Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

form wrote in post #8892301
The latest round of cameras are ALL about noise reduction, including the 5D II, 50D, 7D, 1D IV, and Nikon D300/D700/D3/D3s/D3x. What we consider acceptable has changed: The noise in a RAW file at ISO6400 is quite strong from most of the new cameras, well above what we would have tolerated from a dSLR a few years before. It's all about how we and the cameras themselves are processing the images, and the boost up to 12+ megapixels helps retain detail by giving leeway for NR.

Exactly. I dont care what the camera does NR-wise so long as it gives me a good looking picture. I dont want to have to go through a bajillion hoops to get something I like.

You can call it whatever biased and derogatory term you want, but Nikon cameras (d3,d700,d3s) deliver great looking high ISO pictures straight from the camera. Canon used to always deliver better IQ but they are apparently asleep at the wheel lately.

EDIT: I feel I need to add this before someone misreads something and puts words in my mouth. From the samples out there, the 1D4 is clearly the cleanest camera Canon has ever put out. All Im saying is that they used to always be ahead of Nikon and now theyre lagging behind (for a couple generations now...). Add to that the fact that the D3s is simply an OLD camera with a new sensor design and you start to wonder what the D4 will be like midway through the 1D4's product life...

AdamLewis wrote in post #8892353
you start to wonder what the D4 will be like midway through the 1D4's product life...

/droooools

maybe enough to make this man become a dual systems user.

yeah if we start thinking what the D4 will be like then the 1DM5 then D5 then 1DM6 then D6 and on and on and on where will we be? we wont ever buy a camera because we want to wait for the neww camera to come out.

Anything said yet about the release date for the 1D Mark IV? Also, why do Nikon users continue to come into the Canon Forums and tell us how bad our cameras are and how smart they are for realizing that Nikons are far superior? I for one am tired of it. I don't feel the need to go to Nikon forums and try to flame them, why do they feel the need to do it here?

JBF wrote in post #8893406
Anything said yet about the release date for the 1D Mark IV? Also, why do Nikon users continue to come into the Canon Forums and tell us how bad our cameras are and how smart they are for realizing that Nikons are far superior? I for one am tired of it. I don't feel the need to go to Nikon forums and try to flame them, why do they feel the need to do it here?

Because they are watching the NFL and 95% of the shooters on the sidelines have WHITE lenses!

HAHAH

AdamLewis wrote in post #8892208
Lets see...

I can shoot JPG with Nikon, go home, resize the images, and call it a day..

or..

I can shoot raw with Canon, go home, open them up in Zoom Browser, open those up in Canon RIT, convert to a 16bit TIFF, open it up in Photoshop, run Neat Image, resize, and call it a day..

Gee. Thats a real tough decision

...I process .JPGs, in-and-out, all-day-long, and in batch... and come out quite better (color, tonality and effective DR-wise) than any of your resized batches (any you can come up with, with your described method and tools )

Furthermore, upcoming FlexNR v2.2 supports .JPG AutoPush: got the .JPGs under? Not a problem: run Any AutoPush and voila! (full-auto +0.30ec or +0.70ec push from an ISo3200 or 6400 baseline and fully integrated into FlexNR's core processing). All pushing on .JPGs has been carefully calibrated and emulates (tonality and chroma-wise) the output of RIT's EC slider. Talk about .JPG-wonderland!

Love,

PIX

This why...

JBF wrote in post #8893406
Anything said yet about the release date for the 1D Mark IV? Also, why do Nikon users continue to come into the Canon Forums and tell us how bad our cameras are and how smart they are for realizing that Nikons are far superior? I for one am tired of it. I don't feel the need to go to Nikon forums and try to flame them, why do they feel the need to do it here?

...Because they are a MINORITY... and minorities always resent being minorities, especially when the BIG WHITE MAJORITY does not care.

Love,

PIX

I ve just heard Nikon is going bankrupt and they will be making no more cameras.

apparently this year they only sold one camera and some form Kentucky bought it. But this wasn't enough to stay in business.

Mastamarek wrote in post #8894712
I ve just heard Nikon is going bankrupt and they will be making no more cameras.

apparently this year they only sold one camera and some form Kentucky bought it. But this wasn't enough to stay in business.

Gee that's tough

Mastamarek wrote in post #8894712
I ve just heard Nikon is going bankrupt and they will be making no more cameras.

apparently this year they only sold one camera and some form Kentucky bought it. But this wasn't enough to stay in business.

The hate is strong in this one it is.

The D3s just drew the line in the sand. I hope my 1D4 meets the challenge.

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

Scroll down for high ISO shots including 102400 samples.

On the one hand, they're pretty ghastly (the D3s shots at 102,400 ISO). On the other hand, it's ISO 102,400!!! That's just crazy.

I've seen only a couple of Canon ISO 102,400 shots, from in-camera JPG's and they look worse, although I think that the ISO 51,200 Canon shot looks a little better. It's really difficult to judge since I didn't take the time to equalize the images and I'm using my old, inadequate laptop. I'm thinking that strictly in terms of high-ISO performance, the bigger sensor in the D3s is going to win.

On the other side of that coin, birders and some sports photographers ought to enjoy the increased pixel density offered by the 1D4. There is an advantage when one is considering cost and weight associated with longer lenses (an advantage that 7D users will undoubtedly enjoy as well). That aspect will influence the buyer's choice, for certain. Canon's thinking is that it will influence the choice more than the 1/2 stop or so noise advantage that the D3s may have over the 1D4.

Correction...

AdamLewis wrote in post #8892353
You can call it whatever biased and derogatory term you want, but Nikon cameras (d3,d700,d3s) deliver great looking high ISO pictures straight from the camera. Canon used to always deliver better IQ but they are apparently asleep at the wheel lately.

...Correction: clean and fine-detail-devoid highISO images out of camera.

It is what it is. You may feel happy about that, and you may call it "two generations ahead"... but, in reality, that is not the case.

PIX

Tom W wrote in post #8896408
On the one hand, they're pretty ghastly (the D3s shots at 102,400 ISO). On the other hand, it's ISO 102,400!!! That's just crazy.

I've seen only a couple of Canon ISO 102,400 shots, from in-camera JPG's and they look worse, although I think that the ISO 51,200 Canon shot looks a little better. It's really difficult to judge since I didn't take the time to equalize the images and I'm using my old, inadequate laptop. I'm thinking that strictly in terms of high-ISO performance, the bigger sensor in the D3s is going to win.

On the other side of that coin, birders and some sports photographers ought to enjoy the increased pixel density offered by the 1D4. There is an advantage when one is considering cost and weight associated with longer lenses (an advantage that 7D users will undoubtedly enjoy as well). That aspect will influence the buyer's choice, for certain. Canon's thinking is that it will influence the choice more than the 1/2 stop or so noise advantage that the D3s may have over the 1D4.

If my 1D4 can produce usable shots at 12800 with minimal post NR I will be more than happy. Hell, I'll be giddy. Anything above that and I'll be in heaven.

PIXmantra wrote in post #8896424
...Correction: clean and fine-detail-devoid highISO images out of camera.

It is what it is. You may feel happy about that, and you may call it "two generations ahead"... but, in reality, that is not the case.

PIX

You're so taken over by the results you get with FlexNR that you seem to neglect the fact that not everyone is a wedding photographer. Some of us are photojournalists and have to publish the photo ON THE SPOT. We can't go home or go to a laptop and take 5-10 minutes post processing each image when we have 150 images to send out that need to be sent out to our publishers yesterday. While your process may work for you, I'll take the slightly-less-detailed-but-still-more-than-good-enough-for-a-publication in-camera JPEGs from cameras like the 1D4/D3, thank you.

http://upload.wikimedi​a.org …6/NormandySuppl​y_edit.jpg

OH MY GOD IT HAS NOISE AND LOSS OF DETAIL AND IS BLURRY! Oh what? It still makes an INCREDIBLE impact? What was that?