D7200: Speed and buffer

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in
buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s
now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...%20Mark%20II,D
710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.

But I was... And I think that you might be a part of it!

Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch.

Same thing. The "CoC" just is determined by a threshold instead of a
curve.

Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

How could they not. But "The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files."

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

The 1D2 just came into the discussion as a little something to compare
the D7200, and maybe the D7300 to...

The 1D2s don't fetch much on the markets these days.
--
teleportation kills

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in
buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps. The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for 1D2s
now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...%20Mark%20II,D
710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.

But I was... And I think that you might be a part of it!

Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch.

Same thing. The "CoC" just is determined by a threshold instead of a
curve.

Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

How could they not. But "The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files."

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

The 1D2 just came into the discussion as a little something to compare
the D7200, and maybe the D7300 to...

The 1D2s don't fetch much on the markets these days.

Lots of wandering discussion, but none of it is accepting the
simple fact that the D7100 has a sensor that resolves far more
detail than that old 1DII can. And with better dynamic range
too.

You don't seem to have realized that it isn't sensor size,
it's pixel pitch that counts.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in
buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps.
The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for
1D2s
now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...01D%20Mark%20I
I,D
710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like
Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.

But I was... And I think that you might be a part of it!

Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch.

Same thing. The "CoC" just is determined by a threshold instead of a
curve.

Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

How could they not. But "The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files."

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

The 1D2 just came into the discussion as a little something to compare
the D7200, and maybe the D7300 to...

The 1D2s don't fetch much on the markets these days.

Lots of wandering discussion, but none of it is accepting the
simple fact that the D7100 has a sensor that resolves far more
detail than that old 1DII can. And with better dynamic range
too.

You don't seem to have realized that it isn't sensor size,
it's pixel pitch that counts.

I think that I have given you an answer to that... Lot's of snow?
--
teleportation kills

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles in
buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8 fps.
The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in 2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe! ;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for
1D2s
now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...01D%20Mark%20I
I,D
710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like
Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.

But I was... And I think that you might be a part of it!

Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch.

Same thing. The "CoC" just is determined by a threshold instead of a
curve.

Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

How could they not. But "The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files."

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

The 1D2 just came into the discussion as a little something to compare
the D7200, and maybe the D7300 to...

The 1D2s don't fetch much on the markets these days.

Lots of wandering discussion, but none of it is accepting the
simple fact that the D7100 has a sensor that resolves far more
detail than that old 1DII can. And with better dynamic range
too.

You don't seem to have realized that it isn't sensor size,
it's pixel pitch that counts.

I think that I have given you an answer to that... Lot's of snow?

You have demonstrated that you don't know the
significance the terms you are using. Buzz words...

Again, resolution is measured in lp/mm. A higher number
is better resolution. The actual total size of the
sensor is not significant. The pixel pitch is the
measurement that relates to the size of the Airy Disk.

For a given specific lp/mm value, say the 102.5 lp/mm
of the D800, the resolution will not be different if the
sensor is smaller or larger. What that would change is
the total number of pixels that can be on the sensor.

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles
in
buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8
fps.
The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in
2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe!
;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and
numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone
has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album
won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for
1D2s
now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a
POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon
half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...S%201D%20Mark%
20I
I,D
710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like
Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate
to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the
lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M
is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have
a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.

But I was... And I think that you might be a part of it!

Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch.

Same thing. The "CoC" just is determined by a threshold instead of a
curve.

Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

How could they not. But "The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files."

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

The 1D2 just came into the discussion as a little something to compare
the D7200, and maybe the D7300 to...

The 1D2s don't fetch much on the markets these days.

Lots of wandering discussion, but none of it is accepting the
simple fact that the D7100 has a sensor that resolves far more
detail than that old 1DII can. And with better dynamic range
too.

You don't seem to have realized that it isn't sensor size,
it's pixel pitch that counts.

I think that I have given you an answer to that... Lot's of snow?

You have demonstrated that you don't know the
significance the terms you are using. Buzz words...

Again, resolution is measured in lp/mm. A higher number
is better resolution. The actual total size of the
sensor is not significant. The pixel pitch is the
measurement that relates to the size of the Airy Disk.

For a given specific lp/mm value, say the 102.5 lp/mm
of the D800, the resolution will not be different if the
sensor is smaller or larger. What that would change is
the total number of pixels that can be on the sensor.

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

Smaller pixels makes more noise... Big news!

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

The size does matter. I'm not talking about what's resolved per mm or
inch but how much information a license can resolve to file. Not the
same thing.

Apparently lot's and lot's of snow!
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

Smaller pixels makes more noise... Big news!

not when the sensor technology is a couple of generations later.

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

The size does matter. I'm not talking about what's resolved per mm or
inch but how much information a license can resolve to file. Not the
same thing.

what did you think the information *is*?

Apparently lot's and lot's of snow!

that you've been snorting.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

Smaller pixels makes more noise... Big news!

not when the sensor technology is a couple of generations later.

We're, or at least I was talking big sensor vs little sensor. With the
same tech involved.

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

The size does matter. I'm not talking about what's resolved per mm or
inch but how much information a license can resolve to file. Not the
same thing.

what did you think the information *is*?

Sorry 'bout the spellchecker. Not license but lense!

Apparently lot's and lot's of snow!

that you've been snorting.

There is no snow outside MY window...
--
teleportation kills

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

android wrote:
I notice that the new Nikon crop produces 18 rawfiles
in
buffer
@ 6
fps.
The Canon 1D2 also produces 18 raw in buffer but @ 8
fps.
The
1D2
was
introduced in 2004... Keep them coming Nikon!

Humor at it's worst!

The Canon 1DII also cost $6000 when it came out, and was
the top of Canon's pro line of DSLR's. It had 8MP and
would shoot at 8 fps, with an ISO range of 100-1600.

Nikon of course introduced the D2X in the same year, at
a cost of only $5000. With 12 MP and also at 8 fps.
But while it had more pixels the ISO range was only
100-800. The memory buffer would hold 17 of those
larger RAW files, compared to the Canon 1DII holding 20
smaller files.

Looks like Canon maybe was barely ahead of Nikon in
2004.

In 2015 Canon hasn't moved much in a decade, and Nikon
took off like a rocket! The latest Canon crop frame
camera, the 7DII ranks overall at number 108 on the
DXOMARK list. The current entry level bottom end from
Nikon, a D3300, ranks 32! And the top Nikon APC-S, the
D7100 is at 23, so we can expect the D7200 to almost
certainly be at or very near the top 20 will Canon can't
make the top 100.

Because no doubt Nikon, unlike Canon, has indeed been
able to "keep them coming".

Well... My 1D2 wont be replaced by some Nikon halfframe!
;-)
I read DxO too, but not the ranking but graphs and
numbers...

Everyone has different needs for a camera. Not everyone
has
need for the best camera.

You'll do fine with your 1D2, and Grandma's family album
won't
be any worse because of it.

The EOS M is what I have in me bag... The price is right for
1D2s
now
however, if you can get a good one.

Absent the little problem that for the money, today it is a
POS.

You're free to have that opinion. I won't trade it for a Nikon
half
frame. Larger sensors are better than smaller...

That holds true for two sensors of the same technology
generation. It doesn't even come close to valid for any
sensor from 2004 compared to what Nikon uses today. The
D7100 runs circles around anything that existed in 2004.

Here is a chart, automatically generated from data
collected by Bill Claff:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...S%201D%20Mark%
20I
I,D
710
0,D
4

The bottom line on the chart is your 1DII. The middle
line is a Nikon D7100. The top line is a Nikon D4. The
difference between a D7100 and a D4 is exactly that
"larger sensors are better than smaller". Same basic
technology.

To get the most from that chart, click on "Ideal_FX" and
on "Ideal_DX" to see exactly what the difference between
a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor is, absent the
technology generation gap. The D7100 is closer to "perfect"
than the D4, though not by much. The 1DII is a long long
ways...

The 1DII is old, and "POS" describes well how 10 year
old sensor technology compares to the current
technology. Stick with a Canon camera if you have
many lenses, but don't kid yourself about the image
quality your Canon can't produce. And while we've
been talking about comparing to a Nikon, if it is compared
to a Pentax or Sony the results are very similar.

As said: You're free to have that opinion. I stand by mine. I like
Canon
files better and a larger sensor give the lenses more real estate
to
resolve on.

Opinions are wonderful, but they do have to be based on
facts, and yours are not.

You might well like the Canon files better, but not
because they contain higher quality images. They don't.

A larger sensor can provide better resolution, but in
this case it does not. The Canon 1DII has a sensor that
is 28.7mm wide. It produces images that are 3,504 pixels
across. That is 3504 / 28.7 / 2 line pairs per
millimeter, which is the maximum resolution of that
senosr: *61.0 lp/mm*.

The Nikon D7100 has just about the highest resolution of
any camera, regardless of sensor size, currently
available. It has a 23.5mm wide sensor that produces
images 6000 pixels across. 6000 / 23.5 / 2 = *127.7*
*lp/mm*, or just a little more than two times the
resolution of the Canon 1DII.

Just in case you wonder, the D800 and D810 are only
about 102.5 lp/mm, the Nikon D4 is 68.5 lp/mm. The
D3300 and D5300 are the same as the D7100.

Literally every entry level cropped sensor camera that
Nikon currently sells has better resolution (less noise,
and higher dynamic range too) than you old 1DII. Sheesh,
even Canon's current cameras are better than that one!

You just don't wanna get it! The larger the sensor the more of the
lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files. That said: The M
is
an excellent data-back to the fisheye that I use since I want to have
a
rectangular image. And that image gets 18 MP.

What is "the lens area of confusion"??? If you are
referencing the Circle of Confusion, you are wrong.

But I was... And I think that you might be a part of it!

Look up "Airy Disk" and see how that relates to pixel
pitch.

Same thing. The "CoC" just is determined by a threshold instead of a
curve.

Pixel pitch and lp/mm are directly related...

How could they not. But "The larger the sensor the more of the lens
area of confusion can get utilized and thus it contribute more
information that can extracted from the final files."

The 1DII has no advantages, other than the fact that you
already own it. Oddly though, you could sell it and buy
a vastly better camera and have money left over!

The 1D2 just came into the discussion as a little something to compare
the D7200, and maybe the D7300 to...

The 1D2s don't fetch much on the markets these days.

Lots of wandering discussion, but none of it is accepting the
simple fact that the D7100 has a sensor that resolves far more
detail than that old 1DII can. And with better dynamic range
too.

You don't seem to have realized that it isn't sensor size,
it's pixel pitch that counts.

I think that I have given you an answer to that... Lot's of snow?

You have demonstrated that you don't know the
significance the terms you are using. Buzz words...

Again, resolution is measured in lp/mm. A higher number
is better resolution. The actual total size of the
sensor is not significant. The pixel pitch is the
measurement that relates to the size of the Airy Disk.

For a given specific lp/mm value, say the 102.5 lp/mm
of the D800, the resolution will not be different if the
sensor is smaller or larger. What that would change is
the total number of pixels that can be on the sensor.

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

Smaller pixels makes more noise... Big news!

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

The size does matter. I'm not talking about what's resolved per mm or
inch but how much information a license can resolve to file. Not the
same thing.

So now you want to change the subject and talk about
something else? That is what this entire exchange has
been about since you decided to talk about it with
nonsense.

How much information is resolved is measured by in lp/mm.

What "license" do you mean?

Apparently lot's and lot's of snow!

Another odd subject that you probably know nothing at
all about.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

Smaller pixels makes more noise... Big news!

not when the sensor technology is a couple of generations later.

We're, or at least I was talking big sensor vs little sensor. With the
same tech involved.

Yeah, like a Canon 1d Mark II compared to a Nikon D7100, which is
the basis for everything you've said...

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

The size does matter. I'm not talking about what's resolved per mm or
inch but how much information a license can resolve to file. Not the
same thing.

what did you think the information *is*?

Sorry 'bout the spellchecker. Not license but lense!

Lenses do not resolve information to a file. Regardless
of that, the measure of lens resolving power is line
pairs per unit of length, or lp/mm for example.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolving+power

Or today "Modulation Transfer Function" is often used,
but that is just a conversion to a different way to
describe the same thing, which is spatial frequency
response.

Here's another good reference,

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Look down the page a ways for this statement:

MTF is the spatial frequency response of an imaging
system or a component; it is the contrast at a given
spatial frequency relative to low frequencies.

Spatial frequency is typically measured in cycles or
line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm), which is
analogous to cycles per second (Hertz) in audio
systems. Lp/mm is most appropriate for film cameras,
where formats are relatively fixed (i.e., 35mm full
frame = 24x36mm), but cycles/pixel (c/p) or line
widths per picture height (LW/PH) may be more
appropriate for digital cameras, which have a wide
variety of sensor sizes.

Apparently lot's and lot's of snow!

that you've been snorting.

There is no snow outside MY window...

And that is logically connected to what?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , android
wrote:

A smaller sensor with a larger lp/mm value, if all other
things are equal (same technology for the sensors) will
have greater resolving power. However, since the
physical diameter of each sensor well is necessarily
smaller to get the higher pixel pitch, the dynamic range
will be lower.

Smaller pixels makes more noise... Big news!

not when the sensor technology is a couple of generations later.

We're, or at least I was talking big sensor vs little sensor. With the
same tech involved.

nope.

you're talking about a 10 year old camera and its sensor versus a new
camera and its sensor. a lot changed in those 10 years. it's very, very
different tech involved.

An interesting example of how that knowledge can be used
is to compare the size and pixel pitch of the D7100 to
the D810, and from that predict what the next full frame
sensor from Nikon to replace the D810 will be. (This
doesn't apply to a D5 replacing the D4S, because that is
targeting a smaller pixel count to maintain a higher
frame rate.) The current 128 lp/mm on a D7100 size
sensor, if manufactured at full frame size, would be a
60MP sensor. I would expect that relatively soon after
the D5 is announced Nikon will announce a body with at
least 60 MP to replace the D810.

The size does matter. I'm not talking about what's resolved per mm or
inch but how much information a license can resolve to file. Not the
same thing.

what did you think the information *is*?

Sorry 'bout the spellchecker. Not license but lense!

i wasn't referring to that. the 'information' you're talking about is
what's resolved.

Apparently lot's and lot's of snow!

that you've been snorting.

There is no snow outside MY window...

that's because it's inside your window. on a piece of paper.