PDA

View Full Version : Official: Nikon D3s and AF-S Micro 85mm f3.5 DX(?) VR Announced


foxesamu
13th of October 2009 (Tue), 23:36
Nikon D3s...

Same specs as D3 except:

-ISO performance: ISO 200-12800 as standard, expandable to ISO equivalent of 102400 (Hi 3)
-720p 24fps video with what they say is no more rolling shutter... still very disappointing IMO, especially for a pro body.
-Quiet shutter mode
-Live View button. lol.

85mm f3.5 DX VR Macro. I think that says it all--it's a DX macro lens that's totally unnecessary, and released alongside an FX body. Makes no sense to me. Should've been released with the D300s and the new 70-200 VRII with this (and that lens is getting fantastic reviews already).

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/14/nikon-d3s-official-announcement-and-press-release.aspx

punkerz123
13th of October 2009 (Tue), 23:38
yawn

foxesamu
13th of October 2009 (Tue), 23:41
Sample images from the D3s.

ISO 6400
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6027/pic001bp.jpg

Original size (big): http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/img/pic_001b.jpg

ISO 12,800
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4218/pic002bn.jpg

Original size: http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/img/pic_002b.jpg

I don't know why they chose that photo as a 12,800 sample. I guess because it's a tough subject. A bit underexposed and so probably more noisy than it should be--still looks better than 3200 on most crop cameras though so I'm very happy.

gopack471
13th of October 2009 (Tue), 23:49
seriously? ISO 102400? something tells me that no matter how much high ISO performance has improved, artificially boosting it three stops to a six digit number isn't gonna work out too well.

J_TULLAR
13th of October 2009 (Tue), 23:56
yay lets see what the 1d4 gots...

J_TULLAR
13th of October 2009 (Tue), 23:57
M9>D3 lol flame away

trentchau
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:04
Hmm....we will see in the long run if it's a good time to release Version 2.0's of cameras.

Nikon may be right or wrong in this current economical climate. Lets hope they are right and can continuing being Canon's competition instead of Sony coming up.

J_TULLAR
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:08
I think if sony stops selling to nikon that they are royally screwed. I bet sony is pouring money into R&D to make better sensors.

jacobsen1
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:14
interesting they'd spend money to redevelop another 12mp sensor. Personally I'd LOVE to see them spin this into a D700s as I miss video. I don't need the ISOs but I couldn't hurt.... :lol:

Drozz119
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:25
Oh S*#! !! It's going to be impossible to get a 1D4 or 7d.. After the mass exodus from nikon!

12mp again!!
9 fps/11 fps @ 5mp ??
720p max at 24p?? No 1080 or 60/50p?

$5200.. U can buy a 7d and a 300L.. Or 1D3/7d/70-200

FAIL

gopack471
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:27
Oh S*#! !! It's going to be impossible to get a 1D4 or 7d.. After the mass exodus from nikon!

12mp again!!
5 fps/11 fps @ 5mp ??
720p max at 24p?? No 1080 or 60/50p?

$5200.. U can buy a 7d and a 300L.. Or a 1D3/7d/70-200

FAIL


Well, it does give Canon a huge opportunity to reclaim lost marketshare with a killer 1d4

J_TULLAR
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:38
Oh S*#! !! It's going to be impossible to get a 1D4 or 7d.. After the mass exodus from nikon!

12mp again!!
9 fps FX/11 fps @ 5mp ??
720p max at 24p?? No 1080 or 60/50p?

$5200.. U can buy a 7d and a 300L.. Or 1D3/7d/70-200

FAIL

fixed

J_TULLAR
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:43
hmm the noise on the 6400 and 12800 is pretty nice...

FlyingPhotog
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:47
By the way, did anyone remember to go over to Nikonian and inform them about the 7D? :rolleyes:

trentchau
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 00:56
Oh S*#! !! It's going to be impossible to get a 1D4 or 7d.. After the mass exodus from nikon!

12mp again!!
9 fps/11 fps @ 5mp ??
720p max at 24p?? No 1080 or 60/50p?

$5200.. U can buy a 7d and a 300L.. Or 1D3/7d/70-200

FAIL

I was gonna say about how a lot of pros probably don't care for some of those features, but than I realize...sport shooters can do quite a bit with movie mode and have 720p over 1080p really does kinda suck.

Hmm...well we will see.

Nikon has not impressed at ALL concerning video.

tkbslc
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:12
I don't what you guys are smoking, but Canon is a far cry away from 9fps in full frame - 12MP or not. I don't think this is a yawn at all.

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:14
6400 looks super clean. 12,800 is noisy but grain looks un-digital--looks very usable to me. No 102K samples? I want to see just how much of a gimmick that is :)

Drozz119
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:19
I was gonna say about how a lot of pros probably don't care for some of those features, but than I realize...sport shooters can do quite a bit with movie mode and have 720p over 1080p really does kinda suck.

Hmm...well we will see.

Nikon has not impressed at ALL concerning video.

I was talking to a pro a couple weeks ago.. He shoots strictly competition dance events(150/year)

He was hoping the 1d4 had 60p 1080 video.. So that he could video the event--sell the video and sell the frame grabs as digital files for facebook etc. I guess you could make a decent 4x6 print as well. (from a 1920x1080 file)

MaxExposure
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:36
Gonna have to beat them to the punch on this one...

ISO one stop increases...

1600
3200
6400
12800
25600
51200
102400
204800
409600
819200
1638400
infinity and beyond....

yay.bw!

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:38
I don't what you guys are smoking, but Canon is a far cry away from 9fps in full frame - 12MP or not. I don't think this is a yawn at all.

Eh, Canon can easily do it..

Keep in mind to do 11fps it needs to be in DX mode, which is 5mp...That seems pretty low

As for 9fps on full frame, Canon has snutter/mirror mechanisms that can EASILY do it [See the EOS-1v] and the processors could easily handle doing 12fps at 12mp...The reason they havn't is because Canon likes to push resolution...Also i think marketing designs cameras sometimes...But the 7D might have changed that..so we might see the 1Ds as an uber-resolution and speed monster...

I'm curious about the D3s, on one hand, $5100 is steep, or at least it seems it to me for whats really and honestly, a warmed-over D3...

Nikon's video still hasnt proven to not suck, They have serious rolling shutter problems...and jelly effects...and theres their time limit

As for the lens, i dont see why you'd buy it over the 105 f/2.8 VR....

Stealthy Ninja
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:41
I was talking to a pro a couple weeks ago.. He shoots strictly competition dance events(150/year)

He was hoping the 1d4 had 60p 1080 video.. So that he could video the event--sell the video and sell the frame grabs as digital files for facebook etc. I guess you could make a decent 4x6 print as well. (from a 1920x1080 file)

Mmm I think I'll buy a video camera as my next still camera. :p

Seriously though, I've read in a video magazine that some photo journalists are just filming stuff (with HD cameras) and the editor of the newspaper/magazine just picks a stills to print (the video goes on the website).

1920x1080 is 2.1MP by the way (same as some mobile phone cameras). So it should be OK for small stuff as Drozz119 said.

Tessa
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 01:51
Sample images from the D3s.
Mmm, those look really nice...

primoz
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 02:28
Oh S*#! !! It's going to be impossible to get a 1D4 or 7d.. After the mass exodus from nikon!
12mp again!!

Before you proclaim D3s as fail, I suggest you to look at what target shooters of this camera (including 1dmk4) want. ;) In my world, today's standard is still 2000-2500pix on longest. And speed does matter. So why having 21mp, if they are just slowing you down (much longer ingest times, much longer loading times...), when on the end you resize photos to 2500pix.
Personally I hope new 1dmk4 will be somewhere around 10-12mp, with APC-H sensor and somewhere around 10fps.

Well, it does give Canon a huge opportunity to reclaim lost marketshare with a killer 1d4
Exodus from Nikon won't appear for next 10 years at least ;) Canon lost their chance 2 years ago with their idiotic attitude. Agencies spent millions of euros/dollars to switch to Nikon (AFP as one of biggest ones for example), and they are not too keen to switch back after year or two, just because Canon would put a bit better camera now. If Canon would want this to happen, they would need to put out camera, which would be in completely different class, but I doubt they can do something like this. Putting out same, or a bit better camera, as I think it will be (but let's wait for this till next Tuesday to be for sure) will just prevent further switching to Nikon, but won't gain any ex-users back.

AdamJL
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 03:12
Sample images look great. The yak? one is noisy, but more so because it looks under-expopsed. I reckon that could clean up pretty nicely.

I was gonna say about how a lot of pros probably don't care for some of those features, but than I realize...sport shooters can do quite a bit with movie mode and have 720p over 1080p really does kinda suck.

Hmm...well we will see.

Nikon has not impressed at ALL concerning video.

Nikons motion jpeg has one big plus: if you want a still from the video sequence, you don't have to press the shutter button to get it, and the camera won't pause like Canon's whilst a shot is taken. You can just grab a jpeg from the sequence in post, as opposed to either taking a picture mid way through a shoot or grabbing a HD movie still file from Canon's cameras.

Other than that, Nikon are not impressing on the video front.

Still, looks like a great cam, and if you're one of the many people who whine about video in SLRs, then this camera is probably for you.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 03:48
It's clear to me that Nikon have divided the Dx line into 2 distinct areas.

The D3/D3s (and D700) are all about low light shooters. They're concentrating on stills with a nod to the video side.

The D3x is aimed at studio/fashion/ad/landscape shooters with the focus on the low ISO end and resolution.

The 85mm Macro, on the other hand, makes no sense to me.

It'd be nice if camera announcements could be made without the usual 'OMG Noinks sux ha ha Canon rools' nonsense.

Without a strong Nikon Canon users will see less innovation, and vice versa. It's pretty obvious.

xMClass
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 04:18
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/3935166255_5b6ed285e2.jpg

Is all I have to say.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 04:27
Sigh...

jdizzle
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 05:12
Sigh...
Don't worry Guy. I like Nikon too. :)

blackshadow
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 05:57
yawn

x10

RichNY
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 06:22
Before you proclaim D3s as fail, I suggest you to look at what target shooters of this camera (including 1dmk4) want. ;) In my world, today's standard is still 2000-2500pix on longest. And speed does matter. So why having 21mp, if they are just slowing you down (much longer ingest times, much longer loading times...), when on the end you resize photos to 2500pix.
Personally I hope new 1dmk4 will be somewhere around 10-12mp, with APC-H sensor and somewhere around 10fps.

Completely agree. The D3 is a solid performer and the evolutionary improvements that the D3s adds are a welcome addition and one extra stop of ISO seems to be what I'm always wanting shooting indoor hockey at f/2.8 with the D3. Clean high ISO not high MP is definitely where Canon wants to be with the 1dmk4.

form
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 06:39
So, yeah, don't really get why anyone would bash the new model if it's improved over the old one; the old D3 is itself an excellent camera and I would probably have one if I was a Nikon shooter and had the money. I agree that the D3x seems geared towards studio and fashion/etc. with the high resolution, but tests have shown that the D3x makes slightly better use of ISO6400 than the 5D II, so in my opinion it is an excellent full frame camera that makes good use of every available ISO settings (unlike most of the recent models that peter out in quality 1-3 settings below max) and would be equally good for weddings.

AdamJL
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 06:52
Completely agree. The D3 is a solid performer and the evolutionary improvements that the D3s adds are a welcome addition and one extra stop of ISO seems to be what I'm always wanting shooting indoor hockey at f/2.8 with the D3. Clean high ISO not high MP is definitely where Canon wants to be with the 1dmk4.

And you know this how?

form
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 06:59
Because they are behind in the high ISO department? Because high ISO opens more doors than high MP as far as shooting capabilities? Because Nikon is doing it and they need to follow suit with the numbers game or risk losing more market share?

roger767
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 07:26
If nikon would make this line up. D3s, D3x, D700s and D700x. They would cover every photographer. Those who need high MP and those who need High ISO.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 07:41
The appearance of a D700s would seem to be a cert now but not this year. One for Q2 2010 I'd guess.

alt4852
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 07:56
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/3935166255_5b6ed285e2.jpg

Is all I have to say.

hahaha, awesome. ;)

AdamJL
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 08:14
Because they are behind in the high ISO department? Because high ISO opens more doors than high MP as far as shooting capabilities? Because Nikon is doing it and they need to follow suit with the numbers game or risk losing more market share?

"behind" is subjective. The MK III's high ISO capabilities are well known. It's Canon's best camera in IQ. You can push the ISO in software to emulate the higher numbers.

Your logic is your logic. Don't confuse your own reasonings with what's happening at Canon. Neither you or I know what they're planning.

CAL Imagery
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 08:24
Because they are behind in the high ISO department? Because high ISO opens more doors than high MP as far as shooting capabilities? Because Nikon is doing it and they need to follow suit with the numbers game or risk losing more market share?
7D?
If nikon would make this line up. D3s, D3x, D700s and D700x. They would cover every photographer. Those who need high MP and those who need High ISO.
Not everyone wants FF. I'd rather have a crop for sports and wildlife. I'm currently pleased with the WA lenses for a cropper (although now that Canon has announced the 7D, I'd like it if they introduced an EF-S WA prime or two).

F-117HWK
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 08:40
"behind" is subjective. The MK III's high ISO capabilities are well known. It's Canon's best camera in IQ. You can push the ISO in software to emulate the higher numbers.

Your logic is your logic. Don't confuse your own reasonings with what's happening at Canon. Neither you or I know what they're planning.

I think you misunderstood the original post. He is not claiming to "know" what Canon is going to do, rather he is stating his opinion as to what Canon "should" do. Better yet, what he would do if he was Canon.

CAL Imagery
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 08:42
I think you misunderstood the original post. He is not claiming to "know" what Canon is going to do, rather he is stating his opinion as to what Canon "should" do. Better yet, what he would do if he was Canon.
That usually entails something like a body with the features of a $8,000 camera for the price of <$3,000.

F-117HWK
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 08:45
That usually entails something like a body with the features of a $8,000 camera for the price of <$3,000.

What?

"Clean high ISO not high MP is definitely where Canon wants to be with the 1dmk4."

That was the original quote. No one said anything about price... ???

ana
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 09:09
Some other samples when you click the Nikon 3Ds Special site link...

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/microsite/d3s_d3x/en/?cid=IGD9ABGZIGS

If you put the cursor on top of info link it explain little bit about the picture taken..

For those who are interested...

nicksan
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 09:28
A ho-hum release.
Since the D3 was a great camera, I am sure the D3s will be as well.
But I expected more from them...

vipergts831
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 10:05
+1

I agree with the original post being refrenced. Canon should not go High MP but clean up the ISO performance.

I think you misunderstood the original post. He is not claiming to "know" what Canon is going to do, rather he is stating his opinion as to what Canon "should" do. Better yet, what he would do if he was Canon.

vipergts831
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 10:08
Totally agree. Its just a bit of an improvement. I expect the 1D4 to be a much better camera than the D3s. Canon has a lot of pressure. 7D so far looks very promising in its early life. It could be a sign canon is taking thier cameras very serious this go around. Hopefully the trend continues with the 1D4.

A ho-hum release.
Since the D3 was a great camera, I am sure the D3s will be as well.
But I expected more from them...

Skippy29
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 10:12
The ISO race is just as much over as the MP race IMO. Are people shooting in total darkness now? Having a tool that will let you shoot natural light indoors cleanly is really what is was all about, and we've had that for 3 years now, by all the manufacturers.

F-117HWK
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 10:19
+1

I agree with the original post being refrenced. Canon should not go High MP but clean up the ISO performance.

Do ya have a GTS?

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 10:24
The ISO race is just as much over as the MP race IMO. Are people shooting in total darkness now? Having a tool that will let you shoot natural light indoors cleanly is really what is was all about, and we've had that for 3 years now, by all the manufacturers.

I couldn't agree with you more even if we were conjoined twins.

Thank goodness Nikon improved ISO 12,800 so we could get that amazing shot of a Yak in near darkness. Until someone comes up with a new autofocus system that can perform in light under 1EV, these insanely pushed software ISOs are relatively useless.

cccc
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 10:29
a 9fps Full Frame camera is nothing to yawn about.

deeeez
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 11:15
If I could afford one, I would order it today!!!

workingtog
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 11:18
"Until someone comes up with a new autofocus system that can perform in light under 1EV, these insanely pushed software ISOs are relatively useless."

So why not use MANUAL focus? Remember that, we proper photographers used to do that.

deeeez
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 11:35
The ISO race is just as much over as the MP race IMO. Are people shooting in total darkness now? Having a tool that will let you shoot natural light indoors cleanly is really what is was all about, and we've had that for 3 years now, by all the manufacturers.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way, sure iso 100000 sounds like a gimmick but the whole point is that if the overall ISO capabilities get better,i.e. ISO 3200-6400 will also improve. So while I don't particularly care for iso 102000 I care that the ISO 6400 has been improved and now is even more usable.

For heaven's sake look at the straight out of the camera JPGs at ISO12800!!
http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/



I shoot with a D300 and one thing I don't like about crop cameras are that ISO 2000 and above are at best borderline on a crop. The ISO 6400 samples from the 3Ds are superb.

CAL Imagery
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 11:46
What?

"Clean high ISO not high MP is definitely where Canon wants to be with the 1dmk4."

That was the original quote. No one said anything about price... ???
I referred to "what Canon 'should' do". With the suggestions on this board, there's a good chance Canon would bankrupt its photo department with wanting very premo cameras in a couple grand pricetag.

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 11:47
"Until someone comes up with a new autofocus system that can perform in light under 1EV, these insanely pushed software ISOs are relatively useless."

So why not use MANUAL focus? Remember that, we proper photographers used to do that.

Sure, I remember when viewfinders came with a split-screen and etched glass around it. It was much easier to verify focus and no one was pixel-peeping your prints at 100%. People today are much pickier and if the nose is in focus but not both eyes, it is trash... in the 'old days' that could usually pass as a print up to 8 x 10. I'm also getting older and my ability to see and focus in the dark isn't getting any better.

I still use manual focus techniques like prefocusing where the action will be, figuring out the hyperfocal distance, etc, but after comparing my 1DS2 to my EOS-1N, the autofocus system simply hasn't gotten that much better over the years. Maybe the new 7D system can offer some revolution or maybe the new Hassy technique of correcting for your focus/recompose will give an advantage... but I still say that until AF improves, super high ISOs aren't very useful.

F-117HWK
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:14
I referred to "what Canon 'should' do". With the suggestions on this board, there's a good chance Canon would bankrupt its photo department with wanting very premo cameras in a couple grand pricetag.

Ah thats what I thought u may be referring to, but
"Clean high ISO not high MP is definitely where Canon wants to be with the 1dmk4."
that is what "Canon should do" was referring to.

I agree though. People wanting that is like saying you want Ferrari performance and quality for the price of a Hyundai.

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:19
The ISO race is just as much over as the MP race IMO. Are people shooting in total darkness now? Having a tool that will let you shoot natural light indoors cleanly is really what is was all about, and we've had that for 3 years now, by all the manufacturers.

Not so. Shooting natural light indoors cleanly is one big benefit of cleaner high ISOs, but definitely not what it's all about. Shooting nighttime sports (especially non-pro sports where lighting is atrocious) is an area that benefits even more from cleaner high ISO, because this type of photography demands higher light sensitivity than others--higher shutter speeds at smaller apertures under worse light levels. There might be applications that need even higher sensitivities than this, but I can't think of any right off. In any case, nighttime sports shooting is pretty demanding.

The real benefit of the ISO race isn't an astronomical max ISO like 102K and beyond, but rather it's usually the case that the higher the max ISO the cleaner the ISOs below it. So as max ISO hits 102K and higher, more reasonable ISOs like 6400 and 12800 (and dare I say 25600?) will be more and more usable.

Is the ISO race over? For me personally, once they manage ISO 12800 that looks like 6400 does on the D3S I'll be happy. Not that today's performance isn't amazing, but better is always better. When I shot highschool football and soccer I shot at f/2.8, 1/320 - 1/400, ISO 3200. With that exposure some parts of the field would be underexposed, and if the action got too close I didn't have enough shutter speed to always freeze motion, but it was the best I could do. With ISO 12800 I could have shot at a higher shutter speed and gotten better shots. With clean ISO 12800 I could've done so and printed large without seeing excessive noise. Clean ISO 12800 similar to 6400 on the D3S is certainly useful, and it's only a stop away from current performance so I can see it happening soon.

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:23
Shooting nighttime sports (especially non-pro sports where lighting is atrocious) is an area that benefits even more from cleaner high ISO, because this type of photography demands higher light sensitivity than others--higher shutter speeds at smaller apertures under worse light levels.

But as you say, there is a point of limiting returns. Once you get to 1/2000 @ f/4 in any situation, there isn't much more you can ask for as far as sensitivity. And as I understand it, these are software/firmware improvements anyway. This isn't some milestone jump in sensor design but rather better noise reduction from software pushed exposures.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:23
The real benefit of the ISO race isn't an astronomical max ISO like 102K and beyond, but rather it's usually the case that the higher the max ISO the cleaner the ISOs below it. So as max ISO hits 102K and higher, more reasonable ISOs like 6400 and 12800 (and dare I say 25600?) will be more and more usable.


Bingo - that's exactly it.

And it'll be the same for the next Canon bodies.

I'm frequently at 6400 for weddings. I suspect many people 'yawning' at the improvements aren't using high ISO in really low-light a lot.

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:31
But as you say, there is a point of limiting returns. Once you get to 1/2000 @ f/4 in any situation, there isn't much more you can ask for as far as sensitivity. And as I understand it, these are software/firmware improvements anyway. This isn't some milestone jump in sensor design but rather better noise reduction from software pushed exposures.

Diminishing returns? Sure. That's always the case. We're not there yet though. For me personally like I said, once we get ISO 12800 that looks like the D3S's ISO 6400 I'll be happy and any improvement beyond that will be gravy, a.k.a. diminishing returns. Whether this is achieved with hardware, software, or a combination of both makes no difference to me as long as detail, color, and dynamic range are retained as much as possible while improving noise performance.

However, judging from Nikon's press release on the D3S it seems that it's most likely a combination of hardware and software improvements, as the sensor is completely redesigned. This isn't a case of slap the same sensor in, make a few firmware tweaks, and be done with it. How significant an improvement the new sensor is remains to be seen, but it's not the same old sensor.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:36
For me personally like I said, once we get ISO 12800 that looks like the D3S's ISO 6400 I'll be happy and any improvement beyond that will be gravy, a.k.a. diminishing returns.

From what I'm hearing from Marcus Bell and Cliff Mauntner, you're there then.

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:38
Bingo - that's exactly it.

And it'll be the same for the next Canon bodies.

I'm frequently at 6400 for weddings. I suspect many people 'yawning' at the improvements aren't using high ISO in really low-light a lot.

I shot a wedding reception outdoors at night once. I was at f/1.2, 1/25 - 1/50 (I think--I just remember it was too slow for the reciprocal rule with the 85L I was using), ISO 3200. 3200 was the max the 1DII could do, and with the noise at that level I didn't want to underexpose and push in post anyway for fear of a noisy mess. If I had clean ISO 12800 for that shoot I would've gotten many more shots not ruined by noise, motion blur, or camera shake. So I shot a lot of flash instead of mostly ambient light the way I prefer.

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:39
I'm frequently at 6400 for weddings. I suspect many people 'yawning' at the improvements aren't using high ISO in really low-light a lot.

I love low-light and I get that the improvements are also happening at the more usable ranges of 3200 and 6400, but the point was to laugh at the claims of 102K ISO.

Maybe the point was also to laugh at Canon because they can't seem to get a camera to focus in the type of situations you'd be in at 6400 unless you go to the 1-series.

This isn't a case of slap the same sensor in, make a few firmware tweaks, and be done with it. How significant an improvement the new sensor is remains to be seen, but it's not the same old sensor.

Ah thanks for the correction. I do hope they push the limits. I also hope someone comes up with a different way of autofocusing to take advantage of it.

Do you typically use focus assist (speedlite or ST-E2) in those situations?

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:42
I love low-light and I get that the improvements are also happening at the more usable ranges of 3200 and 6400, but the point was to laugh at the claims of 102K ISO.

I'm still waiting for some ISO 102K samples so I can point and laugh at them. I'm sure they'll be awful. Hey, now they can claim to be the first to reach 6-digit ISOs :lol:

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:52
I also hope someone comes up with a different way of autofocusing to take advantage of it.

Do you typically use focus assist (speedlite or ST-E2) in those situations?

Not usually. I find the red focus assist beams alert people that I'm about to take a picture, which ruins the spontaneity. I do use it on a occasion when I'm shooting mug-for-the-camera shots, but in general I don't. Yeah, I miss a few shots that way although not a ton (using large aperture primes must help), but I'd rather endure that than have them all turn into mugshots. I'd love to have AF that can work down into the lower negative EV values, although there are ways around that for now like AF assist and manual focus.

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 12:56
there are ways around that for now like AF assist and manual focus.

Why would AF assist work where AF does not? If it can detect enough contrast to light up the square, it should be able to lock on with a good lens, right?

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:01
Why would AF assist work where AF does not? If it can detect enough contrast to light up the square, it should be able to lock on with a good lens, right?

"Light up the square"? Not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?

AFAIK, AF assist works by providing contrast/light to focus on by emitting those red AF assist beams. So in situations where a camera wouldn't be able to AF due to lack of contrast, those red beams would provide something to latch on to. Am I mistaken about that?

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:03
"Light up the square"? Not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?

AFAIK, AF assist works by providing contrast/light to focus on by emitting those red AF assist beams. So in situations where a camera wouldn't be able to AF due to lack of contrast, those red beams would provide something to latch on to. Am I mistaken about that?

Sorry, we were talking about two different things. When you said AF Assist, you were referring to the red beams put out by speedlites. I thought you were referring to the fact that the red AF square lights up in the viewfinder if you're in one-shot and focusing manually... I guess that is called MF assist. So I wondered why you thought that the camera could detect focus like that in the dark, but not autofocus itself.

CAL Imagery
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:12
Ah thats what I thought u may be referring to, but
"Clean high ISO not high MP is definitely where Canon wants to be with the 1dmk4."
that is what "Canon should do" was referring to.

I agree though. People wanting that is like saying you want Ferrari performance and quality for the price of a Hyundai.
Canon is doing both high ISOs and higher MPs. The 7D looks mighty impressive for what it is.

slick2000
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:16
hahaha, awesome. ;)
did you mean pathetic ? :rolleyes:

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:17
Canon is doing both high ISOs and higher MPs. The 7D looks mighty impressive for what it is.

From what i saw the 7D at 6400 kicks the crap out of the D300s at 6400...

F-117HWK
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:25
Canon is doing both high ISOs and higher MPs. The 7D looks mighty impressive for what it is.

I was agreeing with you :cool:

CAL Imagery
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:29
From what i saw the 7D at 6400 kicks the crap out of the D300s at 6400...
As in, not even close.
I was agreeing with you :cool:
Glad to hear it. I am convinced some people think an increase in ISO and MP are mutually exclusive.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:32
I shot a wedding reception outdoors at night once. I was at f/1.2, 1/25 - 1/50 (I think--I just remember it was too slow for the reciprocal rule with the 85L I was using), ISO 3200. 3200 was the max the 1DII could do, and with the noise at that level I didn't want to underexpose and push in post anyway for fear of a noisy mess. If I had clean ISO 12800 for that shoot I would've gotten many more shots not ruined by noise, motion blur, or camera shake. So I shot a lot of flash instead of mostly ambient light the way I prefer.

I'm not a fan of flash. I find it intrusive.

Last November I shot up in Windsor. The wedding ceremony was in a 13th Century church, and the bride came in to candlelight at 4pm. I needed ISO10,000 to get 1/125s at f1.6. That shot made a full-bleed page in the 35x25cm album.

You've got to love that.

slick2000
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:38
Keep in mind to do 11fps it needs to be in DX mode, which is 5mp...That seems pretty low
it supports a new 1.2 crop 8,41Mp ;)

timnosenzo
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:47
Apparently Nikon is just going to keep increasing ISO's instead of releasing fast lenses.

But... yeahhhhh... another DX lens! What the hell... :confused:

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 13:54
Apparently Nikon is just going to keep increasing ISO's instead of releasing fast lenses.

But... yeahhhhh... another DX lens! What the hell... :confused:

Agreed. Such disappointing recent releases in the area of primes from what used to be an optics-focused company.

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 15:18
it supports a new 1.2 crop 8,41Mp ;)

Meh :/ Not that interesting for me...8mp is a lot until you start needing to crop....Then it starts getting low ;)

And I agree about Nikon's lenses, Did they really NEED an 85 macro? They have a 65 and a 105 macro, I cant imagine a DX-specific 85 macro being worth the money...VR or not

Comparatively, people on Nikon are bitching about the lack of AF-S fast primes like Canon's 85mm f/1.8 for things like indoor sports...

So far this year, Nikon gave a reheated 18-200, a 10-24 [ok that was actually needed..] a reheated 70-200 VR and a 85mm macro...

But neglected some of the dinosaurs in their lineup that are in DIRE need of an upgrade...

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 15:27
Meh :/ Not that interesting for me...8mp is a lot until you start needing to crop....Then it starts getting low ;)

And I agree about Nikon's lenses, Did they really NEED an 85 macro? They have a 65 and a 105 macro, I cant imagine a DX-specific 85 macro being worth the money...VR or not

Comparatively, people on Nikon are bitching about the lack of AF-S fast primes like Canon's 85mm f/1.8 for things like indoor sports...

So far this year, Nikon gave a reheated 18-200, a 10-24 [ok that was actually needed..] a reheated 70-200 VR and a 85mm macro...

But neglected some of the dinosaurs in their lineup that are in DIRE need of an upgrade...

I'm with you on the new 85. It's a lens no-one was asking for. The 70-200 is hardly reheated though - it's a totally new lens and a totally new design.

Screaming omissions for me - 35mm f1.4 and an 85 f1.4 with AF-S. That said, I've managed to shoot another wedding season without either ;)

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 15:52
Screaming omissions for me - 35mm f1.4 and an 85 f1.4 with AF-S. That said, I've managed to shoot another wedding season without either ;)

If Nikon had those lenses I might already be a Nikon shooter, even though their AF point layout is stuck in 2001 with the cross-type points all in the middle.

radiohead
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 15:53
Interestingly it looks like they've spread them out, esp. for the vertical orientation. Still trying to see how exactly.

foxesamu
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 16:31
Totally agree. Its just a bit of an improvement.
Are you surprised? :confused: Nobody was expecting a D3 replacement.
I expect the 1D4 to be a much better camera than the D3s.
I'd hope so, they've had more than two years to do their homework.

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 16:32
I'm with you on the new 85. It's a lens no-one was asking for. The 70-200 is hardly reheated though - it's a totally new lens and a totally new design.

Screaming omissions for me - 35mm f1.4 and an 85 f1.4 with AF-S. That said, I've managed to shoot another wedding season without either ;)

Ok maybe reheated was a poor wording then, But still, the old one was already quite good...and the new one is pretty pricey last i checked...

And am i the only one who thinks Nikon has made an -aweful- lot of 80-200/70-200 f/2.8s over the years?

foxesamu
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 16:38
So far this year, Nikon gave a reheated 18-200, a 10-24 [ok that was actually needed..] a reheated 70-200 VR and a 85mm macro...
And a 35/1.8 which is probably the best budget lens on the market right now.

BTW the new 70-200 was just reviewed for the first time and the guy went as far as to say it's the sharpest zoom lens he has ever used, that there is no vignetting, and the new VRII is amazing.

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 16:53
And a 35/1.8 which is probably the best budget lens on the market right now.

BTW the new 70-200 was just reviewed for the first time and the guy went as far as to say it's the sharpest zoom lens he has ever used, that there is no vignetting, and the new VRII is amazing.

I forgot the 35 f/1.8, sorry

And I'm not saying its bad, its just i can think of many lenses Nikon could have made instead of a new 70-200, thats all...

Skippy29
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 17:01
I think you are looking at this the wrong way, sure iso 100000 sounds like a gimmick but the whole point is that if the overall ISO capabilities get better,i.e. ISO 3200-6400 will also improve. So while I don't particularly care for iso 102000 I care that the ISO 6400 has been improved and now is even more usable.

For heaven's sake look at the straight out of the camera JPGs at ISO12800!!
http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/



I shoot with a D300 and one thing I don't like about crop cameras are that ISO 2000 and above are at best borderline on a crop. The ISO 6400 samples from the 3Ds are superb.

I agree with that to a point, but I would say that ISO100 probably looks exactly the same on the D3 vs the D3s. So that logic might not always hold true.
I recently bought a 7D which replaced my 40D. The ISO3200 shots out of my 7D are worlds better than they were on my 40D, totally usable. And I would even use my ISO6400 shots without much hesitation. But my point was simply that there is definitely a point of diminishing returns on the ISO race, and clean high ISO had better not be the only big claim to fame out of a $6600 body. I guess it all depends on what is most important to the photographer's work.

Yohan Pamudji
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 17:22
And I'm not saying its bad, its just i can think of many lenses Nikon could have made instead of a new 70-200, thats all...

Ever since the D3--Nikon's first FF DSLR--came out, the old 70-200 had been getting hammered for being mushy toward the edges of the frame. It needed an update in a bad way. It wouldn't have been my first purchase priority if I were getting started with a Nikon system, but the fact that this photojournalist workhorse zoom range lens had such a bad reputation was reflecting more poorly on Nikon than any lenses it hasn't yet produced, so it's reasonable that they thought it important to update ASAP.

CAL Imagery
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 17:24
Agreed. Such disappointing recent releases in the area of primes from what used to be an optics-focused company.
That's good point. However, Nikon/Canon can make the film for their camera, instead of only working on the optics, as opposed to the olden days. I suppose it is also a cost-saving measure so Nikon can spend more R&D on sensors (I thought I read Sony isn't making the most recent FFs, although I may be wrong) than lenses.

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 17:49
Ever since the D3--Nikon's first FF DSLR--came out, the old 70-200 had been getting hammered for being mushy toward the edges of the frame. It needed an update in a bad way. It wouldn't have been my first purchase priority if I were getting started with a Nikon system, but the fact that this photojournalist workhorse zoom range lens had such a bad reputation was reflecting more poorly on Nikon than any lenses it hasn't yet produced, so it's reasonable that they thought it important to update ASAP.

Thats a good point i guess, photojournalists might still have a lot of cash to drop right now...

Was it really as bad as they say? or is it like the 100-400 is soft thing thats still floating around?

J_TULLAR
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 19:20
And a 35/1.8 which is probably the best budget lens on the market right now.

BTW the new 70-200 was just reviewed for the first time and the guy went as far as to say it's the sharpest zoom lens he has ever used, that there is no vignetting, and the new VRII is amazing.

His samples dont look jaw dropping however :p Ive seen the same with the f/4 is and F2.8 is canon lense.

TheHoff
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 19:37
His samples dont look jaw dropping however :p Ive seen the same with the f/4 is and F2.8 is canon lense.

Yea I was a bit confused with that 100% crop... even assuming he did the right thing and showed it before sharpening, it didn't look that sharp. Certainly not the sharpest 2.8 zoom I've seen.

foxesamu
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 20:22
I forgot the 35 f/1.8, sorry

And I'm not saying its bad, its just i can think of many lenses Nikon could have made instead of a new 70-200, thats all...
I completely agree and I think the new macro lens is stupid (unless it's super inexpensive), but I just don't think there's any use complaining about it--hopefully they'll get back to their senses next year.

foxesamu
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 20:24
His samples dont look jaw dropping however :p Ive seen the same with the f/4 is and F2.8 is canon lense.
Eh, he's one of the world's top ten wedding shooters--his samples weren't special but I'm taking his word for it.

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 20:40
I completely agree and I think the new macro lens is stupid (unless it's super inexpensive), but I just don't think there's any use complaining about it--hopefully they'll get back to their senses next year.


Its about $540 iirc, So its less than the 105 VR, so no, its not priced that badly I suppose..

I guess part of its the aperture, if it was a 85mm f/2 VR Macro, I'd be at full attention about it, even an f/2.8, but f/3.5? Thats limiting its scope as a portrait/general telephoto lens...

J_TULLAR
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 21:05
Eh, he's one of the world's top ten wedding shooters--his samples weren't special but I'm taking his word for it.

He is also sponsored by nikon lol. Id follow the party line if I was sponsored too. Ill wait for real world images.

mikeassk
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 21:38
I don't what you guys are smoking, but Canon is a far cry away from 9fps in full frame - 12MP or not. I don't think this is a yawn at all.

Really cuz they did it over a decade ago.

KenjiS
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 21:48
Really cuz they did it over a decade ago.

Indeed, the EOS-1v did 10fps actually, Slowed to 9 when you used tracking AF

Canon has the mirror/shutter mechanisms to do it, and they have the processing power to do it [Dual Digic IVs can push 18mp at 8fps they can easily do 12 at 12...] the reason i think they didn't might be the price on high capacity/high speed buffer RAM [Since rattling away at 9fps or so is great, But if your buffer is full after 9 shots..] or something else we're not thinking of that made it infeasable to do so..

Also don't knock Canon too bad, Keep in mind the 1D3 is about 3 years on now and the 1Ds3 isnt really a speed-oriented camera..

foxesamu
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 22:31
He is also sponsored by nikon lol. Id follow the party line if I was sponsored too. Ill wait for real world images.
I think he's only sponsored by Nikon because the majority of wedding shooters use Canon and he's a talented photographer, + he's used Nikon for a long time.

foxesamu
14th of October 2009 (Wed), 22:33
Its about $540 iirc, So its less than the 105 VR, so no, its not priced that badly I suppose..

I guess part of its the aperture, if it was a 85mm f/2 VR Macro, I'd be at full attention about it, even an f/2.8, but f/3.5? Thats limiting its scope as a portrait/general telephoto lens...
Not only that but it's DX! I just don't get it. If it wasn't a macro lens and was FX (and f1.8-2) it would be perfect for indoor sports (like the EF 85/1.8 ) and a good replacement for the current 85/1.8. But now there are 3 different 85mm lenses that are all flawed in some way. The 1.8 is too slow to focus and has bad bokeh, the 1.4 is superb but not AF-S, the 3.5 is... 3.5, DX, macro. Argh.

radiohead
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 01:09
He is also sponsored by nikon lol. Id follow the party line if I was sponsored too. Ill wait for real world images.

He buys every piece of Nikon kit. Every piece. He's declared that up front and when we've spoken.

It's a little like saying that Jeff Ascough's comments on Canon kit are useless and not real-world because he's a Canon Ambassador. Patently nonsense.

These people are at the very top of their game for good reason. They know what they're talking about.

J_TULLAR
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 02:29
He buys every piece of Nikon kit. Every piece. He's declared that up front and when we've spoken.

It's a little like saying that Jeff Ascough's comments on Canon kit are useless and not real-world because he's a Canon Ambassador. Patently nonsense.

These people are at the very top of their game for good reason. They know what they're talking about.

Actually I dont listen to most people who are sponsored. Id rather see real world peoples examples and judge for myself. Thats like saying I must buy these nike golf clubs because Tiger Woods uses them so they must be the best. Tiger woods could use wilson golf clubs and still kick ass. A pro photographer could use a d40/xti and still make awesome images due to talent and experience... which makes it hard to judge their opinions. But hey thats just my opinion and yours is different so its a draw :lol:

radiohead
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:11
So when a pro wedding photographer shows his images that's not real world? Seriously?

The golf analogy would work if Woods paid Nike for his clubs. He doesn't. Bell and Ascough do.

And you honestly think they'd get the images they do with a kit lens and a D40/XTi?

Stealthy Ninja
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:14
Mmm Nikon vs Canon fight.

Where be my popcorn?!

Thar it is, over THARRRRR! Quick get thar seamen on the poopdeck. Thar be land in site.


Anyway, this pointless fighting over nikon vs canon is dumb. I love all photographers regardless of the stupid decisions they make (like choosing Nikon). We can all be friends right?!

:p :p


:lol:

J_TULLAR
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:22
So when a pro wedding photographer shows his images that's not real world? Seriously?

The golf analogy would work if Woods paid Nike for his clubs. He doesn't. Bell and Ascough do.

And you honestly think they'd get the images they do with a kit lens and a D40/XTi?

hey your buddy ken rockwell seems to think so lol... Im not dissing nikon stealthy. I shot nikon for years.. my dad rocks nikons( also he hates I shoot canon lol). Im just saying pros can shoot amazing pictures with less. So are you saying someone without a advanced camera cant make awesome pictures lol... seriously???

Stealthy Ninja
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:30
I watched a video online where Ken Rockwell went to B&H or something.

He said he didn't see the point of using a long lens at a sporting event, because he could just get the sports person to come in his back yard and reenact the shot (so he could shoot it with a wide angle).

That guy is the master of dry comedy I tells ya.

radiohead
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:35
hey your buddy ken rockwell seems to think so lol... Im not dissing nikon stealthy. I shot nikon for years.. my dad rocks nikons( also he hates I shoot canon lol). Im just saying pros can shoot amazing pictures with less. So are you saying someone without a advanced camera cant make awesome pictures lol... seriously???


My buddy? Please. He's a muppet.

No - I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that that sort of photographer uses high end kit for a reason. It's not really something up for debate.

J_TULLAR
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:41
I watched a video online where Ken Rockwell went to B&H or something.

He said he didn't see the point of using a long lens at a sporting event, because he could just get the sports person to come in his back yard and reenact the shot (so he could shoot it with a wide angle).

That guy is the master of dry comedy I tells ya.

That guy talks a mile a minute.. its hard to keep up with him lol. To be honest im not trying to argue or fight.. I gave my opinion of how I look at things and if he doesnt agree thats fine with me... There are many pro's out there that have shot with some simple cameras and made amazing images. Images I can only dream of making some day. Too bad im a gear whore and have that buy buy buy feeling lol. I should concentrate on improving my pictures and stop fussing about gear... but I cant for I am a gear whore :lol:

J_TULLAR
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 03:44
My buddy? Please. He's a muppet.

No - I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that that sort of photographer uses high end kit for a reason. It's not really something up for debate.

lol he is a muppet. I see your point though... a little.

foxesamu
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 12:07
He buys every piece of Nikon kit. Every piece. He's declared that up front and when we've spoken.

It's a little like saying that Jeff Ascough's comments on Canon kit are useless and not real-world because he's a Canon Ambassador. Patently nonsense.

These people are at the very top of their game for good reason. They know what they're talking about.
I agree... not to mention that the lens being excellent isn't a surprise. Nikon hasn't released a bad lens in a looooooong time. But the latest pro lenses are just another level of goodness.

The 85 macro has ignited plenty of complaining but I'm sure it will also be Nikon's best macro lens ever (next to the 200mm f4) and everyone shooting DX will have one...

KenjiS
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 14:31
I watched a video online where Ken Rockwell went to B&H or something.

He said he didn't see the point of using a long lens at a sporting event, because he could just get the sports person to come in his back yard and reenact the shot (so he could shoot it with a wide angle).

That guy is the master of dry comedy I tells ya.

Or just an idiot :P

I know! lets REENACT the flag raising at Iwo Jima! Thats just as good as that iconic shot isn't it? :P

Yohan Pamudji
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 15:09
Or just an idiot :P

I know! lets REENACT the flag raising at Iwo Jima! Thats just as good as that iconic shot isn't it? :P

You know, that iconic shot actually is a reenactment :) Fake!

J_TULLAR
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 16:24
You know, that iconic shot actually is a reenactment :) Fake!

haha thats totally true hahaha bad example kenjiS lol.

KenjiS
15th of October 2009 (Thu), 17:41
You know, that iconic shot actually is a reenactment :) Fake!

..Proof kenji needs to wake up before posting and screaming at Ken Rockwell lest he look like an idiot..

primoz
19th of October 2009 (Mon), 05:36
He said he didn't see the point of using a long lens at a sporting event, because he could just get the sports person to come in his back yard and reenact the shot (so he could shoot it with a wide angle).
Maybe I'm "a bit" biased, because I do shoot sports as huge part of my job, so this comment made me stop watch it. I know he's a troll, but come on... he should at least think a bit about what flies out of his mouth. 70-200 is all you need to shoot sport. Sure, if you shoot your kid on backyard, you don't need even this. In real life, things are different. It's not I wouldn't want to get close, it's just they don't LET you come close. So good luck with 70-200 and shooting sport. But then again... I doubt he was anywhere near any pro sporting event... even as spectator, so what does he know.

Stealthy Ninja
20th of October 2009 (Tue), 01:03
Maybe I'm "a bit" biased, because I do shoot sports as huge part of my job, so this comment made me stop watch it. I know he's a troll, but come on... he should at least think a bit about what flies out of his mouth. 70-200 is all you need to shoot sport. Sure, if you shoot your kid on backyard, you don't need even this. In real life, things are different. It's not I wouldn't want to get close, it's just they don't LET you come close. So good luck with 70-200 and shooting sport. But then again... I doubt he was anywhere near any pro sporting event... even as spectator, so what does he know.

Yeah, before watching that video I thought he may be a bit of an idiot. After watching it all doubt was removed.

;)

Guy talks like he needs to be on Riddalin. :rolleyes:

KenjiS
20th of October 2009 (Tue), 01:21
Maybe I'm "a bit" biased, because I do shoot sports as huge part of my job, so this comment made me stop watch it. I know he's a troll, but come on... he should at least think a bit about what flies out of his mouth. 70-200 is all you need to shoot sport. Sure, if you shoot your kid on backyard, you don't need even this. In real life, things are different. It's not I wouldn't want to get close, it's just they don't LET you come close. So good luck with 70-200 and shooting sport. But then again... I doubt he was anywhere near any pro sporting event... even as spectator, so what does he know.

The reason why is id imagine a 300-someodd pound football player and 4 of his buddies tackling into you might not be a fun thing when you have 18lbs or so of camera gear...

Make for an incredible shot though ;) for someone to the side with a 24-70..

radiohead
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 04:21
Lots of full-size samples right up to the top of the ISO range here

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3SA7.HTM

AdamJL
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 04:45
Lots of full-size samples right up to the top of the ISO range here

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3SA7.HTM

So not a gimmick at all. That 102,400 is completely useable, especially for newspapers.

All hail the Lord of Darkness!

TheHoff
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 06:56
So not a gimmick at all. That 102,400 is completely useable, especially for newspapers.

All hail the Lord of Darkness!

You have to assume now that Canon's decision to put 102K in the 1D4 was a last minute one. It looks like utter trash compared to Nikon's 102K.

Lowner
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 07:08
Mass exodus from Nikon?

Canon have been playing catch up and to my eyes have still not quite managed it, although the gap has closed if everything works as advertised.

So I don't see any mass exodus happening any time soon but maybe the gentle drip feed going the other way will slow a little.

AdamJL
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 08:46
You have to assume now that Canon's decision to put 102K in the 1D4 was a last minute one. It looks like utter trash compared to Nikon's 102K.

Let's wait until we have real-world examples to compare it against before jumping to conclusions ;)

TheHoff
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 09:03
Let's wait until we have real-world examples to compare it against before jumping to conclusions ;)

I would normally be the first to say that -- we're seeing the first manufacturer examples and user samples and who knows what the settings were. But if you're to believe Canon's first samples, 102K isn't even salvageable... whereas the Nikon shot (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/FULLRES/Ycircus_vidrig_102400.HTM), no matter the NR done, is usable in a majority of situations.

I'll reserve judgment until the cameras are actually released, but what a crock Canon's ultra high ISO looks to be on first glance.

radiohead
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 09:05
Here you go:

http://dpinterface.com/review-galleries/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-preview-gallery/

AdamJL
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 09:26
^ there you go!

Much better. Is it as good as Nikon's? Who cares, it's still useful!

Yohan Pamudji
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 11:45
^ there you go!

Much better. Is it as good as Nikon's? Who cares, it's still useful!

Define "useful" :lol: I wouldn't use either--well, maybe the D3S in an absolute pinch--but next to the D3S, the 1DIV's ISO 102400 is an awful, pixelated, noisy mess. Standard disclaimers about different scenes, different lighting, etc., apply.

narlus
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 12:05
well the first super high ISO canon 1DIV shot was a 100% crop so its' hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from that w/o seeing the whole image. i'd still say that Nikon's looks better than the link that was just posted.

Yohan Pamudji
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 12:33
Why did Imaging Resource use all those non full stop ISOs? Don't they know people are trying to pixel peep here?! :D

In the 1DIV's defense, ISO 12800 looks very nice and 25600 would make a decent in-a-pinch ISO. For my use that's really as high as I ever see myself needing to go. I know, "never say never" and all that, but that's where I am right now. With my old, creaky, obsolete 5D I often use ISO 3200 and every once in a while have to push in post to 6400. If I could go 12800 and have it look like the 1DIV's results I'd be ecstatic. Personally that's my point of diminishing returns.

Having said that, I'll continue to laugh at ISO 102K. Seriously, Canon. This is a clear case of marketing before common sense. Nikon have it so we need to also.

Stealthy Ninja
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 13:48
ISO 102,400 is amazzzzing (I love to follow hype). I can read the words at least.

Only a few days ago and 25600 was crazy high ISO.

102,400

I'll say that number again

ONE HUNDRED AND TWO THOUSAND (and four hundred) EYE + ESSSS + OHHHHHHH

;) :p

J_TULLAR
21st of October 2009 (Wed), 14:59
yea nikon definately leads canon in the noise department.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of October 2009 (Fri), 10:10
yea nikon definately leads canon in the noise department.

Yeah, they're great at making noise. Mainly "click".

J_TULLAR
23rd of October 2009 (Fri), 10:29
Yeah, they're great at making noise. Mainly "click".

lol. Did anyone notice that http://dpinterface.com/review-galler...eview-gallery/ got rid of their samples :!:

AdamJL
23rd of October 2009 (Fri), 11:49
Most of the websites that had preview samples have taken them down.

From what I've read it's down to Canon asking them to as the pictures were taken with beta firmware. I didn't think that would effect Raw images, but there you go.

KenjiS
24th of October 2009 (Sat), 18:04
Most of the websites that had preview samples have taken them down.

From what I've read it's down to Canon asking them to as the pictures were taken with beta firmware. I didn't think that would effect Raw images, but there you go.

is there raw editing stuff available yet or are people using in-camera jpeg?