EOS-1D X Canon Press Release

Helen wrote:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/e...anon+Rumors%29

Wow, they reduced megapixels to 18.

Bruce writes:

Paul Furman wrote:
Helen wrote:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/e...anon+Rumors%29
Wow, they reduced megapixels to 18.


Contain your surprise: the replacement for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II
will have a lot more than 18 MP. The new camera will also replace the
1Ds Mark III.

I believe that Nikon may well go the same way, with the model above
the D700 having a much higher pixel count than the D4.

Nikonrumors.com declares themselves "99% sure" that the D800 has 36
megapixels. But hasn't issued an opinion on the D4. (Obviously I'm not
treating this as confirmed fact!)

I wonder if there'll be a successor to the D700 ever? I can't imagine
affording a D4, short of winning the lottery.
--
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

On 2011-11-21 20:05:41 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Bruce writes:

Paul Furman wrote:
Helen wrote:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/e...anon+Rumors%29

Wow, they reduced megapixels to 18.


Contain your surprise: the replacement for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II
will have a lot more than 18 MP. The new camera will also replace the
1Ds Mark III.

I believe that Nikon may well go the same way, with the model above
the D700 having a much higher pixel count than the D4.

Nikonrumors.com declares themselves "99% sure" that the D800 has 36
megapixels. But hasn't issued an opinion on the D4. (Obviously I'm not
treating this as confirmed fact!)

A full-frame 36 MP sensor would require one to own a set of superlative
lenses; always use a sturdy tripod; rarely stop down to f/8 and never
beyond.

Unless the lenses have almost zero spherical aberration (SA), we can
rule out both AF and MF with the lens wide-open: SA causes focus shift
with aperture. Bummer, zero SA is a major cause of sub-optimal bokeh.

I wonder if there'll be a successor to the D700 ever? I can't imagine
affording a D4, short of winning the lottery.

Out of curiosity, in what way is the D700 limiting your photography? If
it's pixel count then consider a D7000 or wait for it's successor.

Pete A writes:

On 2011-11-21 20:05:41 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

I wonder if there'll be a successor to the D700 ever? I can't imagine
affording a D4, short of winning the lottery.

Out of curiosity, in what way is the D700 limiting your photography?
If it's pixel count then consider a D7000 or wait for it's successor.

It's not, currently. It's just that it won't last forever.

If it were pixel count, the D800 as rumored would be my perfect
solution. But I'm a D3 guy, not a D3x guy; the D700 is a cheaper D3
(and better in most ways; I don't care about 100% viewfinder, and can
get it via Live View if I need it).

--
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:

I can't imagine affording a D4, short of winning the lottery.

You can probably afford a used D3 now. I bought mine very cheaply
because it had been treated quite badly, but a service at the UK's
premier repairer brought it back to life. I have just sold it for
roughly the same amount of money it cost me including the service.

Or a used D700. But those options only last for a while too. (Shooting
a D700 now that I bought new in...2008 I think.)

--
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

On 2011-11-22 16:13:21 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Pete A writes:

On 2011-11-21 20:05:41 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

I wonder if there'll be a successor to the D700 ever? I can't imagine
affording a D4, short of winning the lottery.

Out of curiosity, in what way is the D700 limiting your photography?
If it's pixel count then consider a D7000 or wait for it's successor.

It's not, currently. It's just that it won't last forever.

I misinterpreted what you wrote.

If it were pixel count, the D800 as rumored would be my perfect
solution. But I'm a D3 guy, not a D3x guy; the D700 is a cheaper D3
(and better in most ways; I don't care about 100% viewfinder, and can
get it via Live View if I need it).

Agreed.

I hope my D700 will last a very long time because I don't want the bulk
of a D3 or camera with 36 MP NEFs to edit and backup.

Capture NX2 can be slow with 12 MP NEFs so it will need an overhaul to
cope with 36 MP.

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

the D700 is a cheaper D3
(and better in most ways; I don't care about 100% viewfinder, and can
get it via Live View if I need it).

That's the thinking behind the D800 being the 36 MP flagship while the
D4 will have the more solid build and faster frame rate but fewer MP.

Nikon to dd-b: Sorry, you're screwed.

Oh well. The D700 was probably a mistake for Nikon, that I capitalized
on. Now it swings the other way. Mine's in good shape now, so there's
no immediate problem.
--
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:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I can't imagine affording a D4, short of winning the lottery.

You can probably afford a used D3 now. I bought mine very cheaply
because it had been treated quite badly, but a service at the UK's
premier repairer brought it back to life. I have just sold it for
roughly the same amount of money it cost me including the service.

Or a used D700. But those options only last for a while too. (Shooting
a D700 now that I bought new in...2008 I think.)


Keep it. It's a spectacularly good camera, one of the real game
changers*.

Oh yeah, no danger of my giving it up. I'm just thinking ahead -- the
spot I fit so nicely looks likely to disappear from the line. That's
not an immediate problem, but if true it becomes a long-term problem.

Even when the D800 is introduced, the D700 (or a minor
upgrade thereof) will still be in the range, because a high-MP D800
won't be able to compete with the low noise at high ISOs that the
12 MP D700 routinely achieves.

Yes, exactly. That's why the D800 isn't a replacement or upgrade for the
D700. And I have the D700 primarily for the low-light abilities, and
then secondarily for the amazingly good AF.

I sold my D700 and some lenses with my social photography business but
I didn't wait very long before I replaced it with a D3. I didn't want
to be without the ability to create clean images at ISOs up to 12,800,
and the well used D3 cost me no more than a good used D700.


* I rate the D700 up there with the D1, EOS 1D, EOS 5D and Hasselblad
H3D as cameras that each brought a significant step change in
performance and/or image quality.

Yeah, first time I've owned a real game-changer.

Oh. Well, no; I owned a Leica M3, which I'd call a game-changer when it
was new, but that was very much after the fact.
--
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:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
the D700 is a cheaper D3
(and better in most ways; I don't care about 100% viewfinder, and can
get it via Live View if I need it).

That's the thinking behind the D800 being the 36 MP flagship while the
D4 will have the more solid build and faster frame rate but fewer MP.

Nikon to dd-b: Sorry, you're screwed.

Oh well. The D700 was probably a mistake for Nikon, that I capitalized
on. Now it swings the other way. Mine's in good shape now, so there's
no immediate problem.

No, I don't think the D700 was a mistake. Making it was one of
Nikon's best decisions, ever. The D700 persuaded me and many others
to change brand from Canon to Nikon, and I don't know of a single
person who was disappointed.

The Canon EOS 5D was a major game changer. It was the first
reasonably affordable full frame DSLR, and even today its performance
is very, very good indeed. But the D700 made it look ordinary.

Surely no mistake?

I see the D700 and the 5D aimed at different market segments -- the
exact two segments that the differentiation at the top aims at. The 5D
is a high-res camera, not especially tough, fast, or good in low light.
The D700 is superb in low light, fairly tough, and has very good speed
(AF and frame rate).

The people I know with 5Ds (which is, um, all but one of my serious
photographer friends) would never have considered a D700, it didn't meet
their needs.

--
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:
Bruce writes:
The Canon EOS 5D was a major game changer. It was the first
reasonably affordable full frame DSLR, and even today its performance
is very, very good indeed. But the D700 made it look ordinary.

Surely no mistake?

I see the D700 and the 5D aimed at different market segments -- the
exact two segments that the differentiation at the top aims at. The 5D
is a high-res camera, not especially tough, fast, or good in low light.
The D700 is superb in low light, fairly tough, and has very good speed
(AF and frame rate).

The people I know with 5Ds (which is, um, all but one of my serious
photographer friends) would never have considered a D700, it didn't meet
their needs.


I think you must have the 5D II in mind, which as you say is a
high-res camera - 21.8 MP. I was talking about the original 5D, which
had 12 MP.

I view them as having, in their day, served the same market segment.
The change just represents evolution of the product over time.

The 5D never matched the D700 in low light, and it doesn't even try in
toughness, frame rate, or AF. That's not what it's about, never was.
And the people who bought it, bought it for different types of
photography than I bought the D700 for.

The 5D was the doyen of cameras for wedding photography. But when the
D700 came out, it had the same resolution but with much lower noise.
Being able to shoot in dim ambient light in churches at ISO 12,800 and
still get clean, low noise images was a revelation. There is still
nothing like it, obviously apart from the D3 and D3s.

So a great many wedding photographers defected from Canon to Nikon
purely because of the D700.

Interesting; I've never seen that (and fancy weddings are held in the
lobby of the building I work in; I get to watch setup and initial
photography out the windows on summer afternoons).

Some waited for the Mark II version of the 5D, but its low light
performance is poor compared to the D700 thanks to sensor noise. It
might have 9.5 million more pixels, but it is difficult to realise
that advantage at ISOs higher than, say, 800.

So there was a second wave of wedding shooters converting from Canon
to Nikon. They were also helped to make that decision by Nikon's
latest wide angle lenses which are even further ahead of Canon's than
the previous crop of Nikkors, excellent though they were.

Nikon is now the automatic first choice for wedding photographers. The
cameras and lenses are outstanding and the after-sales support is now
of a very high standard. If I was still shooting weddings on a
regular basis, I wouldn't consider any other brand.

Very interesting; I haven't seen a wedding shooter using Nikon in years.

--
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