Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love Canon and own quite a bit of Canon equipment, but anyone who would
drop several thousand (could it be less than that? I doubt it) on a 3mp
camera should probably have their head examined. It's already behind the
curve, and by this fall it's going to seem positively quaint...
Yep. But at least the D1 has been around for awhile. The Canon is brand-new, so new it won't even be available until probably October. Murphy's Law runs through this industry with a vengeance, so I would have expected Canon to raise the bar a bit more. We have't seen the price, of course, but I have a feeling it'll be too high for what really looks like a stop-gap machine -- even for those of us with a load of Canon lenses.People were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
ERROR: Pixel count does not equal resolution. Bring ANY 3 mega shot up next to a D1 image and study the pixel for pixel result. The D1 looks like an extremely high quality scan compared to a video image. (metaphor exaggerated for purposes of mental contrast)People were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
I love Canon and own quite a bit of Canon equipment, but anyone who would
drop several thousand (could it be less than that? I doubt it) on a 3mp
camera should probably have their head examined. It's already behind the
curve, and by this fall it's going to seem positively quaint...
I am told by an L.A based Canon rep that this little baby is going to be priced at under $2,000,00 or near. If it has a good burst rate of 12 plus frames and a quick write time, (yet to be answered) it will give the then D's a run for their still overpriced money, let alone the current eight bill paper weights still offered by Canon, they must have been on vacation while the D1 was on the drawing boards!I love Canon and own quite a bit of Canon equipment, but anyone who would
drop several thousand (could it be less than that? I doubt it) on a 3mp
camera should probably have their head examined. It's already behind the
curve, and by this fall it's going to seem positively quaint...
Yep. But at least the D1 has been around for awhile. The Canon isPeople were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
brand-new, so new it won't even be available until probably October.
Murphy's Law runs through this industry with a vengeance, so I would have
expected Canon to raise the bar a bit more. We have't seen the price, of
course, but I have a feeling it'll be too high for what really looks like
a stop-gap machine -- even for those of us with a load of Canon lenses.
ERROR: Pixel count does not equal resolution. Bring ANY 3 mega shot upPeople were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
next to a D1 image and study the pixel for pixel result. The D1 looks
like an extremely high quality scan compared to a video image. (metaphor
exaggerated for purposes of mental contrast)
The question might be, "Will Canon's 3 mega be 12%-15% BETTER than the D1?
-iNova
I love Canon and own quite a bit of Canon equipment, but anyone who would
drop several thousand (could it be less than that? I doubt it) on a 3mp
camera should probably have their head examined. It's already behind the
curve, and by this fall it's going to seem positively quaint...
Nothing yet made even comes close to image quality produced by the D1.
Nothing.
The lenses available for the D1 and it's algorithm produce a true "film
like" image. Many of the so called aperature priority consumer $1000
dollar cameras can only wish they had the actual aperature control found
in the D1. These $1000 dollar cameras begin to lose the depth of field
control when the distance factor comes into play. Burst rate, ISO range,
and the ability to regain the cash invested by selling the images is
something a $1000 dollar camera can't begin to compete with.
As far as cost. Here's some food for thought. I've witnessed enumerable
people throughout the forums who have purchased at least three $1000
dollar cameras in the last three years. Many of these people who are
obviously suffering from a terminal case of "Afluenza" will buy a third
$1000 dollar 3X zoom camera this year. So they'll now have $4000 tied up
in consumer level cameras. This does not take into account the
accessories that could easily bring the total cost to $5000.
Those who bought the D1 last year will not feel obliged to buy another
$1000 dollar camera this year. They won't need to buy one next year or
for quite a few years down the line. I don't feel that the 3X $1000
dollar level camera will ever equal the image quality of the D1 for
$5000 dollars worth of years. Maybe not even then.
Many people would actually be further ahead buying a $5000 dollar camera.
Do it once and be done with it. My neighbor has a $25,000 dollar fishing
boat that he is making payments on and uses the thing about 6 times a
year. My neighbor on the other side has a Harley that he's got $10,000
tied up in. He just payed a "photographer" with a D1 another $300 to do
some photos of his "dream" machine. "Afluenza" is a disease that the D1
owner is imunized against regarding camera purchasing. The D1 owner
doesn't care about the newest latest greatest Sony, Oly, or whatever.
They don't even come close.
You get what you pay for.
No, ERROR: Pixel count DOES equal resolution. That's exactly what it means.ERROR: Pixel count does not equal resolution
Does anyone know a site showing a comparison of the same phtots on a D1 and those produced by 3mp consumer cameras??Nothing yet made even comes close to image quality produced by the D1. Nothing.
The lenses available for the D1 and it's algorithm produce a true "film
like" image. Many of the so called aperature priority consumer $1000
dollar cameras can only wish they had the actual aperature control found
in the D1. These $1000 dollar cameras begin to lose the depth of field
control when the distance factor comes into play. Burst rate, ISO range,
and the ability to regain the cash invested by selling the images is
something a $1000 dollar camera can't begin to compete with.
As far as cost. Here's some food for thought. I've witnessed enumerable
people throughout the forums who have purchased at least three $1000
dollar cameras in the last three years. Many of these people who are
obviously suffering from a terminal case of "Afluenza" will buy a third
$1000 dollar 3X zoom camera this year. So they'll now have $4000 tied up
in consumer level cameras. This does not take into account the
accessories that could easily bring the total cost to $5000.
Those who bought the D1 last year will not feel obliged to buy another
$1000 dollar camera this year. They won't need to buy one next year or
for quite a few years down the line. I don't feel that the 3X $1000
dollar level camera will ever equal the image quality of the D1 for
$5000 dollars worth of years. Maybe not even then.
Many people would actually be further ahead buying a $5000 dollar camera.
Do it once and be done with it. My neighbor has a $25,000 dollar fishing
boat that he is making payments on and uses the thing about 6 times a
year. My neighbor on the other side has a Harley that he's got $10,000
tied up in. He just payed a "photographer" with a D1 another $300 to do
some photos of his "dream" machine. "Afluenza" is a disease that the D1
owner is imunized against regarding camera purchasing. The D1 owner
doesn't care about the newest latest greatest Sony, Oly, or whatever.
They don't even come close.
You get what you pay for.
Yep. But at least the D1 has been around for awhile. The Canon isPeople were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
brand-new, so new it won't even be available until probably October.
Murphy's Law runs through this industry with a vengeance, so I would have
expected Canon to raise the bar a bit more. We have't seen the price, of
course, but I have a feeling it'll be too high for what really looks like
a stop-gap machine -- even for those of us with a load of Canon lenses.
I'd be curious to see thier cost/benefit analysis. Since any pro-level digital image should be more than good enough for repro on newsprint, I wonder how they justified the time and expense of buying film, processing and scanning, versus the savings of going right from camera to database?I know of one major newspaper (that I can't name) that cancelled their
order for 20 D1's after the first evaluation unit but... they had
excellent film and slide scanners to compare it to.
Surely the selling point of the D1 is the speed of the camera. People have already given evidence as to how close it is in performance to a top film SLR.ERROR: Pixel count does not equal resolution. Bring ANY 3 mega shot upPeople were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
next to a D1 image and study the pixel for pixel result. The D1 looks
like an extremely high quality scan compared to a video image. (metaphor
exaggerated for purposes of mental contrast)
The question might be, "Will Canon's 3 mega be 12%-15% BETTER than the D1?
-iNova
I love Canon and own quite a bit of Canon equipment, but anyone who would
drop several thousand (could it be less than that? I doubt it) on a 3mp
camera should probably have their head examined. It's already behind the
curve, and by this fall it's going to seem positively quaint...
We probably shouldn't read too much into one newspaper's decision to cancel an order based on an evaluation unit, since it's statistically insignificant. The increasing number of happy D1 press photographers far outweighs the bad experience of a sample of one.I know of one major newspaper (that I can't name) that cancelled their
order for 20 D1's after the first evaluation unit but... they had
excellent film and slide scanners to compare it to.
I totally agree, I have seen prints off the D1 that are truly worthwhile, sadly I do not see that many images on the web that show the wonderful images that the camera can produce. I suspect being a pro camera it requires a certain degree of basic skill to produce the results. However the pros seem to know a good thing judging by huge demand for this machine. The Canon SLR is in a quandry, if it is cheap then no way can it have the performance levels needed for pro/semi pro work and if it is anywhere near the D1 price then it will have its work cut out. I own a Eos 3 and some IS lenses and would very much like a digital SLR, but I feel Canon are just a little slow on the take.The lenses available for the D1 and it's algorithm produce a true "film
like" image. Many of the so called aperature priority consumer $1000
dollar cameras can only wish they had the actual aperature control found
in the D1. These $1000 dollar cameras begin to lose the depth of field
control when the distance factor comes into play. Burst rate, ISO range,
and the ability to regain the cash invested by selling the images is
something a $1000 dollar camera can't begin to compete with.
As far as cost. Here's some food for thought. I've witnessed enumerable
people throughout the forums who have purchased at least three $1000
dollar cameras in the last three years. Many of these people who are
obviously suffering from a terminal case of "Afluenza" will buy a third
$1000 dollar 3X zoom camera this year. So they'll now have $4000 tied up
in consumer level cameras. This does not take into account the
accessories that could easily bring the total cost to $5000.
Those who bought the D1 last year will not feel obliged to buy another
$1000 dollar camera this year. They won't need to buy one next year or
for quite a few years down the line. I don't feel that the 3X $1000
dollar level camera will ever equal the image quality of the D1 for
$5000 dollars worth of years. Maybe not even then.
Many people would actually be further ahead buying a $5000 dollar camera.
Do it once and be done with it. My neighbor has a $25,000 dollar fishing
boat that he is making payments on and uses the thing about 6 times a
year. My neighbor on the other side has a Harley that he's got $10,000
tied up in. He just payed a "photographer" with a D1 another $300 to do
some photos of his "dream" machine. "Afluenza" is a disease that the D1
owner is imunized against regarding camera purchasing. The D1 owner
doesn't care about the newest latest greatest Sony, Oly, or whatever.
They don't even come close.
You get what you pay for.
Yep. But at least the D1 has been around for awhile. The Canon isPeople were more than willing to drop $5000+ on the Nikon D1 and it is
only 2.74Mp and that was BEFORE dropping more $$$ for decent lenses. It
was easier if you already had a Nikon shop and had lenses around that
would work.
Are you saying that the Nikon D1 seems "quaint" just because the consumer
level cameras exceed it in resolution.
brand-new, so new it won't even be available until probably October.
Murphy's Law runs through this industry with a vengeance, so I would have
expected Canon to raise the bar a bit more. We have't seen the price, of
course, but I have a feeling it'll be too high for what really looks like
a stop-gap machine -- even for those of us with a load of Canon lenses.
Pixel count equals samples. If the samples don't stand for discrete visual differences,No, ERROR: Pixel count DOES equal resolution. That's exactly what it means.ERROR: Pixel count does not equal resolution
I think you meant to say "Pixel count does not equal image quality."
Right?
ApK
This story ran before, but since we're in the territory...I'd be curious to see thier cost/benefit analysis. Since any pro-levelI know of one major newspaper (that I can't name) that cancelled their
order for 20 D1's after the first evaluation unit but... they had
excellent film and slide scanners to compare it to.
digital image should be more than good enough for repro on newsprint, I
wonder how they justified the time and expense of buying film, processing
and scanning, versus the savings of going right from camera to database?
ApK
Gee - what fools those professional studio photographers are who recently traded their wonderful D1s in for that clunky Kodak DCS330. Do you think that maybe you are overdoing your praise for the D1 just a bit?Nothing yet made even comes close to image quality produced by the D1.
Nothing.
Well Robert, I imagine that there are a few new owners of the D1 who are wondering why they paid for the banded noise, the magenta skin tones or the rather nasty yellow or yellow-green cast images sometimes produced by the Nikon D1.Those who bought the D1 last year will not feel obliged to buy another
$1000 dollar camera this year. They won't need to buy one next year or
for quite a few years down the line. I don't feel that the 3X $1000
dollar level camera will ever equal the image quality of the D1 for
$5000 dollars worth of years. Maybe not even then.
You get what you pay for.
I couldn't agree more with your remarks about "afluenza." It is truly the disease of our age, and I'll admit to succumbing once in awhile myself. Not yet in the digital camera arena, however.Nothing yet made even comes close to image quality produced by the D1.
Nothing.
I think the truth is that is was "good enough" for newsprint. I saw the photo and I certainly don't think it's "good enough" to frame as a portrait, except possibly to brag about and show off to friends when they came by (no insult intended - many a proud parent has kids artwork posted on their refrigerator)....add a "g" to that.
