Nikon is the benchmark.....

Nikon is the benchmark.....

If you look at it without the eyes of a fan boy .. even then you´d have to show me a Dslr camera up to date that you can buy that has a higher MP quality then the D3x(I said DSLRnot MF)

and better lowlight capability then the D3s....Even after those few years you still have
to look around and not find anything...

There are a few here on the forum who want to make us think there is so much pressure on Nikon at the moment but there isnt.....

If you look at the Zacuto shootout even the D7000 did quite well in the movies test..
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

far from being as good as a dedicated film camera or the liking of an Arri Alexa..
well even compared to the 5D mk 2 it wasnt as bad as some might want to

make us think it is. The Fx format isnt even as well suited for movies as one may think

What we call 35mm film was and is more like DX because it uses the filmframe sideways.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
New cameras will come but nikon is still competitive... !
Peter

who has any doubt that nikon is able to build competitive cams like canon or others do?
and if this would not be the case, what then?

if they get financially sick, maybe mitsubishi would lend them or give them money.

everybody has different needs, so what?
for movies, I do think still the panny gh2 is ahead.
for the combination of portability and quality still oly is ahead.
for image quality and lens choice still nikon is ahead.
for tele lenses canon is still ahead.

do you think, you could not take good pics with a d3100 or a 7d or a77 or a900?
so, what is the edge of must having the absolute best in every respect?

BR gusti

mcabato said:

who has any doubt that nikon is able to build competitive cams like canon or others do?
and if this would not be the case, what then?

if they get financially sick, maybe mitsubishi would lend them or give them money.

everybody has different needs, so what?
for movies, I do think still the panny gh2 is ahead.
for the combination of portability and quality still oly is ahead.
for image quality and lens choice still nikon is ahead.
for tele lenses canon is still ahead.

do you think, you could not take good pics with a d3100 or a 7d or a77 or a900?
so, what is the edge of must having the absolute best in every respect?

BR gusti

Click to expand...

that must have .. drives people out the door taking pictures for some time.....
if I dont have the best i cant do this and that......
Dont get me wrong..... nothing against new technology....but Nikon isnt busted
nor is anybody using Nikon..
Even if things are delayed...
Even if new things come old things dont stop working....

Well, I say the 5DII is almost as good as my D3X and the 1DIV is as good as my D3.

And at the moment I'm testing a 7D because Nikon is NOT the benchmark in DSLR-Video.

M.

rayman 2 said:

Nikon is the benchmark.....

If you look at it without the eyes of a fan boy .. even then you´d have to show me a Dslr camera up to date that you can buy that has a higher MP quality then the D3x(I said DSLRnot MF)

and better lowlight capability then the D3s....Even after those few years you still have
to look around and not find anything...

There are a few here on the forum who want to make us think there is so much pressure on Nikon at the moment but there isnt.....

If you look at the Zacuto shootout even the D7000 did quite well in the movies test..
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

far from being as good as a dedicated film camera or the liking of an Arri Alexa..
well even compared to the 5D mk 2 it wasnt as bad as some might want to

make us think it is. The Fx format isnt even as well suited for movies as one may think

What we call 35mm film was and is more like DX because it uses the filmframe sideways.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
New cameras will come but nikon is still competitive... !
Peter

Click to expand...

rayman 2 said:

Even if new things come old things dont stop working....

Click to expand...

see, and if I tell you that I am very happy with my E-5 plus top lenses,
you are worried ...

as long as photographers are not silly, they can achieve their desired results by most of the systems available on the market. even by entry level gear.

hobbyists sometimes want to have the best. there is nothing against it. luxury, toying. but not important for the photographic result.

rgds
gusti

mcabato said:

rayman 2 said:

Even if new things come old things dont stop working....

Click to expand...

see, and if I tell you that I am very happy with my E-5 plus top lenses,
you are worried ...

as long as photographers are not silly, they can achieve their desired results by most of the systems available on the market. even by entry level gear.

hobbyists sometimes want to have the best. there is nothing against it. luxury, toying. but not important for the photographic result.

rgds
gusti

Click to expand...

why should I be worried ? Although I came from using nikon since the 70s my first

digital Slr was an Olly E-20P.....loved to use it .. was plain and easy and got me

5 MP at that time for 2000 $....that was something at that time.. I didnt go back to Nikon dslrs until Nikon brought out the D70 and then the D200..
I wasnt willing to pluck down 5000 $ for just over 2 MP at that time.....

Lea5 said:

Well, I say the 5DII is almost as good as my D3X and the 1DIV is as good as my D3.

And at the moment I'm testing a 7D because Nikon is NOT the benchmark in DSLR-Video.

M.

rayman 2 said:

Nikon is the benchmark.....

If you look at it without the eyes of a fan boy .. even then you´d have to show me a Dslr camera up to date that you can buy that has a higher MP quality then the D3x(I said DSLRnot MF)

and better lowlight capability then the D3s....Even after those few years you still have
to look around and not find anything...

There are a few here on the forum who want to make us think there is so much pressure on Nikon at the moment but there isnt.....

If you look at the Zacuto shootout even the D7000 did quite well in the movies test..
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

far from being as good as a dedicated film camera or the liking of an Arri Alexa..
well even compared to the 5D mk 2 it wasnt as bad as some might want to

make us think it is. The Fx format isnt even as well suited for movies as one may think

What we call 35mm film was and is more like DX because it uses the filmframe sideways.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
New cameras will come but nikon is still competitive... !
Peter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If that makes you happy go ahead.. Nikon still is in a good enough position not

needing to be concerned ... they are doing well and we are going to get new stuff soon enough... even with a tsunami and a flood behind them

rayman 2 said:

If you look at it without the eyes of a fan boy .. even then you´d have to show me a Dslr camera up to date that you can buy that has a higher MP quality then the D3x(I said DSLRnot MF)

Click to expand...

Just to nit pick: many medium format digital cameras have mirrors and are actually DSLRs.

The D3X is a nice camera, of course.

Lea5 said:

Well, I say the 5DII is almost as good as my D3X

Click to expand...

It autofocuses as fast and accurately? In low light too? Amazing how our experiences can differ so much.

Image quality wise I agree; there is little pratical difference.

Lea5 said:

the 1DIV is as good as my D3.

Click to expand...

The D3 is not a current model.

But essentially I think Nikon and Canon are on par for the high end. Nikon has some strong lenses and strengths in their bodies whereas Canon has a better lineup for telephoto (more high quality, intermediate aperture options as well as longer lenses).

Lea5 said:

And at the moment I'm testing a 7D because Nikon is NOT the benchmark in DSLR-Video.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering why you want to shoot video with a DSLR? Isn't focusing a bit tricky if you do that?

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Image quality wise I agree; there is little pratical difference.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference. One has clean shadows, one does not.

...and only suffered (badly I may add) in Gree Screen applications which is a shame but surely could be better in a newer camera.

If I get 1080p/60 on a new prosumer body at 18+ MP I would be happy for my DX desires... 24MP would be terrific but one can hope. A 36MP FX would be also just as good for my desires right now. Need a bit more cropping pixels than 12MP.
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.thrustimages.com/
FCAS Member - http://fcasmembers.com/

coudet said:

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Image quality wise I agree; there is little pratical difference.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference. One has clean shadows, one does not.

Click to expand...

Shadows take about 45 seconds of simple PP to make perfect. Coming up with the difference in price between the D3x and the 5DII is much more difficult and not cost-effective IMO.

Sal

There is more than low light photography out there. I personally have used both Nikon and Canon as well as Fuji DSLR's. I own thousands of dollars worth of high end Nikon glass. I would not say Nikon is the "benchmark" camera but now equal to Canon and others. Before I am "flamed" and called a "troll" look at my website, http://www.millerphotogaphy.zenfolio.com and you will see thousands and thousands of pictures taken with Nikon and Fuji.

I started out using Canon cameras. I will tell you this, Canon has really great skin tones and I think does a better job for portraits and weddings. Had I waited longer, I would probably be using Canon today.

Canon has low ISO's, the 50mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.2 lens for starters. Very good portrait lenses. Go to any PPofA convention and most speakers by a great margin are using Canon cameras for portraits.

Sony, Pentax, and Olympus all have great cameras. We cannot judge a camera alone on extremely high ISO's

So basically what I am saying is that camera manufacturers are "leap frogging" each other. When one gets an edge, then another manufacturer comes along and out does it.

Fuji might become a "sleeper". They may come out with a professional diigital camera based on their new organic sensor. This senor could obsolete all sensors out there.

I know for a fact that DPreview is more of a "gear" site than a picture site. There is more to photography than gear.
Respectfully,
David Miller

I had decided not to nit pick, but since you brought it up first... . Illka is correct.

Many of our traditional 35mm format cameras are single lens reflex designs. But the SLR design is not limited to the 24x36mm "negative" format. There is also the rangefinder design, with cameras in both the 35mm format and medium format. In the category of reflex designs there is also the twin lens reflex, although I have not seen digital versions.

The fact is that not all 35mm format cameras are SLRs and not all SLRs are 35mm format. So to say "I means DSLR, not MF" is technically incorrect. Although, to be fair, almost everyone would know what you meant.
--
Mike Dawson

Well said. The yet to be released 1DX is just now catching up to the Nikon D3S. The difference between the two cameras (D3S vs 1DX) are negligible. Nikon has no worries in the area of still cameras.

Frankly, Nikon's biggest problem is and always has been getting produccts to the market here in the US. Which might be more of a Nikon USA problem than a worldwide problem.

Video is another problem, but that is another problem. Nikon is not worlds behind in video capablilities and the FX video cameras still need to use super fast lenses to take advantage of shallow depth of field compared to DX video.

rayman 2 said:

Nikon is the benchmark.....

If you look at it without the eyes of a fan boy .. even then you´d have to show me a Dslr camera up to date that you can buy that has a higher MP quality then the D3x(I said DSLRnot MF)

and better lowlight capability then the D3s....Even after those few years you still have
to look around and not find anything...

There are a few here on the forum who want to make us think there is so much pressure on Nikon at the moment but there isnt.....

If you look at the Zacuto shootout even the D7000 did quite well in the movies test..
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

far from being as good as a dedicated film camera or the liking of an Arri Alexa..
well even compared to the 5D mk 2 it wasnt as bad as some might want to

make us think it is. The Fx format isnt even as well suited for movies as one may think

What we call 35mm film was and is more like DX because it uses the filmframe sideways.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
New cameras will come but nikon is still competitive... !
Peter

Click to expand...

--
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

http://photofocus.com/2011/12/04/10-photography-predictions-for-2012/

was this link the reason why you started the thread?

rgds gusti

mcabato said:

http://photofocus.com/2011/12/04/10-photography-predictions-for-2012/

was this link the reason why you started the thread?

rgds gusti

Click to expand...

Nope but there has been a lot of Buzz at this site lately and on Nikonrumors....
but nice find it only makes my thread even more....debateable.....
Peter

I have thought about moving from Canon to Nikon in FF camera, but when I compare Canon 5dmk2 with Nikon d3x or d700 with the same lens (Carl Zeiss 35mm and 100mm lenses) in Dxomark-pages I can notice that the difference between dx3 and 5dmk2 is very little. Difference between 5dmk2 and d700 is bigger.

Nikon shooters, tell me what I really would get more with Nikon d700 compared with 5dmk2? Better af in low light, better body construction, a little better noise quality in shadows(?). I lose video, but can use it with 7d which I like to keep because of excellent tele lenses for birding. The reason I have thought this is that I really liked Canon 13mb 5d body and dont´t need 21mb sensor and like more Nikon wide angle lenses.
here is the dxo page for comparison:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/ (lens1) 340 (lens2) 330 (brand1) Zeiss (camera1) 485 (brand2) Zeiss (camera2) 483

mmmmmmmm said:

Fuji might become a "sleeper". They may come out with a professional diigital camera based on their new organic sensor. This senor could obsolete all sensors out there.

Click to expand...

Hi David, should this day arrive, I will open a bottle of champaign, and the day it will be reviewed and available I will preorder it! After all those years, The Fuji lover in me is still alive - I jjust bought the slightly overpriced x10.

Cheers
Bernie

--

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

Good to hear from you again! I am not a fan of the X100 but I might be a fan if Fuji comes out with an X200(?) with interchangeable lenses. I don't know much about the X10 but I hope it suits your style of photography nicely. I need one more DSLR so I will probably wait until the new Nikon arrives. I am 68 so I probably don't have many years left to be a full time photographer.

We photographed a high school dance two nights ago. Our packages were down about 40%. After we took down our studio lights several couples stood in front of the background and had their parents take pictures with their point and shoots. This is where a lot of the photography is heading today. I am glad that my career of 40 years in photography is just about over. I don't think I would want to start a new business in photography today.

respectfully,
David Miller