21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

On Aug 23, 8:03 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:58:54 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for
sports and PJ work.

Joke, you say? With the D3 the joke's on Rita B. and thee! It
looks like Rita's going to be much more active on eBay in the coming
months.

The D2x remains a joke, with D2x owners being the ones who have the most to
be unhappy about.

Actually it's still a nice camera. But I agree, they'll be unhappy
now; especialy ones who bought it eg yesterday at normal price:
compare its specs and price to the D300... Ouch!

I think we're now definitely beyond the point where each generation of
dslrs is substantially better than the previous. Things seem to be
stable, with incrememental improvements (marketing noise
notwithstanding).

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1187852244.906171@ftpsrv1...

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"frederick" wrote:


Both cameras expected to be available in November.

Sheesh! Nikon's making a liar out of me again: it's not six months, it's
only three months.


The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera I've
been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my D70 and
spent what I would have done on lenses instead.

Don't chuck the D70 just yet: you may find yourself better off using D70
images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images in low
light.


If Nikon made the D300 with worse noise than the D200, then IMO that's a
mistake if the option was to stay at 10mp and improve noise performance.


There isn't any "option to improve noise performance". The physics of the
situation are that measurement noise is the limiting factor here.

They went from a CCD to CMOS sensor, and to 14-bit A/D conversion, and a
new processor so probably improved jpegs.


The only way to improve noise performance is to increase the pixel area.
(One could also, perhaps, move to stacked capacitors and reduce the ISO. But
that's not really "improving the noise performance".)


But my guess is that it's going to be good (but no - not a 5d). Take a
D2xs sensor and add a few years of development, and it darned well ought
to be improved.


Hehe. You have faith in technology, and I have faith in physics.


And no - the D70 has been excellent, but it's time to move on. At about
30,000 clicks, Even if I trashed it now, I've saved more than 5x what it
would have cost me in film and processing, and the results have generally
been better, sometimes much better than I ever got from 35mm.


Exactly! (I moved from MF to the 5D, and since I take a lot fewer frames,
haven't saved as much money...)


I shoot raw, and use an R1800 for printing. Viewing my old Cibachrome
collection shows me very clearly how much things have moved on in a
relatively short space of time.


I took 25 years off from photography, so I missed Cibachrome.

I messed up. I have the R800 for work and A4, and bought the R2400. So far,
I've not been able to persuade the R2400 to do any better than the R800 for
B&W (and the R800 is better for color glossy), and the need to switch inks
to switch between matte and glossy is a disaster. I basically print matte
until the matte black runs out, then print glossy for a while....

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:

The D300, on the other hand, is nuts. Too many pixels in too small a space.
If they had used the D3 sensor and the same FF/DX switching with, say 3 fps
and 6 fps, they'd have a 5D killer, forcing Canon to get off their butts and
release a 16MP 5DII.


The 5D-II should be 1t least 20 megapixels

8*1.6^2 = 20.5

Doug McDonald

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
acl wrote:

Lol - I think so. The big surprise is that it's only $500 more than
the 1DIII, and the famed 17-35 also just got gazumped by new AF-s
f2.8 14-24.

That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come
down to earth...

They will briefly drop in price when the market gets momentarily flooded
with them. Once Canon users realize that the new 12-24 and 24-70 are G
lenses and won't work on EOS bodies the price of the 17-35/2.8 are going to
soar into Noct range. I know I'll be buying several more 17-35s when they
get nice and low.


According to Ken, prices for the new lenses a
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, $1,799.95
AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, $1,699.95
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, $ $8,799.95
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, $7,899.95
AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, $9,499.95

You are IMO an optimist on the 1DIII retaining value, and also the
17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon
users wanting to use the lens on 5d etc by far.

For comparison Canon closest equivalent prices from B&H are in brackets:
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, $1,799.95 ($1449 - 16-35)
AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, $1,699.95 ($1139)
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, $ $8,799.95 ($6500)
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, $7,899.95 ($5500)
AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, $9,499.95 ($7200)

Kind of academic for me - I'm not paying $9500 for a Nikkor 600mm, but
I'm not paying $7200 for the Canon lens either.

On Aug 24, 4:36 am, frederick wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
acl wrote:

Lol - I think so. The big surprise is that it's only $500 more than
the 1DIII, and the famed 17-35 also just got gazumped by new AF-s
f2.8 14-24.

That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come
down to earth...

They will briefly drop in price when the market gets momentarily flooded
with them. Once Canon users realize that the new 12-24 and 24-70 are G
lenses and won't work on EOS bodies the price of the 17-35/2.8 are going to
soar into Noct range. I know I'll be buying several more 17-35s when they
get nice and low.

According to Ken, prices for the new lenses a
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, $1,799.95
AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, $1,699.95
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, $ $8,799.95
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, $7,899.95
AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, $9,499.95

You are IMO an optimist on the 1DIII retaining value, and also the
17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon
users wanting to use the lens on 5d etc by far.

The 16-9.net tests show the Nikon 17-35 to be no better than Canon's
own 17-40 anyway. I had considered using the Nikon on my 1Ds2, but my
own tests supported the 16-9 results.

I also tested the Canon 16-35 Mk1 and Mk2 and still ended up staying
with the 17-40.

On Aug 23, 5:55 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:


Though the Nikkors are much better in build and optical quality the Canon
equivalents are a bargain for the casual shooter.

Rita's ass is talking again!

"Doug McDonald" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

The D300, on the other hand, is nuts. Too many pixels in too small a
space. If they had used the D3 sensor and the same FF/DX switching with,
say 3 fps and 6 fps, they'd have a 5D killer, forcing Canon to get off
their butts and release a 16MP 5DII.

The 5D-II should be 1t least 20 megapixels

8*1.6^2 = 20.5

I think not. That's the 1DsIII pixel count.

The 5D had the same pixel size as the 1DII, so I'd expect the 5D to have the
same pixel size as the 1DIII.

The 1DII - 5D - 1Ds system was 8 - 12 - 16.


So 1DIII - 5DII - 1DsII should be 10 - 16 - 21.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
frederick wrote:

That 14-24 looks great! I hope now prices of used 17-35mm will come
down to earth...

They will briefly drop in price when the market gets momentarily
flooded with them. Once Canon users realize that the new 12-24 and
24-70 are G lenses and won't work on EOS bodies the price of the
17-35/2.8 are going to soar into Noct range. I know I'll be buying
several more 17-35s when they get nice and low.


According to Ken, prices for the new lenses a
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, $1,799.95
AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, $1,699.95
AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, $ $8,799.95
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, $7,899.95
AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, $9,499.95

You are IMO an optimist on the 1DIII retaining value, and also the
17-35. Nikon users replacing 17-35 with 14-24 will outnumber Canon
users wanting to use the lens on 5d etc by far.

The 1D Mk III will hold its value for a while. I'm not going to defy fate
by keeping it more than 18-months. The new 14-24/2.8 is going to be a
winner with the people that stay with the D200/300 that want to go wide.
Plus, you are going to see a lot of Nikon shooters grabbing up the 17-35.
If the new 14-24 were a D lens the Canon shooters would go crazy over it
and
make the 17-35/2.8 worthless.

I disagree.
Already some 1DIII users are complaining that Canon has
dropped them deeply in the brown sticky stuff. Some because
the announced 40d with higher burst rate and features then
the 30d will do for them what the 30d wouldn't have done -
when they think they just spent over $3k that they didn't
need to, some complain because they wanted a D3 equivalent
from Canon. Your 17-35 on a 1d ain't like a 17-35 on a 5d
with the crop factor. The 1d is a sports cam, and I'm sure
a very fine one it is too.
A d200-300 user isn't likely to really want the 14-24. For
starters it's got integral hood and no filter thread, and
isn't as wide as the 12-24 that costs half as much, which
isn't as wide as the Sigma 10-20 which costs half as much
again. If the f2.8 really matters and the pockets are deep
enough to finance it, then surely a d3 is within reach.
Thom Hogan's comments:
"D300 is pegged at an initial production of 60k units a
month, D3 is pegged at an initial production of 8k units a
month"
The D300 is only one of four (or is it 5 or 6?) current
Nikon DX sensor cameras. The full frame market is expected
to be small - if you an call anticipated 100,000 units per
year of a pro camera small.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give
Nikon a year to totally trash the Mk III.

ROFL. They're still nowhere close to even the 1DsII. And that's been
more than 3 years. And won't be until they go FF.

I never mentioned the 1Ds. You're correct that Nikon won't be competing
on
the FF field. Nikon will make a decent 1D Mk III killer.

ROFL again. They remain nowhere close to the 1DII. The D2x is a joke for
sports and PJ work.


ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke, too!
And yet they got good photos anyway!

--
www.mattclara.com