Would you not rather buy the 1DX than the D4?

[RicAllan]

--
Ric

 

[Raybo]

I was about to go and get my eyes checked for a new prescription after viewing this image, the detail is so far gone that it actually looks totally blurry.

BLAH!

 

[bikinchris]

1Dx is about $1,000 more to start with.

1Dx does not focus at F8, which is a big deal for wildlife shooters and some others.
D4 can focus in lower light than the 1DX.

Nikon has always had better focus in high speed bursts, because of the shorter blackout times. With even shorter blackout times in the 1Dx, you shouldn't expect better follow focus in high speed burst mode.
If video quality is important to you, the D4 is better "on paper" like you say.

Below is a list of differences (on paper) between the D4 and the 1DX which a few members have contributed to. I find myself asking, if one is not invested in glass, would you not rather buy the 1DX based on these specs? I am a little disappointed.

1DX -- D4

• resolution: 18.1 MP -- 16.2 MP
• ISO: 100-51200 -- 100-12800
• AF: 61 -- 51
• FPS: 12 -- 10
• LCD dots: 1,040,000 -- 921,000
• Video: 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps, 1280 x 720 (60, 50 fps), 640 x 480 (60, 50 fps) -- 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps), 1280 x 720 (60, 50, 30, 25 fps), 640 x 424 (30, 25 fps)
• Audio: Stereo -- Mono
• Slots: 2 x CF -- 1 CF, 1 XQD
• AF X-types: 41 -- 15
• CPU: 3 -- 1
• Shutter lag: 36ms -- 42ms
• FPS no AE&AF : 14 -- 11
• Timecode: yes -- no
• Wind Filter: yes -- no
• Compression Types: 2 -- 1
• Sound Recording Steps: 64 -- 60

Then there is of course the battery issue with the D4. Anyone care to add anything to the list?

The battery issue has been debunked. Of course depending on shooting style "on paper"
--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike (Don't fall or collide with others)
Layer 2: Follow the rules (Don't be the cause of traffic crashes)
Layer 3: Use Lane position (Discourage other drivers mistakes)
Layer 4: Hazard Avoidance (Avoid other drivers mistakes and road hazards)
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (Use protection when all else fails)

Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[Shashinka73]

I use Nikon cameras, and as such my sense of identity and self-worth is heavily invested in my belief that they are better than Canon. Consequently, whenever someone says that Canon cameras are better than those of Nikon, my sense of confidence in myself is badly shaken and I feel that I have to rebut their pronouncement. Then I feel good about myself until such time that another person attempts to invalidate Nikon. People should not do that, because it offends me.

But now I think that my Nikon D3 is no good, because someone on this forum said so.

I think that maybe I should sell my D3 and wait for the D8, because it will be better. And in the meantime I will say bad things about Canon. Canon is bad and their cameras are poo. People who use Canon cameras are inferior to people who use Nikon cameras because, um, yeah. Jay Maisel and Joe McNally use Nikon cameras, so Nikon cameras are better than Canon cameras. Canon sounds like "Cannon", an instrument of death, so Nikon is better than Canon because "Nikon" does not sound like an instrument of death. Phew. I feel good about myself having justified my use of Nikon cameras by equating Canon with an instrument of death.

I think the Nikon D8 will be able to go to ISO 8 squillion, and the best Canon camera at that time will only be able to go to 7.99 squillion. The Nikon will be able to shoot at 100 frames per second, and the Canon at only 98. So there.

The Nikon D8 will shoot virtual reality video in 8 dimensions, and the Canon camera will only shoot quasi-virtual reality in 6 dimensions. The only people who will buy the Canon camera are poor people and stupid people.

PS I am 46, a virgin, live with my parents, and have never taken a photograph in my life. I figure myself a fairly typical poster on a camera message board.

 

[Jupu]

This is a truly funny string - thanks!!!

At first I didn´t get the joke, but now I did.. it is a joke... or?

 

[Shashinka73]

This is a truly funny string - thanks!!!

At first I didn´t get the joke, but now I did.. it is a joke... or?

The fact that you're not sure one way or the other tells me that I'm onto something...

 

[Grevture]

This is a truly funny string - thanks!!!

At first I didn´t get the joke, but now I did.. it is a joke... or?

The scary part is that some people actually compare numbers like that. And are serious about it. Which makes it all the more fun

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[bobn2]

This is a truly funny string - thanks!!!

At first I didn´t get the joke, but now I did.. it is a joke... or?

The scary part is that some people actually compare numbers like that. And are serious about it. Which makes it all the more fun

The 1D X seems to have been designed for people who use that methodology. Virtually, what Canon has done is just make sure that they are better on every one of the paper specifications. Of course, this means very little in terms of usability and IQ, which remains to be seen. While I'm disappointed at how timid both Canon and Nikon have been, Nikon does seem to have built in some thoughtful detail specs into the D4, which may well be enough to stop people swapping to Canon. I can't see that it's compelling enough to make people switch from Canon however and with Nikon's technology it could have been.

--
Bob

 

[Shashinka73]

The 1D X seems to have been designed for people who use that methodology. Virtually, what Canon has done is just make sure that they are better on every one of the paper specifications. Of course, this means very little in terms of usability and IQ, which remains to be seen. While I'm disappointed at how timid both Canon and Nikon have been, Nikon does seem to have built in some thoughtful detail specs into the D4, which may well be enough to stop people swapping to Canon. I can't see that it's compelling enough to make people switch from Canon however and with Nikon's technology it could have been.

--
Bob

The odd thing is that they're doing this while aiming at people who should know better. People who just dabble in photography might be excused for going all weak-kneed at these numbers ("oo, look! 18 megapixels! Anti-shake! Face recognition! Night-time mode! Hey, what does ISO mean?") but anyone who has half a photographic brain knows that the differences in stats here are close to meaningless in 99 per cent of situations. Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that it's just a bunch of people overcompensating for something, as Freud would have it.

 

[Grevture]

This is a truly funny string - thanks!!!

At first I didn´t get the joke, but now I did.. it is a joke... or?

The scary part is that some people actually compare numbers like that. And are serious about it. Which makes it all the more fun

The 1D X seems to have been designed for people who use that methodology. Virtually, what Canon has done is just make sure that they are better on every one of the paper specifications. Of course, this means very little in terms of usability and IQ, which remains to be seen.

Yup, the 1D X could very well be an overall better camera, but that remains to be seen. The numbers alone do, at best, indicate that the 1D X and D4 appear to be remarkably similar.

While I'm disappointed at how timid both Canon and Nikon have been, Nikon does seem to have built in some thoughtful detail specs into the D4,

I like sneaky little details like the http server - if they follow through with that idea it could mean Nikon cameras which can be very easily interacted with both from software or just a simple web browser. Standard interfaces is something I like and camera manufacturers generally seem to have a deep resentment of.

which may well be enough to stop people swapping to Canon.

In the specific market niche of pro PJ and sport shooters, that has probably not been much of a problem in the past four years. Probably rather the opposite

I can't see that it's compelling enough to make people switch from Canon however and with Nikon's technology it could have been.

I know we have debated over this before, but if we look specifically at the core audience of these cameras - professional PJ and sports shooters - that is a rather conservative crowd. New technology is looked upon with a great deal of suspicion (not entirely without reason ...) The 1D X and the D4 are, as you describe them, rather timid. But that is probably very much what the target audience wants.

I think Nikon need to showcase their new technology in consumer cameras first, kind of proof of concept testing before unleashing it on working photographers who have a very distinct aversion of being used as guinea pigs for new tech. Consumers tend to be more willing to try new things.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[bobn2]

The 1D X seems to have been designed for people who use that methodology. Virtually, what Canon has done is just make sure that they are better on every one of the paper specifications. Of course, this means very little in terms of usability and IQ, which remains to be seen. While I'm disappointed at how timid both Canon and Nikon have been, Nikon does seem to have built in some thoughtful detail specs into the D4, which may well be enough to stop people swapping to Canon. I can't see that it's compelling enough to make people switch from Canon however and with Nikon's technology it could have been.

--
Bob

The odd thing is that they're doing this while aiming at people who should know better. People who just dabble in photography might be excused for going all weak-kneed at these numbers ("oo, look! 18 megapixels! Anti-shake! Face recognition! Night-time mode! Hey, what does ISO mean?") but anyone who has half a photographic brain knows that the differences in stats here are close to meaningless in 99 per cent of situations. Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that it's just a bunch of people overcompensating for something, as Freud would have it.

It's an open question whether it is a strategy that will succeed. I've had conversations with a few people who know the pro markets quite well, think that the D4 will be the winner this generation. It's quite like the previous generation of games consoles, where Sony and Microsoft were slugging it out trying to outspec each other. Nintendo came along and offered something different which appealed and had the big hit. In this case, the big questions I'd think are:

• which AF is perceived to operate better in practice (just as I don't think anyone abandoned Canon for 6 extra AF points, I don't think 10 extra will be a big draw), real life frame rates with AF and mirror down (and I don't expect there to be a big difference). In those there is an interesting difference between the way the basics of the two AF systems work. In Canon's EF system, much of the basic control of the focus motors is done in the lens, so is basically limited for a lens. The Nikon system, is, unsurprisingly, a kind of electrified screwdrive, and the camera has more participation in the motor control servo loops, which means there is more potential for a new camera to speed up AF even on old lenses. So, it'll be interesting to see what wins at a system level, tracking real life moving subjects.
• detail of the video functions. These seem much better thought through in the Nikon product to me, but then I'm not video familiar, so I'd defer to someone with more experience.
• delight factors, like the illuminated buttons and web interface. These have more of an effect on sales than some people think.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
--
Bob

 

[Grevture]

The odd thing is that they're doing this while aiming at people who should know better. People who just dabble in photography might be excused for going all weak-kneed at these numbers ("oo, look! 18 megapixels! Anti-shake! Face recognition! Night-time mode! Hey, what does ISO mean?") but anyone who has half a photographic brain knows that the differences in stats here are close to meaningless in 99 per cent of situations.

Well, looking at the overall image, not getting bogged down in pix ... details, I think the specifications say one thing: The 1D X and the D4 are - at least in theory - remarkably similar. This is probably rather obvious to much of the intended audience. The petty differences are probably there to impress those who lust over these cameras, but end up buying a cheaper model instead - of the brand offering the prettiest numbers in their top model ...

Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that it's just a bunch of people overcompensating for something, as Freud would have it.

Why do you think I want so badly for Nikon to introduce a 800/5.6?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[bobn2]

I can't see that it's compelling enough to make people switch from Canon however and with Nikon's technology it could have been.

I know we have debated over this before, but if we look specifically at the core audience of these cameras - professional PJ and sports shooters - that is a rather conservative crowd. New technology is looked upon with a great deal of suspicion (not entirely without reason ...) The 1D X and the D4 are, as you describe them, rather timid. But that is probably very much what the target audience wants.

I think you're right. It's almost certain that both Nikon and Canon had a much better idea of the market desires of pro PJ's than you or I. It's a strategy that can come unhinged though. You ask almost any group of technology users what they want, they'll say 'what we've got but a bit better'. Giving them that works, unless someone introduces a game changer, when they suddenly discover that's what they wanted all along. The 1DII, when pro PJ's discovered in the first case that they really wanted 8MP, having said 5 was quite enough and the and D3, when they decided that they really wanted FF, were game changers. I don't think either of the cameras this round is. People who expect either to dramatically outperform the other aren't in the real world, IMO.

I think Nikon need to showcase their new technology in consumer cameras first, kind of proof of concept testing before unleashing it on working photographers who have a very distinct aversion of being used as guinea pigs for new tech. Consumers tend to be more willing to try new things.

I'm getting the inkling the 1 series is likely to be that proving ground for Nikon, from the recent interviews. Interesting that a few pros (e.g. Rob Galbraith) are adopting these cameras. If they like a new feature in their weekend cam, they'll like it for the work cam.

I find the recent DPR review of those cameras quite incredible, reviewers who seem to have just missed the whole point, while the market seems to be thinking quite differently.

--
Bob

 

[Grevture]

I can't see that it's compelling enough to make people switch from Canon however and with Nikon's technology it could have been.

I know we have debated over this before, but if we look specifically at the core audience of these cameras - professional PJ and sports shooters - that is a rather conservative crowd. New technology is looked upon with a great deal of suspicion (not entirely without reason ...) The 1D X and the D4 are, as you describe them, rather timid. But that is probably very much what the target audience wants.

I think you're right.

Of course! I always am. Well, unless when I am wrong. Which by the way is disturbingly often.
Anyway, moving on ....

It's almost certain that both Nikon and Canon had a much better idea of the market desires of pro PJ's than you or I.

I would certainly hope so

But I do know for a fact they spend a lot of time and effort interviewing pro photograhers, both those using their own brand, and the the other brand.

It's a strategy that can come unhinged though. You ask almost any group of technology users what they want, they'll say 'what we've got but a bit better'. Giving them that works, unless someone introduces a game changer, when they suddenly discover that's what they wanted all along.

Agree. It is playing it safe. Which surpringsly fast can become anything but safe. Ask the Swedish company Facit who was a world leadning manufacturer of mechanical calculating machines (mainly used in offices). They gently improved, and improved, and improved ... And suddenly was erased from the market by cheap electronic calculators. Oops.

And for a more recent and near example, I think the D2x was an example of Nikon playing it safe, asking their existing D1 user base what they wanted in a new camera, not really noticing what their main competitor was up to. The D2x was, in a manner of speaking, just a very good D1x, not really a new camera. Next to a 1Ds Mk2 it really looked like yesterdays news.

The 1DII, when pro PJ's discovered in the first case that they really wanted 8MP, having said 5 was quite enough and the and D3, when they decided that they really wanted FF, were game changers. I don't think either of the cameras this round is. People who expect either to dramatically outperform the other aren't in the real world, IMO.

They are in my eyes examples of catching up (as in Canon going FF), of evolving and consolidating rather then trying something new.

I have a sense both Nikon and Canon are reasonably happy sharing the pro PJ and sports shooter market... At least for the time being. The bigger fight will probably be between D800 and a Eos 5D Mark III - in that (larger) part of the market Nikon is not happy about their position and Canon probably do not want to let go of there comfortable share of it.

I think Nikon need to showcase their new technology in consumer cameras first, kind of proof of concept testing before unleashing it on working photographers who have a very distinct aversion of being used as guinea pigs for new tech. Consumers tend to be more willing to try new things.

I'm getting the inkling the 1 series is likely to be that proving ground for Nikon, from the recent interviews. Interesting that a few pros (e.g. Rob Galbraith) are adopting these cameras. If they like a new feature in their weekend cam, they'll like it for the work cam.

I think (and hope!) many people at Nikon probably read Rob's review with a great deal of interest, And that they have given out loaner V1 cameras to people like Bill Frakes with the hope of more feedback.

I find the recent DPR review of those cameras quite incredible, reviewers who seem to have just missed the whole point, while the market seems to be thinking quite differently.

It is not often I have seen so widely divided reviews of a couple of cameras, ranging from praise to very negative. While customers seem to get the idea, which after all is what really matters.

I used a V1 for several weeks, also with teh FT-1 adapter, and developed a very ambivalent attitude to it. I really like much of it, and was severly confused by other aspects of it. Like the silliness of not maing it compatible with Nikons CLS system - a true Nikon USP if there ever was one - and the complete lack of communication. For more on that, see my rant over here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40460428

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[bikinchris]

Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that it's just a bunch of people overcompensating for something, as Freud would have it.

Why do you think I want so badly for Nikon to introduce a 800/5.6?

I guess now I know why I want Nikon to revive the 1200-1700 f5.6-8 zoom:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm
:| :x :O

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike (Don't fall or collide with others)
Layer 2: Follow the rules (Don't be the cause of traffic crashes)
Layer 3: Use Lane position (Discourage other drivers mistakes)
Layer 4: Hazard Avoidance (Avoid other drivers mistakes and road hazards)
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (Use protection when all else fails)

Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[OldScotch]

Below is a list of differences (on paper) between the D4 and the 1DX which a few members have contributed to. I find myself asking, if one is not invested in glass, would you not rather buy the 1DX based on these specs? I am a little disappointed.

1DX -- D4

• resolution: 18.1 MP -- 16.2 MP

Pixel Pitch: 7.2 microns -- 7.3 microns

• ISO: 100-51200 -- 100-12800

Inconsequential, the performance at high isos is what counts.

• AF: 61 -- 51

AF Sensitivity: f / 5.6 -- f / 8

• FPS: 12 -- 10

Buffer Size: 30 -- 105

(based on preliminary and unverified reports: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=39679870 )

• LCD dots: 1,040,000 -- 921,000

Irrelevant

• Video: 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps, 1280 x 720 (60, 50 fps), 640 x 480 (60, 50 fps) -- 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps), 1280 x 720 (60, 50, 30, 25 fps), 640 x 424 (30, 25 fps)

Seems Nikon has more settings available, but you bolded Canon as the winner anyway?

• Audio: Stereo -- Mono

Incorrect, both have stereo sound

• Slots: 2 x CF -- 1 CF, 1 XQD

I'd prefer dual CF too, but the XQD cards do look to perform better

• AF X-types: 41 -- 15

Point concdeded

• CPU: 3 -- 1

Which affects things how? Again, reports are the 1dx buffer is lacking.

• Shutter lag: 36ms -- 42ms

With "shortened release lag" enabled, it can be 36 milliseconds when you're shooting wide open, however it will add to the lag time if you stop down. I'd prefer a con

• FPS no AE&AF : 14 -- 11

FPS no AE&AF: jpeg -- raw

• Timecode: yes -- no

Point conceded

• Wind Filter: yes -- no

If you're worried about windnoise, you're going to be using a mic with a windscreen

• Compression Types: 2 -- 1

OK.

• Sound Recording Steps: 64 -- 60

Really? so it goes to 11 ..or 64 in this case. How about a louder amp that just says 10? ...but this one goes to 11....

Then there is of course the battery issue with the D4. Anyone care to add anything to the list?

Japan doesn't make seperate battery regulations for Canon and Nikon, there's nothing to say that the 1dx won't also have battery "issues".

They're both great and very comparable cameras, but your comparisson is nothing more than cherry-picking in order to make Canon look good Like you said, this is all what's on paper, we'll see how they perform once cameras are in peoples' hands.

 

[bobn2]

I have a sense both Nikon and Canon are reasonably happy sharing the pro PJ and sports shooter market... At least for the time being. The bigger fight will probably be between D800 and a Eos 5D Mark III - in that (larger) part of the market Nikon is not happy about their position and Canon probably do not want to let go of there comfortable share of it.

Again, I think you are right. The idea that they hate each other, and really want to 'kill' each other is a fanboy nonsense. In fact, what they want to do is both increase their profitability, which can be done by either seizing a greater share of the market or expanding the market, and for both the big point about pro sales is the leverage it gives in the larger markets where more money is to be made. Thus they will each worry if they goof up and look like getting excluded from the pro marketplace, but if they both have a highly visible presence, neither company will be too worried (won't stop them bragging if the seem to be winning). The D2/MkII generation, when Nikon's pro visibility was getting close to invisible must have seriously worried them, and Canon's problems making headway against the D3s must have been equally concerning.

I'm not now convinced that the D800 - 5DMkIII will even be a fight. Talk is now of a 22MP, 7.5FPS 5DIII (or 5D X or 3D) in which case these two cameras will fail to compete in exactly the same way that the D700 and 5DII didn't compete, except we'll see a role reversal. It might even be that theres a bit of tacit collaboration there. The FF markets are small, there could be a case that, at least in these non-flagship markets, they've deliberately avoided each other. Not sure who went first, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that when Canon get wind of a 36MP EXMOR sensored D800, which would have a resolution and DR they couldn't match, they decided to go after the lower MP high speed route instead.

If each generation, the second rung FF market swaps brands (from high MP slow to low MP fast and vice versa) in the end they both win, they've expanded the market place.
--
Bob

 

[Grevture]

I have a sense both Nikon and Canon are reasonably happy sharing the pro PJ and sports shooter market... At least for the time being. The bigger fight will probably be between D800 and a Eos 5D Mark III - in that (larger) part of the market Nikon is not happy about their position and Canon probably do not want to let go of there comfortable share of it.

Again, I think you are right. The idea that they hate each other, and really want to 'kill' each other is a fanboy nonsense. In fact, what they want to do is both increase their profitability, which can be done by either seizing a greater share of the market or expanding the market, and for both the big point about pro sales is the leverage it gives in the larger markets where more money is to be made.

Exactely, considering the very small numbers of pro cameras sold, they are from a short term financial point of view probably almost redundant. Or to put it differently: Its magnitudes more important to go from 35% to 40% market share in the entry level DSLR market then going from 40% to 60% of the pro market. All they really care about in finacial terms in the pro market is being visible there. The pro cameras act as brand building platforms.

This is probably where the numerology of comparing specs could matter: The only real world importance of the prettier numbers in the 1DX spec sheet is because they sell quite a few extra Eos 1100D, 60D etc ...

Thus they will each worry if they goof up and look like getting excluded from the pro marketplace, but if they both have a highly visible presence, neither company will be too worried (won't stop them bragging if the seem to be winning). The D2/MkII generation, when Nikon's pro visibility was getting close to invisible must have seriously worried them, and Canon's problems making headway against the D3s must have been equally concerning.

I remember when Canon had their press event for the 1Ds Mark III and 40D they showed numbers from one (or possibly several) of the biggest image agencies, like Getty. Some 87% (I don't remember the exact number) of images delivered to the image agencies was from Canon cameras. I remember being somewhat surprised Nikon seemed to have about 10% which seemed like a lot back then ... And a few days later that same week Nikon introduced the D3 and things started to change

I'm not now convinced that the D800 - 5DMkIII will even be a fight. Talk is now of a 22MP, 7.5FPS 5DIII (or 5D X or 3D) in which case these two cameras will fail to compete in exactly the same way that the D700 and 5DII didn't compete, except we'll see a role reversal. It might even be that theres a bit of tacit collaboration there. The FF markets are small, there could be a case that, at least in these non-flagship markets, they've deliberately avoided each other. Not sure who went first, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that when Canon get wind of a 36MP EXMOR sensored D800, which would have a resolution and DR they couldn't match, they decided to go after the lower MP high speed route instead.

If each generation, the second rung FF market swaps brands (from high MP slow to low MP fast and vice versa) in the end they both win, they've expanded the market place.

Hm, interesting thought. In the past, I have often wondered about how Canon and Nikon almost seem to avoid clashing head to head with very similar products. The Eos 7D was a bit surprising in that context, it was so clearly aimed at the same market as the D300s. Usually they seem content to overlap rather then compete head to head.

This is by the way one of the mistakes I think Sony did back in about 2007. They tried clashing head to head with Canon and Nikon with the A700 and the A900/A850 cameras. That did not work very well, they regrouped, analyzed the situation and came back with Nex and SLT cameras which rather is expanding the market then competing head on. Probably a good idea.

But back to the D800 vs 5D Mk3 - it could be they end up taking turns in how they approach that market. Not so much in a planned way, just that is how it turns out from trying to make the most out of budget and resource allocation constraints. Again, as long as they are competing with their long time trusted foe, they might not worry to much. They have a pretty good read on eachother and its difficult (and only happens rarely) for either to really surprise the other.

What probably has them more worried is what companies like Panasonic and Samsung does. They really have a clear interest in disrupting the market since they approach it from the outside. Sony is to involved to really have a desire to rock the boat very much, they are probably fairly content making money on Nikons DSLR sales and both Canons and Nikons compact camera sales by selling them sensors.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[Grevture]

I guess now I know why I want Nikon to revive the 1200-1700 f5.6-8 zoom:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm

Last I checked (two years ago) you could still order that lens. Back then the only thing you had do was paying up - if I remember the numbers correcly - 40.000 Euros and wait for 12-18 months while they built the lens. Then pay the remaining 160.000 Euros on delivery ...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[gonzalu]

if not on paper...

1DX -- D4

• resolution: 18.1 MP -- 16.2 MP

Only 170 lines of resolution difference.

• ISO: 100-51200 -- 100-12800

I guess you need to shoot in the dark 90% of your time?

• AF: 61 -- 51

Nice! But I can make do with the central 9 so I am OK

• FPS: 12 -- 10

I would love 15fps, 10 will suffice

• LCD dots: 1,040,000 -- 921,000

Hmmm... a few more lines of resolution 9a few) ... nah, not that important

• Video: 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps, 1280 x 720 (60, 50 fps), 640 x 480 (60, 50 fps) -- 1920 x 1080 (30, 25, 24 fps), 1280 x 720 (60, 50, 30, 25 fps), 640 x 424 (30, 25 fps)

Looks the same to me.

• Audio: Stereo -- Mono

No one WOULD EVER use these cameras for video and use built in mic... it should have NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Slots: 2 x CF -- 1 CF, 1 XQD

XQD better!

• AF X-types: 41 -- 15

Just need central ones

• CPU: 3 -- 1

If the single CPU in the D4 does as well as the 3 in 1DX at lower power consumption, who is the chump?

• Shutter lag: 36ms -- 42ms

After the first shot, no one is counting... Congrats to Canon. They have always been faster here

• FPS no AE&AF : 14 -- 11

Don;t need it... can;t use it in my typical photography.

• Timecode: yes -- no

OK great. I don't use it now. Nice one Canon.

• Wind Filter: yes -- no

See Mono/Stereo above

• Compression Types: 2 -- 1

Only need UNCOMPRESSED.... in this type of cam, most everyone who cares will use HDMI out.

• Sound Recording Steps: 64 -- 60

4 steps difference? I am getting a 1DX

Then there is of course the battery issue with the D4. Anyone care to add anything to the list?

Issue? What issue? There is no issue, just a change of batteries. Mine from D3 are old anyway

--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.thrustimages.com/
FCAS Member - http://fcasmembers.com/