenses caught me off gaurd, but is great news. Let's wait and see how much more VR raises the price of these lenses. Maybe Canon is a bargain afterall. I'm not sweating it, I'm enjoying the Mk III till all the dust settles. Rita >>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Would this be a start? http://i9.tinypic.com/6fhazrb.jpg Looks like they had to show off one of the many new AF-s G(non DX) zooms on the D3 body. >>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Oops - Looks like they just gazumped the 1DIII Full Frame at 9fps / DX crop @ 11fps. Hi2 mode ISO 25,600 Normal mode up to ISO 6400 US $5,000 Also, as has been predicted: 14-24 AFs F2.8 24-70 AFs F2.8 400mm 2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4, all with AFs & VR >>>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 24-70 AFs F2.8 > 400mm 2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4, all with AFs & VR I guess Rita bought his Mk III too soon. Greg SignatureTicketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky >>>>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Greg Lol - I think so. The big surprise is that it's only $500 more than the 1DIII, and the famed 17-35 also just got gazumped by new AF-s f2.8 14-24. > >>> "Rita ? Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the 1DIII, and the famed 17-35 also just got gazumped by new AF-s f2.8 > 14-24. That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come down to earth... >> Lol - I think so. The big surprise is that it's only $500 more than >> the 1DIII, and the famed 17-35 also just got gazumped by new AF-s >> f2.8 14-24. > > That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come > down to earth... They will briefly drop in price when the market gets momentarily flooded with them. Once Canon users realize that the new 12-24 and 24-70 are G lenses and won't work on EOS bodies the price of the 17-35/2.8 are going to soar into Noct range. I know I'll be buying several more 17-35s when they get nice and low. Rita >>> Lol - I think so. The big surprise is that it's only $500 more than >>> the 1DIII, and the famed 17-35 also just got gazumped by new AF-s [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > soar into Noct range. I know I'll be buying several more 17-35s when they > get nice and low. According to Ken, prices for the new lenses are: AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, $1,799.95 AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, $1,699.95 AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, $ $8,799.95 AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, $7,899.95 AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, $9,499.95 You are IMO an optimist on the 1DIII retaining value, and also the 17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon users wanting to use the lens on 5d etc by far. For comparison Canon closest equivalent prices from B&H are in brackets: > AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, $1,799.95 ($1449 - 16-35) > AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, $1,699.95 ($1139) > AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, $ $8,799.95 ($6500) > AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, $7,899.95 ($5500) > AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, $9,499.95 ($7200) Kind of academic for me - I'm not paying $9500 for a Nikkor 600mm, but I'm not paying $7200 for the Canon lens either. > For comparison Canon closest equivalent prices from B&H are in > brackets: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Kind of academic for me - I'm not paying $9500 for a Nikkor 600mm, but > I'm not paying $7200 for the Canon lens either. Though the Nikkors are much better in build and optical quality the Canon equivalents are a bargain for the casual shooter. I'm gunning for a 500/4L right now. Rita > Though the Nikkors are much better in build and optical quality the Canon > equivalents are a bargain for the casual shooter. Rita's a.s is talking again! > Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon > users wanting to use the lens on 5d etc by far. The 16-9.net tests show the Nikon 17-35 to be no better than Canon's own 17-40 anyway. I had considered using the Nikon on my 1Ds2, but my own tests supported the 16-9 results. I also tested the Canon 16-35 Mk1 and Mk2 and still ended up staying with the 17-40. >>> That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come >>> down to earth... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon > users wanting to use the lens on 5d etc by far. The 1D Mk III will hold its value for a while. I'm not going to defy fate by keeping it more than 18-months. The new 14-24/2.8 is going to be a winner with the people that stay with the D200/300 that want to go wide. Plus, you are going to see a lot of Nikon shooters grabbing up the 17-35. If the new 14-24 were a D lens the Canon shooters would go crazy over it and make the 17-35/2.8 worthless. Rita >>>> That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come >>>> down to earth... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and > make the 17-35/2.8 worthless. I disagree. Already some 1DIII users are complaining that Canon has dropped them deeply in the brown sticky stuff. Some because the announced 40d with higher burst rate and features then the 30d will do for them what the 30d wouldn't have done - when they think they just spent over $3k that they didn't need to, some complain because they wanted a D3 equivalent from Canon. Your 17-35 on a 1d ain't like a 17-35 on a 5d with the crop factor. The 1d is a sports cam, and I'm sure a very fine one it is too. A d200-300 user isn't likely to really want the 14-24. For starters it's got integral hood and no filter thread, and isn't as wide as the 12-24 that costs half as much, which isn't as wide as the Sigma 10-20 which costs half as much again. If the f2.8 really matters and the pockets are deep enough to finance it, then surely a d3 is within reach. Thom Hogan's comments: "D300 is pegged at an initial production of 60k units a month, D3 is pegged at an initial production of 8k units a month" The D300 is only one of four (or is it 5 or 6?) current Nikon DX sensor cameras. The full frame market is expected to be small - if you an call anticipated 100,000 units per year of a pro camera small. >>> You are IMO an optimist on the 1DIII retaining value, and also the >>> 17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > with the crop factor. The 1d is a sports cam, and I'm sure > a very fine one it is too. Well, you're always going to get someone that will complain no matter what. Who cares about them since the world quickly passes them by? The people that bought the Mk III bought it for what they need it to do. As for the 17-35, I do realize that it behaves differently on an FF and a cropped sensor. Even on the Mk III's APS-H sensor it is still a joy to use. As a Nikon shooter I'm really impressed with the Mk III and am very glad I got it. First impression of the Mk III is a well-built high performance camera. First impression of the 5D is a great FF sensor that is encrusted with sh.t. > A d200-300 user isn't likely to really want the 14-24. For > starters it's got integral hood and no filter thread, and > isn't as wide as the 12-24 that costs half as much, which > isn't as wide as the Sigma 10-20 which costs half as much > again. If the f2.8 really matters and the pockets are deep > enough to finance it, then surely a d3 is within reach. You are forgetting the new 14-24 is a pro lens and not some circumcised to that the 12-24/4 is. > Thom Hogan's comments: > "D300 is pegged at an initial production of 60k units a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to be small - if you an call anticipated 100,000 units per > year of a pro camera small. I think the D3 is going to do really well. Trust me, I'm not selling any Nikkors from my personal lens collection. There will be enough pics and reviews floating around the internet in the very near future. Buying a D3 is not off the table. I'll be dragging my feet before I part with the cash. Rita > Oops - Looks like they just gazumped the 1DIII > > Full Frame at 9fps / DX crop @ 11fps. > Hi2 mode ISO 25,600 > Normal mode up to ISO 6400 there's more... <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9083> <http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond3/> 14 bit (switchable to 12 bit for speed & smaller files) automatic correction of lateral chromatic aberration a 'virtual level' for horizons live view *with* autofocus 51 point autofocus (and infinite point in live view tripod mode) dx mode with dx lenses, or activated manually two compact flash slots >> Oops - Looks like they just gazumped the 1DIII >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > dx mode with dx lenses, or activated manually > two compact flash slots Yeah - there's previews up on DPReview now too. Both cameras expected to be available in November. The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera I've been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my D70 and spent what I would have done on lenses instead. > Both cameras expected to be available in November. Sheesh! Nikon's making a liar out of me again: it's not six months, it's only three months. > The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera I've > been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my D70 and > spent what I would have done on lenses instead. Don't chuck the D70 just yet: you may find yourself better off using D70 images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images in low light. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Both cameras expected to be available in November. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images in low > light. If Nikon made the D300 with worse noise than the D200, then IMO that's a mistake if the option was to stay at 10mp and improve noise performance. But my guess is that it's going to be good (but no - not a 5d). Take a D2xs sensor and add a few years of development, and it darned well ought to be improved. And no - the D70 has been excellent, but it's time to move on. At about 30,000 clicks, Even if I trashed it now, I've saved more than 5x what it would have cost me in film and processing, and the results have generally been better, sometimes much better than I ever got from 35mm. I shoot raw, and use an R1800 for printing. Viewing my old Cibachrome collection shows me very clearly how much things have moved on in a relatively short space of time. >>> Both cameras expected to be available in November. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If Nikon made the D300 with worse noise than the D200, then IMO that's a > mistake if the option was to stay at 10mp and improve noise performance. There isn't any "option to improve noise performance". The physics of the situation are that measurement noise is the limiting factor here. The only way to improve noise performance is to increase the pixel area. (One could also, perhaps, move to stacked capacitors and reduce the ISO. But that's not really "improving the noise performance".) > But my guess is that it's going to be good (but no - not a 5d). Take a > D2xs sensor and add a few years of development, and it darned well ought > to be improved. Hehe. You have faith in technology, and I have faith in physics. > And no - the D70 has been excellent, but it's time to move on. At about > 30,000 clicks, Even if I trashed it now, I've saved more than 5x what it > would have cost me in film and processing, and the results have generally > been better, sometimes much better than I ever got from 35mm. Exactly! (I moved from MF to the 5D, and since I take a lot fewer frames, haven't saved as much money...) > I shoot raw, and use an R1800 for printing. Viewing my old Cibachrome > collection shows me very clearly how much things have moved on in a > relatively short space of time. I took 25 years off from photography, so I missed Cibachrome. I messed up. I have the R800 for work and A4, and bought the R2400. So far, I've not been able to persuade the R2400 to do any better than the R800 for B&W (and the R800 is better for color glossy), and the need to switch inks to switch between matte and glossy is a disaster. I basically print matte until the matte black runs out, then print glossy for a while.... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>> Both cameras expected to be available in November. >>> Sheesh! Nikon's making a liar out of me again: it's not six months, it's [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Hehe. You have faith in technology, and I have faith in physics. I don't have the patience to study the technical data to try and find flaws in what looks like a convincing argument. But, I do see that for example the new Olympus 10mp 4/3 sensor (with pixel density ~ 15mp on DX) converted raw files look no worse and IMO better than D2x files at the pixel level. But I'm not rushing to buy a D300 - I'll wait until I see, not just for noise / DR, but rushing to a new model isn't a great idea IMO. >> And no - the D70 has been excellent, but it's time to move on. At about >> 30,000 clicks, Even if I trashed it now, I've saved more than 5x what it [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to switch between matte and glossy is a disaster. I basically print matte > until the matte black runs out, then print glossy for a while.... The real difference with R800/1800 and 2400, apart from monochrome, is the better gamut of the k3 inks on matte papers. If you soft-proof in photoshop, you can see a clear advantage to k3, particularly in saturated and dark greens. On my calibrated system, the R1800 prints match soft-proof in photoshop extremely well. For landscape prints on matte papers, I'll sometimes need to tweak the image or risk posterisation or washed out colours in foliage or grass. If I load the equivalent R2400 profile, then the gamut warning goes away (and I expect - so would the problem if I had an R2400!). I'm pretty happy with the B&W from the R1800, but get a definite but slight cyan shift in light grey tones. Nobody viewing a print has ever commented, so it's not a big deal, but I'd like better. So IMO you *should* be seeing better results with the 2400 on monochrome. If you wanted to sort it, then the forums at photo-i.co.uk are a source of some good advice on workflow, and on which ICC profiles and settings work best. > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > I'm pretty happy with the B&W from the R1800, but get a definite but > slight cyan shift in light grey tones. Nobody viewing a print has ever > commented, so it's not a big deal, but I'd like better. I think that's a driver issue. I've never seen a color shift with the R800 printing B&W images from Qimage, but most people in English speaking countries have that problem. > So IMO you *should* be seeing better results with the 2400 on monochrome. > If you wanted to sort it, then the forums at photo-i.co.uk are a source of > some good advice on workflow, and on which ICC profiles and settings work > best. Thanks for the pointer; I keep forgetting to check them out. (I've just gone back to printing from Qimage after spending too much time hassling profiles with Lightroom. Grr. Qimage with no profile to the Epson Japan drivers set to Automatic and Photo-Realistic and the correct paper type simply works. I know real men use ICC profiles, but the printers are actually Japanese-market models and it's not clear that the papers are the same. For example, the "R800" corresponds to the PX-G900, PX-G920, and PX-G930 models here.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> I'm pretty happy with the B&W from the R1800, but get a definite but >> slight cyan shift in light grey tones. Nobody viewing a print has ever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > printing B&W images from Qimage, but most people in English speaking > countries have that problem. It's something I've never looked in to in great detail (on an endless todo list). Often I'll warm up - very slightly sepia tone - a monochrome for matte paper, because IMO it looks better than flat neutral. In that case, there's no problem at all. >> So IMO you *should* be seeing better results with the 2400 on monochrome. >> If you wanted to sort it, then the forums at photo-i.co.uk are a source of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > example, the "R800" corresponds to the PX-G900, PX-G920, and PX-G930 models > here.) I'm pretty sure that the papers will be the same if you can sort the nomenclature out. One catch is the "premium" and "ultra premium" suffix, and Epson's practice of calling the same paper by different names in different markets - ie I still buy paper formerly known as Archival Matte, then Enhanced Matte, now Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte in some markets - but still called Archival Matte here. Go figure. The Japanese drivers work fine on the US models, and I'd assume vice-versa. Some use the Japanese drivers as IIRC the US driver doesn't have a "greyscale" option in the driver (The NZ/Aust driver does). The best canned profiles I have seem to be the latest US releases - except the Ilford Galerie profiles seem better still (smooth pearl is my favourite paper on the R1800). Yeah - using ICC profiles can be a drama, but once your workflow is sorted, then it's second nature. I don't use QImage - does that allow soft-proof / gamut warning? > Yeah - using ICC profiles can be a drama, but once your workflow is > sorted, then it's second nature. I had it down for a couple of paper/printer combinations, but got tired of making test prints. Also, while I like the idea of printing from Lightroom, I think I'd rather check my images in Photoshop before printing. > I don't use QImage - does that allow soft-proof / gamut warning? The soft-proof / gamut warning terms seem to be quite recent (I just upgraded from PS 7 to CS3, and I also haven't upgraded to the latest version of Qimage), or maybe I just didn't notice them earlier. But I don't recall seeing them in a Qimage context. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>>Both cameras expected to be available in November. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There isn't any "option to improve noise performance". The physics of the > situation are that measurement noise is the limiting factor here. They went from a CCD to CMOS sensor, and to 14-bit A/D conversion, and a new processor so probably improved jpegs. > The only way to improve noise performance is to increase the pixel area. > (One could also, perhaps, move to stacked capacitors and reduce the ISO. But [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com <snip> >>> The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera I've >>> been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my D70 and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > me very clearly how much things have moved on in a relatively short space > of time. The D70's great for IR photography, whereas the D200 and, I assume, the D300 are not. Keep it if you can afford to. People worry that adding the extra pixels to the sensor will make the D300 noisier, but if DPReview is right, the D300 uses a CMOS instead of CCD, and thus may alleviate that problem to some degree. Signaturewww.mattclara.com >> The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera >> I've been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > D70 images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images > in low light. LOL! Looks like you're still bitter after eating crow again. Just admit it, Canon is at the back of the bus again.. Rita > Don't chuck the D70 just yet: you may find yourself better off using > D70 images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images > in low light. The D40 is a much better imager for low light at 6MP. Still might not be as good as the D300 downsampled to 6MP, though (not that I recommend downsampling images just to reduce pixel-level noise). Have to wait and see what the new Nikons really do. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > a 'virtual level' for horizons If this does both roll and tilt, I really really really want it. Go, Nikon! David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > a 'virtual level' for horizons > > If this does both roll and tilt, I really really really want it. i think it is just roll, but nevertheless, it looks slick: <http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/NikonD3/Images/Additional/lcd_virtua lhorizon.gif> >> > a 'virtual level' for horizons >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/NikonD3/Images/Additional/lcd_virtua > lhorizon.gif> Hmm. That looks like it works on the LCD on the back of the camera. It could be useful for panoramas on a tripod. For which I already have lots of bubble levels. What I want are rows of LEDs along the edges _IN_ the viewfinder that tell you how tilted/rolled you are so I can do shift-lens work hand-held. David J. Littleboy Dreaming on in Tokyo, Japan > Hmm. That looks like it works on the LCD on the back of the camera. It could > be useful for panoramas on a tripod. For which I already have lots of bubble > levels. > > What I want are rows of LEDs along the edges _IN_ the viewfinder that tell > you how tilted/rolled you are so I can do shift-lens work hand-held. apparently, it can do that: <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9083> A Virtual Horizon Adjustment feature that is both cool and useful and will almost certainly replace a hot shoe bubble level for Nikon photographers that need to shoot pictures with straight horizons. We don't know what the level of precision of the internal detection sensors are, but in testing it's clearly as or more sensitive to left-right camera movement than a typical bubble level (which you'll still need to orient the camera front-to-back). Virtual Horizon Adjustment works when the camera is horizontal, vertical and even flipped upside down, but not when the lens is pointed at the sky or ground. When enabled, leveling can be done when looking through the viewfinder, on the top display or via a fun graphic on the rear LCD. > Oops - Looks like they just gazumped the 1DIII > > Full Frame at 9fps / DX crop @ 11fps. No gajumping here: The 11 fps only works without AF tracking, so it's really a 9 fps camera. Also, a DX crop from a 12.9MP sensor isn't a lot of pixels (a measly 5.8MP). But it is a sensible design. Finally. The D300, on the other hand, is nuts. Too many pixels in too small a space. If they had used the D3 sensor and the same FF/DX switching with, say 3 fps and 6 fps, they'd have a 5D killer, forcing Canon to get off their butts and release a 16MP 5DII. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Oops - Looks like they just gazumped the 1DIII >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The 11 fps only works without AF tracking, so it's really a 9 fps camera. > Also, a DX crop from a 12.9MP sensor isn't a lot of pixels (a measly 5.8MP). Yes - but it does 9fps in full frame (fx) mode. 9fps/10fps/11fps - who cares? So long as it can work reliably (and that isn't a swipe at Canon) at high frame rates, it's pretty irrelevant. > But it is a sensible design. Finally. > > The D300, on the other hand, is nuts. Too many pixels in too small a space. > If they had used the D3 sensor and the same FF/DX switching with, say 3 fps > and 6 fps, they'd have a 5D killer, forcing Canon to get off their butts and > release a 16MP 5DII. It's suggested list price is only US$1800. Nikon must be reasonably confident about high ISO performance, because they've bumped base iso range up a stop from the D200. The main real criticism I've seen with the D2x/s (apart from the usual - "it's not full frame") is the relatively poor high iso performance. If a few years down the track from the D2x they haven't improved that significantly, I'll be very surprised. > The D300, on the other hand, is nuts. Too many pixels in too small a space. > If they had used the D3 sensor and the same FF/DX switching with, say 3 fps > and 6 fps, they'd have a 5D killer, forcing Canon to get off their butts and > release a 16MP 5DII. The 5D-II should be 1t least 20 megapixels 8*1.6^2 = 20.5 Doug McDonald >> The D300, on the other hand, is nuts. Too many pixels in too small a >> space. If they had used the D3 sensor and the same FF/DX switching with, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 8*1.6^2 = 20.5 I think not. That's the 1DsIII pixel count. The 5D had the same pixel size as the 1DII, so I'd expect the 5D to have the same pixel size as the 1DIII. The 1DII - 5D - 1Ds system was 8 - 12 - 16. So 1DIII - 5DII - 1DsII should be 10 - 16 - 21. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ROFL. They're still nowhere close to even the 1DsII. And that's been more > than 3 years. And won't be until they go FF. Whaddya mean?... Ooops - sorry - you wrote that yesterday. >>>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whaddya mean?... > Ooops - sorry - you wrote that yesterday. Didn't take long for that to be history<g>. Hooray! Canon's got some competition. Finally. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>>>> Canon > Nikon. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Didn't take long for that to be history<g>. Hooray! Canon's got some > competition. Finally. Here's a comment that Bjorn Rorslett has just made on DPreview: "The new D3 has high-ISO performance beyond what anyone could imagine possible. I could hardly believe my eyes." Yes - it sure looks like Canon has some serious competition. > >>> "Rita ? Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Yes - it sure looks like Canon has some serious competition. Well, Rorslett isn't the most unbiased judge... Let's see what he imagines possible first! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message