Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 15 Sep 2014 (Monday) 13:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5D Mark IV announcement after March 2015

 
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:31 |  #121

idkdc wrote in post #17518429 (external link)
Like there isn't a compromised solution from any other company. A7s = low-light wonder, contrast detect only, A7r = big megapixel, compressed raws, contrast detect only, A7II = phase detect, lower pixel pitch, not low-light wonder. Canon splitting a 5D lineup is exactly like Sony's lineup, so I don't get the assertion at all, especially in comparison to the other options out there.

It's nothing to do with the splitting of the lineup and everything to do which what features makes it into which model.

At the higher end, the lineup has to be split because people are doing specialised shooting with specialised tools - ISO and frame rate for action photography, resolution and DR for landscapes/architectur​e/stuff that doesn't move, different filters for astrophotography, etc. It's expected and not a problem.

The problem is when a camera designed for one thing does better in a something that's not key to its performance than another camera for which that area is key. It would be as if the A7II had better low-light performance than the A7s, or if the A7s had better DR or higher resolution than the A7r.

The entire A7 range isn't designed for fast AF anyway and all current Sonys have compressed RAW, so I wouldn't count any of those examples as this.

And I'm not just talking about low ISO DR and the ability to raise shadows, which I do like as I came from Nikon and they did it first (at least before Sony), let's not forget.

Using a Sony sensor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:32 |  #122

sploo wrote in post #17518780 (external link)
Not quite sure where the need for defensive aggression has come from. Let's please keep discussions polite and constructive.

Let me put it in simpler terms: one guy is just one guy from a statistical point of view. An experienced shooter will certainly know way more about his industry and the norms than a layman, but what he sees isn't necessarily statistically representative of "the world". I.e. any kind of "most people do/do not" type statements are always on shaky ground without good data to back them up.

In terms of the RAW sizes; I'm assuming then those must have mostly been higher ISO shots? The data I'd seen for the D810 was in the low 40s, but perhaps that was mostly for lower ISO images.

Working on an average of 20MB more data (per shot) than a 5D3; 6000 images per session is an increase of ~120GB. 36 sessions is ~4TB. Let's say you need to add four 4TB drives to actually get another 4TB (due to mirroring and other backups), that's just $640 for a set of WD Red SATA drives. Granted that doesn't take into account overheads of enclosures, or the increased costs if you were going down the SAS route, but it's still relatively small compared with the costs of pro camera gear.

BTW You might get better efficiency in terms of disks vs available capacity (but still good performance and redundancy) with a large RAID6 array, rather than RAID 0+1. You can call that last bit preaching if you'd like; but it's intended to be a well meaning suggestion.

Sorry, I'm home coughing and hacking and have just been cruising POTN to distract myself. Apologies for the aggression. I see what you mean. Just got a little irritated at the sweeping generalization phrase. I'm mainly talking high wedding photo industry in top markets in the US. I don't speak for flyover states and other markets with lower rates where I don't work. I don't claim to represent the industry in the world, or at least I didn't intend to. I think there's a certain behavior that is caused by the working requirements of the industry I work in in general. I know some sports photogs who shoot with the D810, but they do so at lower actuation count to keep their or their organizations' costs low.

I prefer Seagate Constellations to WD Reds, so they are more expensive, but never gave RAID 6 a thought. I'll have to check that out. Honest thanks for the suggestion. Again, the "preaching" part was me getting annoyed at getting lectured on the industries that I have worked on by someone who I took for granted didn't.

I would go D810's if I was working alone. But since I sometimes have to network and work with other wedding photogs, it's best not to piss them off with 60 MB files, and yeah the file sizes I saw or high ISO, which is pretty common for wedding towards the evening and light. Low ISO is lovely, but a tool for landscape and architecture folks.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:37 |  #123

Shadowblade wrote in post #17518793 (external link)
It's nothing to do with the splitting of the lineup and everything to do which what features makes it into which model.

At the higher end, the lineup has to be split because people are doing specialised shooting with specialised tools - ISO and frame rate for action photography, resolution and DR for landscapes/architectur​e/stuff that doesn't move, different filters for astrophotography, etc. It's expected and not a problem.

The problem is when a camera designed for one thing does better in a something that's not key to its performance than another camera for which that area is key. It would be as if the A7II had better low-light performance than the A7s, or if the A7s had better DR or higher resolution than the A7r.

The entire A7 range isn't designed for fast AF anyway and all current Sonys have compressed RAW, so I wouldn't count any of those examples as this.

Using a Sony sensor.

And Canon's entire lineup was never designed for HDR guys who couldn't be bothered to bracket or blend exposures. Why the arbitrary demands? I want fast AF. Sony doesn't give it to me. That's not an "uncompromised" solution. You want better low DR. Why are your priorities more important than mine? Completely arbitrary.

Let me say this again, I like low ISO DR and I think the 5DSR should have more of it. I take issue with calling Canon nothing but "compromised" solutions based on your special needs or wants - one bloody feature, when ALL camera products on the market now are feature incomplete in one way or the other. That you ignore ergonomics, autofocus and other priorities that others need is quite myopic (one-minded). Like I said, I take issue with the word "compromised." Pick a better point to argue on, because that one falls apart in several ways I have already gone over.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:41 |  #124

idkdc wrote in post #17518436 (external link)
Do you shoot with a D4s? I've shot with a D3 and D3s before. They're better at driving autofocus on supertele's, not necessarily better at f/1.4 apertures at the outer edges. The D4 and D4s may be steps up, but I haven't shot with those yet. They only have 15 cross type though, so that's why I've used Canon as my main system these days.
I shoot wedding dances at night and I've shot concerts and raves in the past. Extreme, low-light, they're more difficult than sports. NCAA DIV I, and little league, PAC12, you name it, I've shot it. Do you even shoot ANY of those thing?

I shoot wildife as well as landscapes. These involve unpredictable subjects in often difficult lighting, shooting with long lenses where DOF is minimal even at f/4. I've also shot stage performances and live theatre, which are also very low light, and with lighting that constantly changes (so you can't just set a shutter speed and leave it). I've done this with both Canon and Nikon bodies, sometimes both at the same time (e.g. with one Canon and one Nikon body, with different lenses mounted on them). The D4s beats the 1Dx handily when focusing in extremely low light. Outside of these, it's basically the same. The 1Dx certainly seems a bit better than the D4 though.

For the record, I'd take Canon for the wildlife, largely due to the supertele lens selection (and mostly due to the 200-400L) but I'd take Nikon for the dim and rapidly-changing light of a stage performance any day. When you're shooting in Av mode because the lighting keeps changing, the Nikon's better DR can frequently save you if the Av mode metering is slightly off (when the ISO is below 1600 or so, which actually happens quite frequently).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:43 |  #125

Shadowblade wrote in post #17518782 (external link)
The gear list at the bottom of your post doesn't even include a single prime lens, let alone an f/1.2 lens. Credibility gone.

Besides, 'most' upper market wedding photographers do not shoot at f/1.2. Nikon doesn't even offer f/1.2, which discounts half of all wedding photographers already. And zooms are the bread and butter of most wedding photographers, especially during the ceremony - the 70-200 f/2.8 especially. As far as primes go, I see a lot more being done with the 200 f/2 and 135 f/2 than with any f/1.2 lens, and mostly outside the ceremony itself.

LOL, interwebz points for you, clairvoyant commenter. I don't put all the lenses I currently use or have used in the past in there because the description would get too long.
24mm f/1.4L II
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L
85mm f/1.2L II
135mm f/2L

Whatever, f/1.2-1.6. The same damn apertures, it's not that different, focus is still incredibly thin. Do you shoot any form of action and are accountable for your performance to a client? Or do you shoot still objects for fun? They're two incredibly different things. Depth of field is just as thin or thinner on the 135 f/2, so the AF system on Canon has always been better for that DOF. Have you owned or tried a 135 f/2 DC on Nikon? Yeah, talk to me then. And, please, don't tell me that a 135 f/2 gets more use than f/1.2-1.6 lenses at shorter focal lengths at weddings. Because you're a landscape photographer.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:49 as a reply to  @ Shadowblade's post |  #126

You shoot Av at a concert and then let DR save you from the wrong exposure? C1-C3 manual presets all the time for my Canon gear, and I'm never at the wrong exposure. Also, BOTH concert and theater are in GREAT, PROFESSIONALLY LIT light compared to wedding dances. I don't shoot wildlife. I shoot college sports. Canon has always been more responsive. Always had to stop down to f/3.2 on Nikon. Simply the cross type points. They're both good, just Canon gives you more cross type points to shoot wide open from.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:51 |  #127

idkdc wrote in post #17518803 (external link)
And Canon's entire lineup was never designed for HDR guys who couldn't be bothered to bracket or blend exposures. Why the arbitrary demands? I want fast AF. Sony doesn't give it to me. That's not an "uncompromised" solution. You want better low DR. Why are your priorities more important than mine? Completely arbitrary.

Let me say this again, I like low ISO DR and I think the 5DSR should have more of it. I take issue with calling Canon nothing but "compromised" solutions based on your special needs or wants - one bloody feature, when ALL camera products on the market now are feature incomplete in one way or the other. That you ignore ergonomics, autofocus and other priorities that others need is quite myopic (one-minded). Like I said, I take issue with the word "compromised." Pick a better point to argue on, because that one falls apart in several ways I have already gone over.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying they're compromised because they ignore a key requirement of the type of photography they are designed for. Not every camera needs to have every feature. But every camera needs to have the key features for which they are designed.

Sony's A7 line isn't designed for action photography. That much is obvious. It's not advertised as a sports camera at all. Not only does it lack the AF, but it also lacks the frame rate, the buffer and the supertele lens lineup to do so. It's not 'compromised' for shooting action and other AF-intensive roles. It's just not designed for them. If you want to shoot action, you need an SLR.

On the other hand, the 5Ds is explicitly designed for landscape/architecture​/things that don't move. It has extremely high resolution. It has stronger Bayer filters for better colour accuracy. It has a slower, geared mirror to prevent vibration from mirror slap. It has a slow frame rate and only goes to ISO 6400, so it's not like it's designed for general-purpose use or is intended for action. Yet, if current rumours are correct, the 5D4 will have three stops more dynamic range at base ISO than it will, when high DR is a specific requirement of many of the roles that this camera is designed for.

This isn't like the A7 lineup lacking fast AF. That's a case of a camera not being able to do what it wasn't designed for. It's like the 5D3 or 1Dx having slow AF or only going to ISO 3200 - being compromised in a key area for its intended purpose.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:56 |  #128

idkdc wrote in post #17518794 (external link)
Sorry, I'm home coughing and hacking and have just been cruising POTN to distract myself. Apologies for the aggression. I see what you mean. Just got a little irritated at the sweeping generalization phrase. I'm mainly talking high wedding photo industry in top markets in the US. I don't speak for flyover states and other markets with lower rates where I don't work. I don't claim to represent the industry in the world, or at least I didn't intend to. I think there's a certain behavior that is caused by the working requirements of the industry I work in in general. I know some sports photogs who shoot with the D810, but they do so at lower actuation count to keep their or their organizations' costs low.

I think that's only the second time in my (pretty long) forum posting experience where someone's responded on that sort of discussion in that positive way. I'll tip my hat to that and thank you for it (and hope the coughing eases soon).

idkdc wrote in post #17518794 (external link)
I prefer Seagate Constellations to WD Reds, so they are more expensive, but never gave RAID 6 a thought. I'll have to check that out. Honest thanks for the suggestion. Again, the "preaching" part was me getting annoyed at getting lectured on the industries that I have worked on by someone who I took for granted didn't.

The Constellations are good drives - we don't see many failures, certainly of their 2.5" enterprise SATA units. I haven't check their latest models, but the WD Red units have features that make them good for RAID use (without going into long details it's related to their behaviour when they experience errors).

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.or​g …rd_RAID_levels#​Comparison (external link) for RAID data. If you have two 4 disk RAID0 arrays, then grouped into a single (8 disk) RAID1, you (may) get roughly the read performance of 8 disks (depends on a number of factors), but the write performance of only 4, and could withstand the loss of only a single drive. You could withstand a loss of multiple disks from one RAID0 array, but one in each RAID0 array would kill your data. You're obviously only getting the capacity of 4 disks, for running 8.

An 8 disk RAID6 array would give you the capacity of 6 drives, with the possible write performance of 6. I think the read performance should also be 6 (as the effective capacity of 2 drives is parity data - but that would disagree with the wiki page). You could also lose two drives without loss of data. So, possibly more overall performance, more redundancy, and better storage efficiency.

Heck, let me troll you and state that it's a 50% increase in storage efficiency, so you can run a D810 (joking).

idkdc wrote in post #17518794 (external link)
I would go D810's if I was working alone. But since I sometimes have to network and work with other wedding photogs, it's best not to piss them off with 60 MB files, and yeah the file sizes I saw or high ISO, which is pretty common for wedding towards the evening and light. Low ISO is lovely, but a tool for landscape and architecture folks.

Yea, agreed. A (very good) wedding shooter I know uses Nikon, but the D800 is for studio. I think he's still on a D4 for most wedding jobs.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:57 |  #129

Shadowblade wrote in post #17518825 (external link)
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying they're compromised because they ignore a key requirement of the type of photography they are designed for. Not every camera needs to have every feature. But every camera needs to have the key features for which they are designed.

Sony's A7 line isn't designed for action photography. That much is obvious. It's not advertised as a sports camera at all. Not only does it lack the AF, but it also lacks the frame rate, the buffer and the supertele lens lineup to do so. It's not 'compromised' for shooting action and other AF-intensive roles. It's just not designed for them. If you want to shoot action, you need an SLR.

On the other hand, the 5Ds is explicitly designed for landscape/architecture​/things that don't move. It has extremely high resolution. It has stronger Bayer filters for better colour accuracy. It has a slower, geared mirror to prevent vibration from mirror slap. It has a slow frame rate and only goes to ISO 6400, so it's not like it's designed for general-purpose use or is intended for action. Yet, if current rumours are correct, the 5D4 will have three stops more dynamic range at base ISO than it will, when high DR is a specific requirement of many of the roles that this camera is designed for.

This isn't like the A7 lineup lacking fast AF. That's a case of a camera not being able to do what it wasn't designed for. It's like the 5D3 or 1Dx having slow AF or only going to ISO 3200 - being compromised in a key area for its intended purpose.

The A7s is geared as a low-light camera, low-megapixel camera. This is perfect for event photography. Then why doesn't it have phase detect like the A7II? That's a compromise. The 5Ds is compromised in low-DR. You or someone else said that Canon doesn't make a single camera without compromise! I give you the A7s. As well as the A99. And the A77. Don't cop out and tell me that they aren't meant for professional use, because I've met Sony reps in person and they just keep blabbing on on how you should replace your Canon gear professionally with their stuff. How the A6000 and an A77II is a better sports camera than the 7DII. Yuck.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2015 17:59 |  #130

idkdc wrote in post #17518811 (external link)
LOL, interwebz points for you, clairvoyant commenter. I don't put all the lenses I currently use or have used in the past in there because the description would get too long.
24mm f/1.4L II
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.2L
85mm f/1.2L II
135mm f/2L

Whatever, f/1.2-1.6. The same damn apertures, it's not that different, focus is still incredibly thin. Do you shoot any form of action and are accountable for your performance to a client? Or do you shoot still objects for fun? They're two incredibly different things. Depth of field is just as thin or thinner on the 135 f/2, so the AF system on Canon has always been better for that DOF. Have you owned or tried a 135 f/2 DC on Nikon? Yeah, talk to me then. And, please, don't tell me that a 135 f/2 gets more use than f/1.2-1.6 lenses at shorter focal lengths at weddings. Because you're a landscape photographer.

Yes, I'm a landscape photographer. Also wildlife, although that's secondary. And all my photography is accountable for my own income - if I don't produce the images, I don't earn anything (at least not from the income stream that comes from photography). I also happen to have helped found a wedding photography business (despite not being a photography for them, since I don't shoot weddings myself) and worked with them on their equipment, technical and studio side of things, so I am very familiar with what they need and how they shoot. And short lenses at f/1.2-f/1.4 are rarely part of the equation when shooting action - only occasionally in posed shots where things aren't moving (and, even then, they prefer the 200 f/2 or the 70-200).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonneymendoza
Goldmember
3,776 posts
Likes: 353
Joined Apr 2008
     
Apr 15, 2015 18:01 |  #131

idkdc wrote in post #17518839 (external link)
The A7s is geared as a low-light camera, low-megapixel camera. This is perfect for event photography. Then why doesn't it have phase detect like the A7II? That's a compromise. The 5Ds is compromised in low-DR. You or someone else said that Canon doesn't make a single camera without compromise! I give you the A7s. As well as the A99. And the A77. Don't cop out and tell me that they aren't meant for professional use, because I've met Sony reps in person and they just keep blabbing on on how you should replace your Canon gear professionally with their stuff. How the A6000 and an A77II is a better sports camera than the 7DII. Yuck.

The A7II just came out the other day thats why.

i can bet u that the a7smk2 will have phade detection and 4k recording and will be rleeased before the 5d4


Canon 5dmkIII | Canon 85L 1.2 | Sigma 35mm ART 1.4|Canon 16-35mm L 2.8 |Canon 24-70mm L f2.8 | Canon 70-200mm F2.8L MK2 | Canon 430EX MK2 Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 15, 2015 18:02 |  #132

Shadowblade wrote in post #17518825 (external link)
Yet, if current rumours are correct, the 5D4 will have three stops more dynamic range at base ISO than it will, when high DR is a specific requirement of many of the roles that this camera is designed for.

Let's just keep in mind the rumours (and they are still only rumours) that the video-oriented 5D4c might have the dual-channel readout feature for high DR. I've not seen anything suggesting the photography-oriented 5D4 might have it.

Or to put it another way: you're likely to be disappointed with poor 5Ds DR. I'm likely to be disappointed with poor 5D4 DR :-|


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2015 18:12 |  #133

idkdc wrote in post #17518839 (external link)
The A7s is geared as a low-light camera, low-megapixel camera. This is perfect for event photography. Then why doesn't it have phase detect like the A7II? That's a compromise.

Nope, the sensor is perfect for event photography. Not the camera. It has slow AF and a limited flash system. It was advertised as a compact, low-light solution, not an event photographer's camera. The same sensor can be used in many different applications, so long as it fulfils the requirements for each application.

The 5Ds is compromised in low-DR. You or someone else said that Canon doesn't make a single camera without compromise!

Wasn't me. In any case, it's not true. The 1Dx isn't compromised at all for its intended purpose. As a sports camera, it needs high frame rate, a good buffer, high ISO capability and a fast AF system. It has all of these things - it's not compromised. The 5D3 is a general-purpose action camera. It needs a bit of everything, not too much of anything, and has it. It's not a compromised design. The 5Ds, on the other hand, is compromised. It's sold as an idea camera for architecture, landscapes and studio work. This means it requires high resolution and low-ISO image quality. Yet, if the 5D4 and C300II rumours are true, it's lacking in DR compared to Canon's own other offerings, and compared even to entry-level models from other manufacturers. It's compromised not because it can't do everything under the sun, but because it's worse than Canon's own other offerings even at the thing it's supposed to be best at.

I give you the A7s. As well as the A99. And the A77. Don't cop out and tell me that they aren't meant for professional use, because I've met Sony reps in person and they just keep blabbing on on how you should replace your Canon gear professionally with their stuff. How the A6000 and an A77II is a better sports camera than the 7DII. Yuck.

The A7s I already explained. The others are not compromised - they represent Sony's best action cameras. As such, they have Sony's best crop-sensor high ISO, frame rate and AF performance. They're not very good at what they do, but they're not compromised designs because Sony doesn't have anything better. It's not like Sony released them, then, six months later, released an A7r with a faster AF system and higher frame rate.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 15, 2015 18:16 |  #134

sploo wrote in post #17518833 (external link)
I think that's only the second time in my (pretty long) forum posting experience where someone's responded on that sort of discussion in that positive way. I'll tip my hat to that and thank you for it (and hope the coughing eases soon).

Thanks for the kinds words and being a voice of reason here.

The Constellations are good drives - we don't see many failures, certainly of their 2.5" enterprise SATA units. I haven't check their latest models, but the WD Red units have features that make them good for RAID use (without going into long details it's related to their behaviour when they experience errors).

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.or​g …rd_RAID_levels#​Comparison (external link) for RAID data. If you have two 4 disk RAID0 arrays, then grouped into a single (8 disk) RAID1, you (may) get roughly the read performance of 8 disks (depends on a number of factors), but the write performance of only 4, and could withstand the loss of only a single drive. You could withstand a loss of multiple disks from one RAID0 array, but one in each RAID0 array would kill your data. You're obviously only getting the capacity of 4 disks, for running 8.

An 8 disk RAID6 array would give you the capacity of 6 drives, with the possible write performance of 6. I think the read performance should also be 6 (as the effective capacity of 2 drives is parity data - but that would disagree with the wiki page). You could also lose two drives without loss of data. So, possibly more overall performance, more redundancy, and better storage efficiency.

Heck, let me troll you and state that it's a 50% increase in storage efficiency, so you can run a D810 (joking).


Sounds good. I'll have research this more in depth after this cold and my next shoots are done. Haha, thanks for the sensitivity at pointing out the joke. Again, I'd love a D810, it just doesn't fit into my highest priorities right now with what I currently do. Love the detail for fashion portraits and the like though.

Yea, agreed. A (very good) wedding shooter I know uses Nikon, but the D800 is for studio. I think he's still on a D4 for most wedding jobs.

Yeah, if I had to shoot Nikon for weddings by myself, it'd be the D750 or D3S, but even then, most of the other photogs shoot CF, so even then only the D3s/D4 would make sense for dual backup for both parties if shooting as a second. D700 doesn't have that option, unfortunately.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 15, 2015 18:19 |  #135

idkdc wrote in post #17518478 (external link)
Sure, for landscape, the a7 camera family is great. For other uses, not so much. They're not uncompromised solutions in general (wedding, professional event work). For landscape, they're ideal, but not uncompromised. Everything is compromise unless you have unlimited resources and money. For landscape, the 5DS should come with a max-DR sensor, I agree with that. That a 1DX is a "compromised" camera for anything but landscape, which it wasn't intended for, is a bit of a stretch compared to Sony's A7 lineup and especially their A99 flagship and SLT lineup.

A camera is not 'compromised' if they don't happen to be the best at everything.

It's compromised if it's specially designed for one purpose, but falls short on a key aspect of performance compared to the manufacturer's own other offerings. For example, if a camera that's designed to be Nikon's best action camera turned out to have poorer high-ISO capability than the D810. Not if it's poorer than Canon's 1Dx, but if it's poorer than Nikon's own other efforts, since it then indicates that they've compromised on performance and not put their best capability into a camera explicitly designed for that purpose.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

49,971 views & 24 likes for this thread
5D Mark IV announcement after March 2015
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is juansalva
931 guests, 388 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.