Jumping ship from Nikon!!!

[zec6]

Well.. deciding on whether to jump ship from Nikon D2H and D100 to a Canon 1D Mark II. Has anyone shooting Nikon made the plunge? and why?. Still not sure on whether to wait for the D2X or completely switch.. granted, I would have to Ebay my lens, but this would be a long term decision.. I primarily shoot weddings and some sporting events.
My only concern is Nikon sticking to the smaller DX sensor...


Your suggestions and opinions are greatly appreciated.. I'm sure I'll be opening a can of worms comparing Nikon to Canon.. :)

Thanks..

[tim]

The can is already well and truely open!

[BearSummer]

Hi Zec,

Just to clarify, Canon have three digital SLR sensor sizes which are as follows.
Full frame on the 1DS and 1DS Mk2
1.3x crop (zoom factor) on the 1D and 1D Mk2
1.6x crop (zoom factor) on the rest of the slr's

the 1DS and 1DS mk2 have a frame rate of 3fps for 10 frames and 4 fps for 11 frames which may be a bit slow for your motor racing

The 1D and 1D mk2 have 8 fps for 16 frames or 8.5 fps for 20 frames
The above values are for shooting raw, you get more frames from jpg but the same fps.

So as usual you will have to pick between full frame and low fps or a 1.3x crop with higher fps.

Hope that helps

BearSummer

[Longwatcher]

All I will say is N**** announced the D2X a week before Canon announced the 1DsMkII. I have my 1DsMkII, The D2X is still not shipping. Also it really competes with the 1DM2 which has been out even longer.

OKay I will also mention some other factors.
on the N**** side:
Supposedly ergonomics are slightly better.
More flexability with picture sizes
Your glass will still fit
They have more adds.

on the Canon side:
The 1DM2 and 1DsMkII exist
Better low light/low noise capability
1.3x and Full Frame camera available
Canon seems to be about a full year ahead of Nikon in terms of technology.
And the number one reason: You get to tout your new camera on this wonderful forum. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Between lenses and better Digital bodies across the board.. it's Canon all the way! ;)

Welcome to the Next Level :mrgreen:

[mr.photoguy]

What is it with people and typing N****** .. There is no such word in the Dictionary.

[Belmondo]

What is it with people and typing N****** .. There is no such word in the Dictionary.

Yes there is. It begins with S.


:lol:

[CoolToolGuy]

Yes there is. It begins with S.


:lol:
Does it rhyme with 'fit?'

Have Fun,

[Longwatcher]

What is it with people and typing N****** .. There is no such word in the Dictionary.

I type N**** so that search engines will be less likely to point here as a courtesy to others.

If you believe that, I have a 1DsMkII BOX I would be happy to sell you for only $4000 US. I will even throw in the plastic bags that came in it.

I do it for the humor value (at least to me).

[zec6]

Thanks Longwatcher and everyone else for mostly the entertaining thread..:)

After reading the reviews and the opinions on this Forum.. I've decided to take the plunge.. Hello 1D Mark II...


Given that I'll be doing plenty of weddings, the low light/low noise capability is very important. Plus.. I don't like the fact that Nikon doesn't even have a FF camera.. Turns out you can't even use Program Mode or Shutter Speed Priority on the D2X unless you have DX lenses.. That bites.. I shoot Manual most of the time, but I would at least like to use those features if they are available without having to invest another $1500 for a DX lens..

Regards,
Z

[BearSummer]

Hi Zec,

welcome to the family, if you need any help in spending your money we are always happy to make suggestons.

Go L, Go L, Goooooo L, yayyyy

all the best

BearSummer

[zec6]

Forgot to thank BearSummer as well for your suggestions.. The 1.3 does make a big different.. On another note.. the D2X will only do 8fps in crop mode at 6.8meg and 2x multiplier.. NO GOOD for what I do.. Nikon has really dropped the ball on this one..

[Belmondo]

Does it rhyme with 'fit?'

Have Fun,


Ummmmmm. Yeah.

[vwpilot]

You say your only concern is the DX sensor size.

If that is truly your ONLY concern then I think its not a very good one. There is nothing wrong with the DX sensor size since Nikon has addressed it with excellent lenses to make up for it (provided Nikon can address the noise issues with really small photosites).

Why does the sensor size cause you concern?

Why does a DX sensor make you want to switch?

What can a 1.3 crop sensor do that a 1.5 crop sensor cannot?

I switched a year ago. I went from the D1H to the 1D. For me the sensor size had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, especially since the 1.3 crop of the 1D and MkII is virtually the same as the DX sensor.

I switched because I wanted a camera that was faster than what I was using and I was getting more and more poster sized requests and knew the MkII would be in my future. Thats it. I went to 1D initially due to the money of the switch, and now to MkIIs this winter.

Again, if your only concern is sensor size I dont think that is a very good thing to base the switch on, but if there are other reasons that you think that Canon will make a difference, then consider it, but be wise about it and dont get caught up in the "grass is always greener" mentality. I would wait and see how the D2X looks before jumping into anything.

[eosster]

Welcome from Darkside, even though I think Canon is darkside with all this new equipment for us to purchase quartely, lol.

Cheers,

Charles,

[zec6]

vwPilot.. The DX Sensor is a concern of mine. In order to get the best picture and use the D2X's full functionality you need to purchase the DX lenses.I've looked at a lot of reviews comparing the DX lens to non DX lens and there's a pretty significant clarity different. Specially when you crop.
Eventually, the DX sesor will be too small to add anymore pixles. From all the technical articles I've read, the 12.4meg pixels is about all you can add to the DX sensros of that size. I know technology changes and that might not be the case later.

Furthermore, Nikon is supposedly releasing a D3.. Not sure if that's a myth or not, but that's supposed to be a full-frame.. Those DX lens are now usesless. In regards to the multiplier factor. 1.3 and 1.5 is quite a bit of a difference. a 50mm becoming 75mm compares to 65mm is pretty significant, I think.

Now that you've switched to Canon.. Are you more impressed with the quality of the pictures and lens? I've been happy with the Nikon, just not too happy with the direction they are taking.

Best Regards and thanks..

[PhotosGuy]

If you don't expect to get a lot for some lenses on ebay, you can use them on a C**** with an adaptor if you don't mind losing autofocus & having manual focus & f-stops. ;)

[S230]

I too have been wondering this from the start. I agree that the Nik*n D70 is better than the Rebel 300D but I look ahead in the direction Canon is going. As many have said, you will be investing a lot into the Lens more than the camera itself. So it's wise to stick with something that is ready for the future and camera lens changes less than the camera itself. The camera itself just a "light box" and within a few years, you will be probably upgrading.

Check out the following link I started and still ongoing.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50304

[vwpilot]

Disclaimer: This is going to sound like a very pro Nikon post, however, I am NOT encouraging a Nikon here, just trying to be subjective about both systems.

Not sure exactly what you mean about having to use the DX lenses, but that is the very thing Nikon has done to account for the crop. Its still got to be less money to buy a DX lens or two than to do an entire line switch. In the wide angles the DX lenses do provide better quality than you can get with a regular lens. But you dont NEED the DX lenses and once you get into the regular focal lengths the DX doesnt really matter anymore.

But this leads us to the fact that Canon does NOT have any current digital lenses that fit the 1D so if you are really out for wide angle quality you are getting a better deal with the Nikon system. In addition, I (as well as many people that have used both) find that even the regular wides in Nikons line are sharper than the Canon counterparts.

I dont think the 1.3 vs. 1.5 difference is really that big or noticable, at least to me. If you are a hardcore wide angle user then maybe, but then you should be looking at the 1Ds anyway.

Nikon has said and shows NO indication that they will go full frame, so I dont think that you will have any problem with DX lenses becoming unusable.

As far as functionality of lenses other than DX, that is simply wrong and either you got wrong info or misunderstood something. As long as you are using AF lenses with at least the 'D' designation you will get all the functionality out of the camera. They have been using the D for many years so you should be fine. As you start to get into the older lenses you start to lose some of the functionality, such as the 3D metering, but you will still have center-weighted and spot etc. It gets complicated with older lenses, but you can use ANY Nikkor lens every made on the D2X in at least the manual mode. Here is the explanation from Nikon's site:

Compatible Lenses: AF Nikkor (including AF-S, DX, VR and D-/G-type): All functions possible; D-type Manual-Focus Nikkor: All functions except autofocus and some exposure modes available; AF Nikkor other than D-/G-type: All functions except 3D Color Matrix Metering II and 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash possible; AI-P Nikkor: All functions except 3D Color Matrix Metering II, 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash and AF possible; Non-CPU AI Nikkor: Usable in [A] or [M] mode with Matrix-Metering, Center-Weighted and Spot metering available. Indication of aperture number after user inputs the aperture f/stop and focal length f=mm by multi-selector operation. Electronic Rangefinder usable with maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster.

Noise is possibly an issue, hence the reason I suggested waiting to see what happes with the D2X, though if you have been using a D2H it shouldnt be any worse than that. Plus I have heard that Noise Ninja and others do a magnificent job on the D2H. When we start to see the photos out of the D2X we can start to decide on noise. I think that as technology gets on, you will see more and more pixels with less and less noise and they can get smaller and smaller. The 1DsMkII is already an example of that as it has some of the smallest photosites of any current camera out there.

As far as my happiness with Canon, well its a mixed bag. I do think the photos are very nice out of the 1 series bodies. However, they require A LOT more post processing than my D1H required. Now I havent used the D2H, so I dont know what that is requiring, but I can definately say that my Nikon photos came out of the camera nicer than they do out of my Canon.

But that is not bad, its just a little more work. In the end they are fine, especially when I am doing 20x30s and stuff, the 8mp is an advantage over my old 2.74mp D1H. Those do end up better, but if I werent doing anything above maybe a 16x20 I wouldnt have worried about it.

As far as lenses, this is where I will disagree with the Canon die hards. I REALLY REALLY liked my Nikkor glass and IMO the Canon glass does not stack up to it at all (IS means virtually nothing to me so I dont take that into account when I compare). My 500 f/4 IS is great and that is as nice as my 300 f/2.8 Nikkor I had, so that is an even wash. But I dont consider my 70-200 IS to be as sharp as my older 80-200 af-s lens (though its still damn sharp) and my 24-70 f/2.8 is a great lens, though not as sharp as the 28-70 f/2.8 and the (though I dont own it, but have used it) 16-35 is no where near as sharp as the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8.

Now, this does not make the Canon lenses bad, they are very nice lenses, but when I put them side by side I do think that Nikon has Canon beat across much of the focal range.

The other side of this though is that Canon has a wider range of lenses and has some great lenses that Nikon does not have in the mid range. With Nikon you either have cheap or excellent. With Canon you have a whole price range of lenses to choose from (70-200 f/4L for instance).

So to end my novel here (sorry, I'm not good at keeping things concise) I do like my Canon stuff a lot and do not regret the decision to change. I also do not want to discourage you from making the change if that is what you want. However, I do know the cost of changing and from my own experience if the DX sized sensor was the only thing leading me to change I know that would not have been worth it to me. It might be for you. I think that Nikon has addressed the DX sensor size very well with their lenses (I would KILL for a 10.5mm fish for my 1D) and that would be enough for me as long as the D2X turns out to control noise well.

Now if the D2X turns out to be a noisy bastard, I'd be all over Canon like flies on...well, you know.

[zec6]

Thanks for taking the time to post such an informative and comprehenseive reply.. You do make valid points in regards to the DX lens..

Your observations have been very helpful.. The Nikon 17-35/2.8AFS and 28-70/2.8AFS are very sharp lens and that's what I primarily shoot with..

I need to suck it up.. wait for the D2X and judge after the reviews.

Being a Canon forum..you have been very positive towards both manufactureres and I really appreciate that..

Hopefully we'll see some reviews soon..

On another note.. have you noticed a great focus imporvement with the 45 AF sensors in the 1D MKII compared to your prior Nikon'?

[vwpilot]

Haha, you are going to make me look bad on this site, AF is one of the things that I am least fond of in my Canon gear. But again, like above when talking about lenses, I have to emphasize that though I have some preferences toward certain things with the AF, differences are pretty small and both are more than capable when used by a capable photographer.

In outright speed, the Canon is slightly faster than a D1H with an AF-S lens. I imagine the D2H is better. Its only faster in the sense that if you are going from one extreme to the other the Canon will do it faster. In everything I shot I found the Nikon to be plenty fast enough.

What I like about the Canon AF system is that in a long burst of shots (more than 5) almost all of them are in focus on the Canon (except the first, more on that below), the Nikon would almost always have a frame or two in the sequence that were out.

what I liked about the Nikon AF is that it seemed more accurate on the first shot. With the Canon there is no way to make it focus priority when in AI Servo mode. What this means is that 99% of the time it seems like my first shot when tracking a car is out of focus. Almost ALL the time, it drives me nuts because with my Nikon I was used to sniping that perfect shot. I cant do that with my Canon, I dont have the confidence that if I take that one shot it wil be sharp. The second and all consecutive shots are focus priorty so the second one and the rest of the bursts seem to be perfect, but that first shot sucks.

Secondly the non-center points on the Nikon I think are more accurate. They are all cross type sensors on the Nikon and they are not on the Canon, so when using one of the off center spots, I seem to get a lot more OOF shots than I did with Nikon. I could use any points as equals on the Nikon with confidence, again, I have no confidence with any point other than the center spot on my Canons.

Third point is just a design difference and you can get used to it, but coming from Nikon it has taken awhile. I like the continuous Focus of Nikon better than the AI Servo of Canon. When in AI Servo, it is ALWAYS looking for a moving object so when you place it on something that is stationary, it continues to hunt a bit and will not lock on focus. You have to change to One Shot mode to get it to lock on a stationary object. With Nikon the continuous mode would look for movement and track when necessary, but it would also recognize still objects and lock on them too. So I could almost always keep it on continuous because still stuff locked and moving stuff locked, I didnt have to change all the time. With Canon you have to change back and forth. There are ways around changing back and forth, but they are all still things to work around it, the Nikon was just better, again IMO.

Lastly, I think that the low light AF was slightly more accurate with the Nikon. It is rated to lower EV levels and I think that is true as when I first got my 1D bodies I would compare them side by side to the Nikon and I think that AF was more accurate in low light on the Nikon. I have not used my MkII in low light yet, so I'm not sure if it is better on the MkII bodies than the original. They are not rated any differently specwise, but supposedly the low light AF is better with the MkII.

Again, I have to say that the things I mentioned here all all pretty small and the differences are close. Some are just my personal preference and some are my subjective feelings. But all were pretty even and when I choose one as better than the other it does not mean the loser is bad.

I also have to say that the AF was not something that I was basing my switch on. I was slightly disappointed by the AF performance of the Canon since everyone always talked about how great and wonderful it was. Maybe that was it as I was expecting a lot more than it is, but numbers dont lie and my keeper ratio is definately smaller when it comes to AF related issues with Canon than it was with Nikon.

I re-itterate the fact that I am still satisfied with my switch and my Canon gear, you just asked me about a feature that I find the least impressive with my gear.

I'll point out everything I like about both systems so you can get the overall feel.

I like the WB better on the Canon, much more accurate and much more consistent.
I like the preset WB better on the Nikon as it is easier to set and it doesnt waste spots on a memory card to do so.
I like the auto exposures better on the Canon, I think they are just as accurate as Nikon but it seems more consistent. When shooting bursts, they are virtually all the same when the Nikon would be all over the place, light/dark, light/dark, etc.
I like the screen better on the Canon and I like the way it is recessed slightly from the eyepiece. For me it keeps the nose off the screen a little better.
I like the shape of the Canon body better especially the grip, however, I like the ergos of the NIkon better. I like the way the buttons are laid out and the way the menus and features function on the Nikon. CF door easier to open, on/off switch better, dont need to hop on one foot and rub your stomach while reciting Shakespere to change certain settings (like it seems sometimes), etc.
Picture quality out of both are very good, Nikon requires less work out of camera than Canon, but in the end I like the larger files out of the Canon. MkII definately has great noise performance if you shoot high (above 1000) consistently.
I like the white lenses of Canon (though you can get the light grey special order with Nikon). This might sound funny, but the color does make a difference when standing out in the hot sun all day long and I have to put my left hand onto the lens hood of my 500 to shoot.

So, in the end, both are good. You need to decide what is important to you and make a decision accordingly. For me, I am happy with my switch and dont regret it. But I did go through a few months of regret when the reality was not as great as I imagined it to be. Just make sure that the things that you are looking to gain are really there. I used to work retail so I hate to see people regret buying something that they THOUGHT was something it isnt.

Good luck with it.

[Longwatcher]

This being the Canon forum I have to mention two things. The first is the D2X is still not even close to shipping apparently, with some reports of parts problems due to tsunami damage (belive it or don't) so it could be another month or two before it comes out and then if the parts stories are correct, then you need to actually get hold of one.

Second and here is the real reason I recomend that you might as well go ahead and switch.
You mentioned it in an earlier post, I just want to emphasis.
There is a physics limit to the size of the individual detectors of 0.75um, and a practical limit of about 2.8um, when they hit those limits the sensor size can only go up for higher quality. So all of the EF-S and DX lenses will eventually be useless except for what will now be low-end used cameras. The 8MP P&S have hit the practical limit already. Canon has stated that if they could have gotten the speed of the 1DM2 into the 1DsMkII they would have loved to, but processor technology was the limit at this time. Which is the only reason the 1D and 1DmkII are 1.3x for the speed. They do plan on eventually merging the two into one camera. (mk III or mk IV)

Even I, with my 1DsMkII figure that eventually if I need higher quality I will need to go Medium format; however ignoring the factor higher cost, I like the flexability of the 35mm format cameras, thus the descision to go with the best 35mm FF digital camera I could get. My lenses are not likely to become obsolete. The same would be true with the 1DM2. the only disadvantage at this time is very wide angle shots, but Canon will fix that.

At some point in the future Nikon will need to grow the sensor size, but they are using other people's sensors which maybe why they are holding at 1.5x for now. I don't believe it is a good long-term decision on their part.

Now, in fairness; if you plan on having to replace your sensor/lens gear within 5 years anyway, then it makes absolutely no difference what sensor/lens combo you get now as it will be at least until then before they hit the physics limits. In all other terms, they are both quality cameras and lenses.

Just my opinion and science research,

[vwpilot]

Well, I believe though you will not see much more increase in resolution over what we have now, so I dont see the small sensor size to be an issue.

I mean right now, today, the 1Ds and the 1DsMkII are already surpassing 35mm film in detail and rivaling medium format. How much more do you need out of a 35mm based digital? I already know pros that are completely happy with where they are now because they have gotten rid of all their medium format gear when the first 1Ds came out, now they see the MkII as almost overkill. File sizes are already huge and unless you are doing billboard shoots, of which the current cameras are already more than capable of, you dont need any more than we have now. Only people needing more are going to be military and other very special applications.

I can guarantee you that right now there is technology out there to make very high quality and clean photosites far smaller than what is in the current cameras. As that technology filters out of military and government applications, you will see it in our cameras. I dont see any reason in the future that you could not have a perfectly acceptable 16 or even 20mp sensor the size of DX. It will come, if it even needs to come.

I dont see Nikon going full frame, they are committed to the DX sensor.

I also think its more than just speed keeping the 1DMkII at 1.3, they could have easily kept the speed up with an 8mp FF sensor, remember speed is file size, not physical size. I think that many sports shooters such as myself actually like the crop. It makes our lenses seem longer. I could get the same number of pixels in a 16mp sensor cropped down 1.3 times as I have with my 8 mp 1.3 sized sensor now, but I would have to crop it and that takes too damn much time. I like that I can frame it closer with the crop and let my 500 crop like a 650.

Personally I hope Canon does not go FF on all cameras. I actually waited to switch till I heard the rumors and confirmation that the MkII would NOT be full frame. If they had gone FF I likely would not have switched.

[zec6]

WOW...you guys surely don't make it easy.. Thought you might be interested in reading a similar thread at Nikonians.org..
Subject:I feel the dark side callling.... (Canon 1D Mark II)
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3440&forum=DCForumID71

I guess I'm not the only one exploring a switch..

[DocFrankenstein]

I can guarantee you that right now there is technology out there to make very high quality and clean photosites far smaller than what is in the current cameras. As that technology filters out of military and government applications, you will see it in our cameras. You mean that military make cameras with sensors smaller than the wavelength of light? Cool!

Or maybe an "electron" camera? ;)

I am not opposing the fact that the military technology ends up on civilian market, but they probably can't overcome the laws of physics...

[DocFrankenstein]

WOW...you guys surely don't make it easy.. Thought you might be interested in reading a similar thread at Nikonians.org..
Subject:I feel the dark side callling.... (Canon 1D Mark II)
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3440&forum=DCForumID71

I guess I'm not the only one exploring a switch.. Seems like they want to switch to Fuji S2 :)

[vwpilot]

Ok, so you are saying that the DX sensor cant take any more pixels on it because of physical limitations?

Lets look at some things.

An 8mp p&s camera has a sensor that is 8.8 x 6.6 mm and has 8 million photosites on it.

That makes the sensor 58.08 square mm and if you divide 8 mil by that you get 137,741 pixels per sqare mm.

Now a DX sized sensor is 23.7 x 15.6 mm and the D2X will have 12 million photosites.

That makes the sensor 369.72 square mm and 32,456 pixels per square mm.

So if we take the same density as an 8mp p&s we get 137,741 x 369.72 = 50,925,602.

Thats right, a 50.9mp sensor.
Granted we dont want sites that small because the noise is out of control, but as the technology increases and they learn how to make those sites better and better noise will come down and you can start to pack more and more on there.

Even as the technology gets slightly better we can start to pack 20mp or more onto a DX sensor and still be way larger than a current 8mp p&s.

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything or feel I need to prove myself, but I dont think the physical limits of light not being able to go to high mp on a DX sensor floats.

Plus, like I said, I dont think you are going to see the MP race keep going much more, I think that you are giong to see things level off between 10 and 20 for the normal camera and then just improve the quality of image, noise and dynamic range.

Look at the latest Pop Photography and look at the 1DsMkII test. They show right in there that the camera has more detail in its image than 35mm film.

So again, I ask, how much more is needed? And if we are already reaching areas of detail we need, then we are still well within limits of DX sensors.

If that concerns you then you should switch, but I dont see it being a concern.

But at this point its still a theoretical argument as we have no idea what the D2X will look like. But if it were me and I did not need to make a decision in the very near future, I would at least wait and see what happens before making the investment to switch. However, Longwatcher is right that it might be a couple months before you can get your hands on one. But we might at least be able to see what it can do within the next few weeks or month. And remember, right now the initial price should be around $5k, thats a bunch cheaper than a 1Ds and if the quality turns out good, you wont be missing the 4mp that much when you can almost get two for the price of one Canon.

[blinking8s]

i think i have my boss convinced...he has a 1dx, d70 and d100...and i know he is a better photographer than me...but nikon has let him down time and time again...

too much technical talk in here...i have a headache...hehe...

[eosster]

To each of his own to make a final decision....

[S230]

You mean that military make cameras with sensors smaller than the wavelength of light? Cool!

Or maybe an "electron" camera? ;)

I am not opposing the fact that the military technology ends up on civilian market, but they probably can't overcome the laws of physics...
You never know what the military has.. They may even have some kool alien technology. Mayby even a "Stargate"... hehe... =P

[Jon]

You never know what the military has.. They may even have some kool alien technology. Mayby even a "Stargate"... hehe... =P
I think that what you'll find the military has isn't so much smaller sensor cells but larger arrays of sensors, using a variety of techniques which aren't suitable for our cameras. One example would be push-broom technology, which is more like a scanner than a camera; but from 90-150 miles it doesn't really matter.

[Longwatcher]

Knowing what I know (and I know) at least for the US military. My Canon 1DsMKII is more advanced in the visible spectrum then any US sensor I am aware of (at least as far as onboard (in camera) processing is concerned). I am not joking here either. On the other hand the military makes bigger cameras, lenses and more importantly larger sensors that work outside of the visible spectrum. When you are designing a sensor to work from orbit or from a plane moving at nearly mach 1 at 500ft, this does not lend itself to noisy sensors so larger photosites are the typical solution. And as I have mentioned several times before, image scientists I have talked to indicate that a 8um sensor is the optimum size for SNR for the visible spectrum and they believed we could get to 4um for full range and maybe 2.8um for a practical limit. The 8MP P&S cameras are at the 2.8um range right now. Light is 0.4 to 0.75um so not a lot of growth (or reduction) left in those sensors. I still believe that eventually we will get to the 50MP range on a FF sensor before we hit the reasonable limits.
Cut/paste from a previous post........
- 1DsMkII .0072mm 16.7MP
- 20D .0064mm if FF 21.1MP
- Theoretical 4um FF sensor .0004mm 54Mp
(this is the size I have been told we can still get full ISO range out of eventually)
- Pro1 .0027mm if FF 120MP
- physics limit for visual light .00075mm if FF 1536MP
.....end cut/paste.....
While I think the rate of growth in MP will slow within 5 years, I think it will keep going to the physics limits because it allows more flexability to crop, to see detail, and to just one-up your friends. The Nikon with a 1.5x sensor has a lower max limit then the Canon with a FF sensor. As I mentioned before, It is a long term decision.

Good discussion though.

[zec6]

I thought this was worth the post since we're talking about MP now..
Check out this link..
http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html
A 2.5 GIGAPIXEL picture.. that's right.. not mega but GIGA. AMAZING!!!! Click on the picture on the site and you can zoom in and read the license plates on cars..

[S230]

I thought this was worth the post since we're talking about MP now..
Check out this link..
http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html
A 2.5 GIGAPIXEL picture.. that's right.. not mega but GIGA. AMAZING!!!! Click on the picture on the site and you can zoom in and read the license plates on cars..
That is not a true single shot image. The camera used was a Nikon D1x. The lens used was a Nikon AF VR Nikkor 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6D ED.

For Canon, Photostitch can do quite an amazing photo with several shots of an area stitched into one. I am not sure if possible if Canon's stitch program can do such a large size. Any volunteers to try this out? If I had a better Tripod, I wouldn't mind experimenting.

[zec6]

Good luck!!! unless you have university backing or a lot of funding and multple G5's crunching numbers... hmmmm...... I don't know about the rest of you guys... but
I'm out..

[S230]

Forgot what site but Canon had a sample of 4 photos taken of a building and by using photostitch, it actually mended the photograph into one. Pretty amazing.

[sjprg]

And here I am on the other side, thinking of jumping to Nikon. As a 10D/20D owner I am very happy with the Canon images, but some of the useabilty items that are comeing on the D2X really interest me. The number one item is the GPS capability. This is almost a no brainer item that Canon could have added. All it takes is some firmware.
The WI-FI Canon is adding (so far its vaporware). The 12 MP is probably all I would need for several years, and probably the Mamiaya (22MP) will be reasonably priced by then. I don't see all this brand loyalty, the manufactures sure arn't very loyal to me. So what ever works I will go with.

[S230]

I did a short test by taking 4 photos and used Photositich that came with the camera. It's pretty cool because it actually joined the 4 into one. I think if I take high enough resolution and enough photos, then I can be the next one to claim 5GigaPixel using Canon!... :)

[DocFrankenstein]

And here I am on the other side, thinking of jumping to Nikon. As a 10D/20D owner I am very happy with the Canon images, but some of the useabilty items that are comeing on the D2X really interest me. The number one item is the GPS capability. This is almost a no brainer item that Canon could have added. All it takes is some firmware.
The WI-FI Canon is adding (so far its vaporware). The 12 MP is probably all I would need for several years, and probably the Mamiaya (22MP) will be reasonably priced by then. I don't see all this brand loyalty, the manufactures sure arn't very loyal to me. So what ever works I will go with. GPS? It can't be global positioning system by an chance? :confused:

[EandSB_shooter]

And here I am on the other side, thinking of jumping to Nikon. As a 10D/20D owner I am very happy with the Canon images, but some of the useabilty items that are comeing on the D2X really interest me. .
I have the D2H and D1 and i to am thinking of a switch. I am not pleased with the noise i get at 320 ISO and above. Also the D2h had a major burb last fall and i was none to thrilled by the lack of comunications from Nikon Canada here in Toronto.I hate when your calls are never returned and the "customer"has to do all the work.
I have an email camera group friend that moved from a D60 to a 1D MKII recently and he has great things to say.
I don't knopw if i'd jump into another $5000 plus camera(Canadian dollars here) right away,but maybe try the 20D and 70-200 F2.8
I did try for a few shots last year my buddies 1D and 70-200 combo,but i only tried a few setting changes so its not much to go on. I also fondled a friend's D20 at Christmas. No shooting with it but it felt good and he's happy with it over the 10D for his weddings.

I do mostly equestrian shoots with my digitals and have a Pentax istD for walk about shooting,(which is great as i can use all my old glass)but i have not abandoned film. I still shoot B&W with 35mm and med format cameras.

Thanks for listening,sorry for the Nikon and Pentax quotes.:)

Dave Brooks

[S230]

Just a note regarding Customer service from Canon. I am surprised. I actually received 2 phone calls at home and several emails from their head office asking how I was doing with my camera and if there is anything they can do to help. This is something often you do not hear. Even when I called back, as soon as I told them who I was, they immediately knew who I was and regarding and even followed up with their supervisor.
Thank you Canon. :)

[HKFEVER]

Correct me if I am wrong.

As long as the coming improvement of the MP in the futrue can:
- Let me keep the existing EF lens in 1:1 ratio
- Match the professional 35mm film's particle size and amount or even reach Medium Format's film's particle size and amount

Then I will happy.

Then Medium Format is going to died or have to improve to reach the 6X7 or bigger.

[davidwegs]

Just a short note from my perspective.

JUMP!

I did and havn't looked back. Theres the 1Ds for the FF and the 1D for the 1.3 and the 20D for the 1.6. After using Nik*n for some years it was a tough switch. I mostly liked the ergonomics of Nik*n so that was a bit harder to adjust to. Then comes the performance in terms of image quality. No comparison. Canon is just better in all respects for my shooting. Weddings are a large part of that too.

[HKFEVER]

As I said, I have sold almost all my Nikon and Mamiya gear. Just keep my first Nikomat for fun.


And hope Canon don't change their len's EF system soon.

[loui]

Hi
Good article here
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

[roanjohn]

Hi
Good article here
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

:evil: :evil: Your first post and you bring this up??? WHats the point??!!!?? You know this article was pure BS!!

BS = BiaSed!!!

Ro1

[thomasrhee]

I jumped ship from Nikon to Canon when Canon introduced the EOS line with the 650/620 bodies. Bought a 650 body back then with a 50/1.8 out of curiosity and have since been a Canon user. It seems Nikon has been trying to play catch up for the past 20 years without much success. Canon is always ahead of the game, first with their auto focus system and now with digital technology.

[dedalus-6]

Canon all the way,,brothers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!End of the line...................