micahmedia

@Joseph S Wisniewski: your first paragraph is by amateurs, for amateurs, and your second is described like something your read once in a book--either you're trying to dumb it down, or you don't know what you think you know.

I'm not sure how to address the impropriety with which you've addressed me except with this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

@Stollen1234: if you get a chance to borrow or rent a D700, D300, D3, D3s, D3x, or D4 with a Nikon 70-200, you'll find that the CAM3500 is a revelation after using a 7D.

I'm not talking down the 7D for nothin--a couple pro friends complained about it so I tried it myself. It truly does not track a body in the frame as well. And certainly not in low light. It's about on par with the D7000. The 7D and D7000 are just in another league.

@lensberg: I honestly have not tried the 1Dmkiv. I've used the 1Dmkiii, and I was not fond of it's tracking. Then again, that's one known for AF issues, so maybe I got a bum one. The mkii was pretty ok, but again I wouldn't say it compared well to the CAM3500.

@HowaboutRAW: er qualify "better"? Faster tracking front to back? Faster tracking around the frame? More accurate? Worked in lower light?

I find the only thing I can't track with my D700 is stuff that falls outside the AF pattern, and that's not usually stuff shot from the hip anyway.

I'm going to have to disagree about how uncommon 9 blades are--most of the pro level Nikon glass has em.

And they are of great importance to bokeh--the other day I had some shots that were nearly ruined by my 35/2's rather straight blades. Popped on my 9 round blade 17-55 and the same shots looked better. It's point lights that you really see it with.

A lot of Leica lenses have odd bokeh stopped down because of odd blade shapes. They're an acquired taste. Anyway, yeah, it usually doesn't matter if you're dealing with low contrast backgrounds, but when you get lights involved and you're closed down a bit, straight blades can really stand out.

Here's to Canon continuing to fail so miserably! (...and in doing so, please us stills shooters and give Nikon a run for their money)

"rarely take [your] cameras off base [iso]"?! I'm truly shocked at the number of people who don't know how to use high ISOs.

Wait, no...no I'm not surprised. Not when I think of all the idiots I see with Gary Fong tupperware. Lemme guess, you bought Olympus back when they had mirrors, huh?

Nice to see some files side by side finally. The hype about detail compared to Bayer sensors seems to be a myth still. It's a 15mp sensor--no more, no less. In some testing it has better color resolution. But if you want to see those 30-40mp claims fall flat, pull up the D800 on the studio comparison and have yourself a laugh. Even the D7000 is doing better with fine detail. Maybe its the glass. But in these shots, the SD1 isn't looking mind blowing. I'm a fan of underdogs, so I kinda wish it had a surprise for us.

At all ISOs, these raw files look undercooked. I suspect it's just that DPP is lacking in processing muscle, or doesn't know how to manage colors correctly. (and for reference, I'm on a calibrated monitor)

@marzal- hahahah! Will the f100 hold up?! It's a beast! They are built like tanks and quite weather proof. The only down side is the more limited AF and frame rate, vs a "pro" single digit camera. But heck, if you want the frame rate, the f5 is cheaper than a D60 these days.

And as proof of how amazing the F100 build is, here's a ninja, using one in the rain: http://youtu.be/2MCF8FJSuSw

As we all know, ninjas are sweet, and the combination of a ninja and an F100 could make anyone's head explode.

I think I haven't done it yet. Too busy shooting. These look nice though. Good that Canon have put proper AF in finally. Makes good on the perceived promises of the mkii.

The D3 blowing away the AF on the D700? I've used both and the D3x...ain't no difference there. Although, I never use the D700 without the grip and a proper EN-El4, so maybe it slacks a bit with the stock battery. The D300 is a bit slower to track and focus than the D3. Not the D700 though.

No fanboism in the statement that the CAM3500 blows away the 7D AF. That's provable truth right there. Less points and processing power in the 7D's AF. It's truly a soccer mom's worst friend. And true enough, the 5D AF was marginal, and not up to the sensor they threw in the mkii.

But seriously, what'cha all smokin? Where's some evidence of this previously unheard claim that the D700 is extremely inferior in AF to the D3? I've used both and the D700 is a beast in low light and for sports. Even with screw drive lenses, it rips. Just like the D3.

And for those not in the know: the D700 actually predates the D3. Marketing flipped the release dates and tweaked the features.

I've never been burned by Nikon lens quality. Quite the opposite. In fact, I kind of wonder if Nikon's repair department sucks so bad because of their excellent build quality (at least on their top end gear).

Not a fan of any of the third party 50's. My Nikon is sharper out to the corners and focuses spot on. Can't say I had the same experience with the bloated Sigma.

I really wanted a mid-range with IS, but the Tamron 17-50VC was crap for build and had a spinny AF ring that drove me nuts. Was janky to work the focus for video on too. The Sigma OS 17-50 I tried was pretty sweet, but again, the spinny fiddly af ring killed it. Better build than the Sigma. So after selling my 17-55 Nikkor with my D2x, I find I've had to buy one again for the D7000. T'ain't a third party lens sharper, tougher, or sealed better.

The 28-70 Tamrons a studio I worked at had were excellently sharp, but I've had more durable Kleenexes. If you have to work in rough/wet environments, they won't stand up. Tokina builds em tougher, but the optics are the compromise.

I will attest to the lack QA with third party lenses. It's quite true.

You couldn't take my 20mm/1.8 Sigma from my cold dead hands though.

Wait until it hits the streets. It's quite unusual for third party lenses to sell for MSRP.

Musicians don't need expensive gear to make money these days. In fact, neither do photographers or videographers. They just need creativity.

As a non-professional musician, I'll take my scrap parts guitar that I hand assembled in high school over anything in any store--new or old. The best gear for the job isn't always the most expensive. A recording musician has the best sounding gear. A gigging musician has the most reliable thing that he can afford two of.

Heck, I'm seriously contemplating CCTV lenses and a Pentax Q for video. The results look better than a lot of the HD cam crap I see other wedding videogs churning out!

Even in stills photography, most clients don't know about gear and don't care. You only need medium format for older established clients who have already "educated" (read:ruined) by their experience. (You don't need 40mp for a half sheet catalogue!)

Is the pro video world that different?

There is no such think as future proof. Only more or less resistant.

The thing the whiners always neglect in discussions of G lenses loss of an aperture ring is what they gained: weather seals. Maybe it's possible to have an aperture ring and a rubber gasket at the rear, but I'm not sure how. As someone who's had water get into a camera from the mount and destroy it, I'm a convert. Bring me more G lenses with rubber mount seals!

Hahalirious--AF smoothly during video, I'm sure it does, which it's true the DSLRs makers haven't figured out yet--different math and tracking scheme.

Speed? DSLRs win, hands down. They're made to focus instantly, which is jerky. That's why it doesn't work for motion. Like I said, horses for courses. This video rig could never shoot sports stills because it's AF isn't designed to track the same way.

And yeah, yeah, yeah, the pellicle mirror is some wunderkind that allows fast frame rates, but the system still isn't up to the level of AF speed/accuracy you can get with Canon and Nikon's top gear. In fact, I don't think the AF of the A77 even compares well with my D7000. Yes, I've tried it. Yes, it's crap in comparison. Usable, but not as good by comparison. No, I haven't tried the mirror adapter on a Nex, but I can't believe it would be magically better than the A77.

Hmm? 4kmonitors have been around a while? Link me to a 4k monitor. I double dog dare ya. And I triple dog dare you to walk into a brick and mortar and buy one. You can't today. Period.

Been around a while? You mean the IBM monstrosity? Yeah, that's not even true 4k, and they had horrid refresh rates.

Until they're cheaper than a used Civic, they're not ready for mainstream consumption.

And yeah, so 8,000 theatres have shown less feature films shot 4k than you can count on both hands, even if you're missing fingers.

It's exciting tech, but we ain't there yet. Good on Sony for bringing some tech to bear that will get us there, but most aren't on board this ship yet. That's just the status quo. Wake me when we leave port...

That would be an incorrect statement too. The X models haven't been available long enough or in decent supply long enough to have a clear picture. I said they're holding better than usual for now. Once supply meets demand, we'll see.

I'm sure that Fuji is capable of making some superb gear, and they have in the past. However, most people on the market for a digital camera consider Fuji a cheap also ran.

Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of things about this Fuji. The price is not one of them, and I don't think anything I've seen yet justifies it.

Time will tell, and the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting. (my tasting, not DPR's)

...the 7D AF is still not even as good as the D300/D700. I'm curious to see if this new AF system is on par with the Nikon. It used to be that Canon had the corner on awesome AF. They swapped when Nikon introduced the D3. It'd be nice if Canon came up to par/surpassed Nikon, which would push Nikon to up the ante.