Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced

Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

[D800]

It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
(Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
their top model into the 5D3 ...

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

Actually, the D800 AF is reported by all reviewers I've seen to be
first-rate; better thant he D700, which had the full D3 AF suite in it.

Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
level, but that's not looking likely just yet.

Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
No competition means Microsoft.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

[D800]

It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
(Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
their top model into the 5D3 ...

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

[D800]

It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
(Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
their top model into the 5D3 ...

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

[D800]

It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
(Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
their top model into the 5D3 ...

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
me.


Nevertheless it competes head-on with the Nikon D4.

Um, what? Certainly not!

I mean, it's all Canon has to offer in that space, true, but it does not
actually "compete".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
me.

You still aren't a *professional* shooter, your needs do not
call for a top of the line camera. (Nor do mine, much as the
"new cool gear" factor calls --- my finances are not up to every
unneeded whim of my flaunt streak --- so I tend to buy once and
keep till it breaks or till I do bump hard into limits.)

Canon's quite clever uniting the top end high pixel and top
end high speed cameras. That will save many professionals and
camera pools from having to buy 2 cameras. And it allows Canon
to produce one camera in higher numbers rather than two in lower
quantities. And the cameras do have come closer to each other,
so it's a logical step.


Of course, being able to shoot not only *really* high fps (12
fps for full 3 seconds or, JPEG only, 14 fps for 8.6 seconds)[0]
when you need them[1], you also get the result with lotsa pixels
as a bonus ... and vice versa.

-Wolfgang

[0] more if your card can store pictures during these 3 seconds,
as that's buffer only, AFAIRI.

[1] Of course, if you can properly anticipate that moment, you
don't exactly need such high speeds ... but not everyone can
do that[2] and not every situation have the right moments
spaced so that you have time to change to the next plate. :-)

[2] and there's nothing wrong with using technology to help you do
things for which you otherwise would need (very) long training,
if you could obtain it at all. If you cannot walk properly
for whatever reason, why not use canes or walking frames or
wheel chairs, even if some might sneer at your unwillingness
to walk 'as God meant you to do it'.

Archer units have been longer ranged, more accurate *and*
endowed with a much higher firing rate than crossbow units ---
but it takes 20 years to fully train an archer with an English
longbow, and 6 weeks to drill the techniqiue of crossbow
loading and firing into some mentally slow farm hand.

And the same thing repeated for firearms (only that they
proceeded to improve way beyond archers later on with the
machine guns and the sniper rifles).

Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
1.3x line.

You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
me.

You still aren't a *professional* shooter, your needs do not
call for a top of the line camera. (Nor do mine, much as the
"new cool gear" factor calls --- my finances are not up to every
unneeded whim of my flaunt streak --- so I tend to buy once and
keep till it breaks or till I do bump hard into limits.)

Semi-pro, I do work for clients. But in fact the kind of work that is
done professionally is very often the *least* demanding on equipment.

You can subdivide photography a huge number of ways; but the one that
seems to me to relate to equipment pretty well is "challenging
conditions" vs. "high resolution".

Canon's quite clever uniting the top end high pixel and top
end high speed cameras. That will save many professionals and
camera pools from having to buy 2 cameras. And it allows Canon
to produce one camera in higher numbers rather than two in lower
quantities. And the cameras do have come closer to each other,
so it's a logical step.

Or even better, *4* cameras, since you can't really take on serious work
for clients without backups (so, if the convergence works for a shooter
who previously needed both, they can get by with 2 rather than 4).

Of course, being able to shoot not only *really* high fps (12
fps for full 3 seconds or, JPEG only, 14 fps for 8.6 seconds)[0]
when you need them[1], you also get the result with lotsa pixels
as a bonus ... and vice versa.

-Wolfgang

[0] more if your card can store pictures during these 3 seconds,
as that's buffer only, AFAIRI.

[1] Of course, if you can properly anticipate that moment, you
don't exactly need such high speeds ... but not everyone can
do that[2] and not every situation have the right moments
spaced so that you have time to change to the next plate. :-)

I hear that for most sports work you really need the expert hand to get
the best picture; spray-and-pray is almost always a near-miss.

[2] and there's nothing wrong with using technology to help you do
things for which you otherwise would need (very) long training,
if you could obtain it at all. If you cannot walk properly
for whatever reason, why not use canes or walking frames or
wheel chairs, even if some might sneer at your unwillingness
to walk 'as God meant you to do it'.

Yes, assistive / enhancing technology is *good*.

Archer units have been longer ranged, more accurate *and*
endowed with a much higher firing rate than crossbow units ---
but it takes 20 years to fully train an archer with an English
longbow, and 6 weeks to drill the techniqiue of crossbow
loading and firing into some mentally slow farm hand.

And the same thing repeated for firearms (only that they
proceeded to improve way beyond archers later on with the
machine guns and the sniper rifles).

Yes indeed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info