Nikon FF blast - good news!

As most of you know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by
putting up two new 14 bit FF sensored bodies. This is great news for
everyone as now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines.

Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix
of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon.

Chin up! It's only 24% less resolution... not that great a deal.

But all those folks with the classic great glass such as the Nikkor
17-35 (eh Matt?!) will rejoice to get their WA's back in full action.

Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! Congratulations to us all
that Canon has some serious competition again.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

As most of you know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by
putting up two new 14 bit FF sensored bodies. This is great news for
everyone as now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines.

Ooops. Sorry, the 300 is not FF.


Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix
of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon.

Chin up! It's only 24% less resolution... not that great a deal.

But all those folks with the classic great glass such as the Nikkor
17-35 (eh Matt?!) will rejoice to get their WA's back in full action.

Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! Congratulations to us all
that Canon has some serious competition again.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote:

As most of you know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting
up two new 14 bit FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as
now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines.

Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix
of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon.

Chin up! It's only 24% less resolution... not that great a deal.

Yer math's off: sqrt(21/12) = 1.32. That's 32% more resolution for the
1DsIII.

(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)

But even 24% is a big increase in resolution that you'll see in 13x19 and
larger prints.

Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! Congratulations to us all that
Canon has some serious competition again.

It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you probably
would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution, you probably
don't need the speed, weight, or price.

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Aug 24, 4:25 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:

As most of you know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting
up two new 14 bit FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as
now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines.

Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix
of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon.

Chin up! It's only 24% less resolution... not that great a deal.

Yer math's off: sqrt(21/12) = 1.32. That's 32% more resolution for the
1DsIII.

(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)


Argh! I get tremendously irritated when people make this mistake... I
mean angry, literally. A shrink would possibly help.

But even 24% is a big increase in resolution that you'll see in 13x19 and
larger prints.

Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! Congratulations to us all that
Canon has some serious competition again.

It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you probably
would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution, you probably
don't need the speed, weight, or price.

Morphing into a crop fan, are we? Starting to see the value of certain
compromises, particularly if they happen to have been made by
Canon?


It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.


My guess is, it was designed to annoy Canon users... Looks good,
although 3000 euro too expensive... The D300 looks great, although my
guess is it'll be a disaster at ISO 1600 or thereabouts. The d200 is
at its limits there. Unless all this business in the recent sony
sensor press release about CDS and so on is related to it.

"acl" wrote:

Morphing into a crop fan, are we? Starting to see the value of certain
compromises, particularly if they happen to have been made by
Canon?

Not for my own needs. But I ain't the only one out here...

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term
Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.


My guess is, it was designed to annoy Canon users... Looks good,
although 3000 euro too expensive... The D300 looks great, although my
guess is it'll be a disaster at ISO 1600 or thereabouts.

It's pixels are 1/(1.5*1.5) times the area of the 5D pixels, so it can
expected to be a full two stops worse. ISO 800 performance at ISO 200.
Great. (ISO 400 on the 5D ain't bad, so ISO 100 should be OK. I hope Nikon
releases a VR fast normal zoom for it...)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Aug 24, 5:19 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"acl" wrote:

Morphing into a crop fan, are we? Starting to see the value of certain
compromises, particularly if they happen to have been made by
Canon?

Not for my own needs. But I ain't the only one out here...

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term
Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.

My guess is, it was designed to annoy Canon users... Looks good,
although 3000 euro too expensive... The D300 looks great, although my
guess is it'll be a disaster at ISO 1600 or thereabouts.

It's pixels are 1/(1.5*1.5) times the area of the 5D pixels, so it can
expected to be a full two stops worse. ISO 800 performance at ISO 200.
Great. (ISO 400 on the 5D ain't bad, so ISO 100 should be OK. I hope Nikon
releases a VR fast normal zoom for it...)

One stop worse, you mean. That's assuming everything else is equal.
Looking at Clark's data for the D200 and 20D, Nikon will have to have
made some advances in their sensors for this to be the case.

On Aug 24, 5:41 am, acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:19 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:



"acl" wrote:

Morphing into a crop fan, are we? Starting to see the value of certain
compromises, particularly if they happen to have been made by
Canon?

Not for my own needs. But I ain't the only one out here...

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term
Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.

My guess is, it was designed to annoy Canon users... Looks good,
although 3000 euro too expensive... The D300 looks great, although my
guess is it'll be a disaster at ISO 1600 or thereabouts.

It's pixels are 1/(1.5*1.5) times the area of the 5D pixels, so it can
expected to be a full two stops worse. ISO 800 performance at ISO 200.
Great. (ISO 400 on the 5D ain't bad, so ISO 100 should be OK. I hope Nikon
releases a VR fast normal zoom for it...)

One stop worse, you mean. That's assuming everything else is equal.
Looking at Clark's data for the D200 and 20D, Nikon will have to have
made some advances in their sensors for this to be the case.

....same conclusion from comparing the 20D to the D200. When I decided
to get a dslr, after a lot of thought (and I mean a lot), I got a 20D
because I do a lot of night photography and anyway I'm a geek and like
the idea of a high-performance sensor. After about a month, I finally
gave up, got rid of it and got a D200 instead. Well, the 20D really is
better at high ISO, that much is true. As for the rest, personally, I
think it's like comparing a Lada to a BMW.

But I guess not everybody has the same priorities.

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

"Alan Browne" wrote:

As most of you know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting
up two new 14 bit FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as
now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines.

Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix
of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon.

Chin up! It's only 24% less resolution... not that great a deal.

Yer math's off: sqrt(21/12) = 1.32. That's 32% more resolution for the
1DsIII.

(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)

But even 24% is a big increase in resolution that you'll see in 13x19 and
larger prints.

Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! Congratulations to us all that
Canon has some serious competition again.

It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you probably
would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution, you
probably don't need the speed, weight, or price.

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.


You do realize there are pros who never switched to Canon, right? Your bias
sticks out like a hernia.

--
www.mattclara.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
As most of you know by now, Nikon have hit one out of the park by putting
up two new 14 bit FF sensored bodies. This is great news for everyone as
now Canon has a most serious competitor in the pro machines.

Some or many will lament or torment over the comparatively low 12 Mpix
of these machines in the light of the 1 Ds Mk III from Canon.

Chin up! It's only 24% less resolution... not that great a deal.

Yer math's off: sqrt(21/12) = 1.32. That's 32% more resolution for the
1DsIII.

(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)

I knew somebody would bite. Just surprised it's you!


But even 24% is a big increase in resolution that you'll see in 13x19 and
larger prints.

Congratulations to Nikon and Nikon users! Congratulations to us all that
Canon has some serious competition again.

It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you probably
would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution, you probably
don't need the speed, weight, or price.

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term Nikon
users with gobs of old glass.

To shut up everyone howling over Nikon's lack of a FF frame sensor. Now
they can howl that it's not enough Mpix.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 4:25 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:

(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)


Argh! I get tremendously irritated when people make this mistake... I
mean angry, literally. A shrink would possibly help.

It's no mistake and it's a common trick in math quizez to see if people
are reading the question: is it x % "more" from the smaller or x %
"less" from the bigger. Marketing people (and engineers writing
interneal reports) use this to their advantage all of the time. As I
was couching it as "it's not so bad a difference" I went for the smaller
number. ;-)


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.