Andy Rouse on the 1Dx - amusing writings.

bronxbombers wrote:

bronxbombers said:

lsiten I've been as hard on Canon and bashed them as much as anyone but you are being as silly a Nikon fanboy as half the Canon users are Canon fanboys

Click to expand...

I have no time for bashing either brand, but the simple fact is that Canon had no response to the D3/D3s between the 1D2 and the MKIV, which still fell short in ISO performance and AF.

It's extraordinary. Someone posts about the 1DX and it degenerates into a war about who did what years ago.

Why? Does anyone else care?

bronxbombers said:

SubPrime said:

bronxbombers said:

D3 was a little better

Click to expand...

For ISO and DR a LOT better.

Click to expand...

it was like maybe 1/3 stop better SNR than a 5D2 (normalized, not fair to compare them at 100%)

bronxbombers said:

bronxbombers said:

nikon SNR was a bit better then than I thought but it still was just a bit off aps-c to aps-c and their high iso DR was wayyyyy worse back then and if oyu go to FF and aps-h, which canon did have then and nikon did not, then canon SNR was way better too

Click to expand...

Why are you harping on about aps-c sensors? The D2Xs was the last aps-c in a pro body and that was released in 2004.

Click to expand...

because that is all nikon had for the early and middle rounds of DSLR usage

Click to expand...

That's exactly the camera I had in mind too, when I heard "early days." D2X(s) and D200. Noisy noisy at ISO 800.

In these days I used Canon as well for the same reasons. I switched to Nikon in 2008 for the D3 (and now using D4 and D800E)

Dont you get sick and tired of measurebating?

Richard

bronxbombers said:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 483%7C0 (brand) Canon (appareil2) 438%7C0 (brand2) Nikon

D3 was a little better

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 203%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 176%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 281%7C0 (brand3) Canon

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 203%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 176%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 281%7C0 (brand3) Canon

nikon SNR was a bit better then than I thought but it still was just a bit off aps-c to aps-c and their high iso DR was wayyyyy worse back then and if oyu go to FF and aps-h, which canon did have then and nikon did not, then canon SNR was way better too

bronxbombers said:

SubPrime said:

bronxbombers said:

everyone knows that Nikon sensors used to be wayy behind, who on earth switched to Nikon from Canon to get better SNR in the early DSLR days??

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The D3 came out in 2007. That is 5 years ago and yes, it was superior in ISO porformance to anything Canon had to offer at the time.

Click to expand...

D3 was hardly in the early days

Canon was vastly ahead prior to that, far more ahead than nikon was at the d3 era

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

meland said:

It's extraordinary. Someone posts about the 1DX and it degenerates into a war about who did what years ago.

Why? Does anyone else care?

Click to expand...

Just what I was thinking. It looks like a camera I might go for because of what it does now and because of what everything else does now. it makes up for the the 5D's lack of progress in image quality progression.

i still might hand on for the C version, unless I hear great things about the X's video output.

Kevin.

pro I've seen in all my years of trolling photography forums with a sense of humour and who actually looks like he would be fun to shoot with, well done Andy and thanks for the link Scuff.

Richard

The 2Dx was the camera that made me sell all my Nikon equipment and switch to the Canon 5D. It was a big purchase for me at the time, and I couldn't have been more disappointed with the noise in the shadows and the work it took to get images that were gallery-worthy. I had been a Fuji S2 user before that. I've been very, very happy with the Canon choices since then, migrating to the Canon 5D Mark II very happily.

But I've also seen Nikon become the high ISO/noise leader as their full frame line up evolved, even though I preferred the Canon 21MP choices to the Nikon 12MP choices in full frame. Since I was happy with the images I was making, I didn't sweat it, and I can't get caught up in the emotional stuff that goes on defending a brand here.

I do think that the offerings are worth a re-assessment now. If I had unlimited funds, the best tools for my work would be a Nikon D800E and a full set of Zeiss ZF lenses for my fine art work and a Canon 1Dx for everything else. Since funds are finite, the choices are harder, becasue my Canon 5D Mark II is frustrating as a sports camera (which it was never designed to be) and I'm shooting more fast-action low-light sports (indoor volleyball and night soccer/futbol) now than I ever anticipated. Right now I'm leaning towards a used 1D Mk IV for every day and 6x9/120 film for fine art and architecture (already have the film equipment I need)

As I've posted here before, the roles have now reversed though. Canon used to be the low-light leader but required that you have two bodies to cover all eventualities (a 1D for action and either a 1Ds or a 5D for studio/art/large prints), and now the 1Dx is a do-everything camera and Nikon has the D800 and the D4. If I could afford the 1Dx, I'd get it just because changing glass is a real pain, but we do live in interesting times....

But I do get where bronxbomber is coming from, and agree with his general statement.

--

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein

You again.

I was just pointing something out mentioned in the review. Trying to keep it fair so I can't be accused of being a pro-Nikon troll.

And considering the 1000 images I posted in the other thread from all over the world and covering everything from sports shot with a press pass to macros in my backyard to endangered monkeys in Zanzibar forest....

Richard said:

Richard

bronxbombers said:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 483%7C0 (brand) Canon (appareil2) 438%7C0 (brand2) Nikon

D3 was a little better

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 203%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 176%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 281%7C0 (brand3) Canon

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 203%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 176%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 281%7C0 (brand3) Canon

nikon SNR was a bit better then than I thought but it still was just a bit off aps-c to aps-c and their high iso DR was wayyyyy worse back then and if oyu go to FF and aps-h, which canon did have then and nikon did not, then canon SNR was way better too

bronxbombers said:

SubPrime said:

bronxbombers said:

everyone knows that Nikon sensors used to be wayy behind, who on earth switched to Nikon from Canon to get better SNR in the early DSLR days??

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The D3 came out in 2007. That is 5 years ago and yes, it was superior in ISO porformance to anything Canon had to offer at the time.

Click to expand...

D3 was hardly in the early days

Canon was vastly ahead prior to that, far more ahead than nikon was at the d3 era

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah me again Bronx.

Over the years that you and I have been members of this forum I've read your posts with keen interest and respect. These days though, as soon as I see your username pop up in a thread I know straight away what's it's going to say.

You really do need to get off this obsession (depressing) with measurebating.

Richard

bronxbombers said:

I was just pointing something out mentioned in the review. Trying to keep it fair so I can't be accused of being a pro-Nikon troll.

And considering the 1000 images I posted in the other thread from all over the world and covering everything from sports shot with a press pass to macros in my backyard to endangered monkeys in Zanzibar forest....

Richard said:

Richard

bronxbombers said:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 483%7C0 (brand) Canon (appareil2) 438%7C0 (brand2) Nikon

D3 was a little better

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 203%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 176%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 281%7C0 (brand3) Canon

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/ (appareil1) 203%7C0 (brand) Nikon (appareil2) 176%7C0 (brand2) Canon (appareil3) 281%7C0 (brand3) Canon

nikon SNR was a bit better then than I thought but it still was just a bit off aps-c to aps-c and their high iso DR was wayyyyy worse back then and if oyu go to FF and aps-h, which canon did have then and nikon did not, then canon SNR was way better too

bronxbombers said:

SubPrime said:

bronxbombers said:

everyone knows that Nikon sensors used to be wayy behind, who on earth switched to Nikon from Canon to get better SNR in the early DSLR days??

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The D3 came out in 2007. That is 5 years ago and yes, it was superior in ISO porformance to anything Canon had to offer at the time.

Click to expand...

D3 was hardly in the early days

Canon was vastly ahead prior to that, far more ahead than nikon was at the d3 era

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bronxbombers said:

One very odd statement "One of the reasons I changed to Nikon years ago was because of the noise performance. Since the change I have watched as Canon continued along the same path with noise and I was happy to stay with the D3 and then the D3s. In my opinion Nikon have always had the best noise performance from their sensors and using high ISO on a Canon sensor just rendered too much noise."

???

everyone knows that Nikon sensors used to be wayy behind, who on earth switched to Nikon from Canon to get better SNR in the early DSLR days??

maybe by early days he means D3s and later and he stuck with film for a long time??

he did talk about ugly stuff in low iso shadows, but the thing is canon still has trouble there and yet he said 1dx was perfect so....

Click to expand...

...I found that terribly inaccurate, too.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

...for the largest part, that is (...the bit about Nikon having always had the noise advantage is laughable...next, someone will claim they were the ones debuting FF sensors).

This is a significant review because he is, obviously, a "hands-on" user, one that actually knows what to look for in a camera.

On a side note, it is way funny the need Canon currently has to send a dedicated "AF" tutor along with every 1D camera that is going to be tested by a relevant reviewer.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

PhotoKhan said:

PhotoKhan wrote:

This is a significant review because he is, obviously, a "hands-on" user, one that actually knows what to look for in a camera.

On a side note, it is way funny the need Canon currently has to send a dedicated "AF" tutor along with every 1D camera that is going to be tested by a relevant reviewer.

Click to expand...

Having been on the 'other side' I can tell you it is not funny at all when a 'reviewer' doesn't bother to read the manual, or bother to ask if he/she is not sure, and then writes a review that either misses out half the information or just gets it wrong.

Sure the manufacturer can get back onto them and explain the error post event but by that time often the erroneous info is in print and accepted as 'fact' by readers.

The trick, with some reviewers, is to hold their hand in such a way that they don't get insulted, or realise that that we know that they aren't actually very good at their job.

the "tutor" has a dual role; assist with technical questions during the test and try to sell the product to the tester.

I feel that Canon will go on a major campaign to try and win back pros ( including Rouse) that they lost during the 1D MKIII fiasco.

In certain cases Canon & Nikon offer incentives such as buying back the existing gear and replace it with their own. Of course the end user, that he/she is making a living out of photography, will have to be happy with the gear before the change over.

meland said:

Member said:

PhotoKhan wrote:

This is a significant review because he is, obviously, a "hands-on" user, one that actually knows what to look for in a camera.

On a side note, it is way funny the need Canon currently has to send a dedicated "AF" tutor along with every 1D camera that is going to be tested by a relevant reviewer.

Click to expand...

Having been on the 'other side' I can tell you it is not funny at all when a 'reviewer' doesn't bother to read the manual, or bother to ask if he/she is not sure, and then writes a review that either misses out half the information or just gets it wrong.

Sure the manufacturer can get back onto them and explain the error post event but by that time often the erroneous info is in print and accepted as 'fact' by readers.

The trick, with some reviewers, is to hold their hand in such a way that they don't get insulted, or realise that that we know that they aren't actually very good at their job.

Click to expand...

Canon may mount such a campaign but it will be much harder to regain the trust (and marketshare) of those pros.

The shift to Nikon which was prompted by the 1D MkIII problems will not be readily reversed by the aggressive marketing of even a thoroughly competitive flagship model like the 1Dx.

Nikon would have to also screw up - like Canon did then - by responding in lethargic fashion to their users' legitimate concerns.

I very much doubt that, after benefiting so greatly and so recently from their competitor's blunder, Nikon's technical and marketing people will make a similar miscalculation.

jhal said:

I feel that Canon will go on a major campaign to try and win back pros ( including Rouse) that they lost during the 1D MKIII fiasco.

In certain cases Canon & Nikon offer incentives such as buying back the existing gear and replace it with their own. Of course the end user, that he/she is making a living out of photography, will have to be happy with the gear before the change over.

Click to expand...

--

Deji

Deji said:

Canon may mount such a campaign but it will be much harder to regain the trust (and marketshare) of those pros.

The shift to Nikon which was prompted by the 1D MkIII problems will not be readily reversed by the aggressive marketing of even a thoroughly competitive flagship model like the 1Dx.

Nikon would have to also screw up - like Canon did then - by responding in lethargic fashion to their users' legitimate concerns.

I very much doubt that, after benefiting so greatly and so recently from their competitor's blunder, Nikon's technical and marketing people will make a similar miscalculation.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, memories are short. Many of us have witnessed several such swings from one brand to another, either due to short term technological superiority or because of better or worse service back up and support, especially in the pro arena. You would suppose that lessons would be learnt for ever but in fact you'll find that the personnel in marketing teams in particular change completely every five or so years and so simply don't have personal experience of issues that are a repeat of similar things that have happened before.

Deji said:

jhal said:

I feel that Canon will go on a major campaign to try and win back pros ( including Rouse) that they lost during the 1D MKIII fiasco.

In certain cases Canon & Nikon offer incentives such as buying back the existing gear and replace it with their own. Of course the end user, that he/she is making a living out of photography, will have to be happy with the gear before the change over.

Click to expand...

--

Deji

Click to expand...

jhal said:

In certain cases Canon & Nikon offer incentives such as buying back the existing gear and replace it with their own. Of course the end user, that he/she is making a living out of photography, will have to be happy with the gear before the change over.

Click to expand...

You would think so and in most cases you would be right. However there are quite a few 'equipment whores' out there who are quite happy to use anything if it is free. If someone had been switched to another brand by free equipment we would be very, very wary in attempting to switch them back by the same method. Any fool can give equipment away!

Canon or Nikon don't give anything for free. They will probably pay above second market value to replace like with like and the photographer will to buy the new equipment at a hefty discount. The photographer will also make it public that he switched to brand xxxx like Rouse did and probably will be appointed as one of the brand's ( Canon / Nikon) ambassadors etc etc.

This type of deals happens with well known photographers not the likes of you and I....

I know when Nikon got the new teles 300/500/600 and the D4 they offered it on trial to one of the sports photo agencies here. Canon also loaned the 1Dx to the same agency for testing ( pre-production model). The agency is using Canon

meland said:

jhal said:

In certain cases Canon & Nikon offer incentives such as buying back the existing gear and replace it with their own. Of course the end user, that he/she is making a living out of photography, will have to be happy with the gear before the change over.

Click to expand...

You would think so and in most cases you would be right. However there are quite a few 'equipment whores' out there who are quite happy to use anything if it is free. If someone had been switched to another brand by free equipment we would be very, very wary in attempting to switch them back by the same method. Any fool can give equipment away!

Click to expand...

... but it looks like his "100% crops" are more something like 40-50% crops. Or at least my photoshop icons are a lot bigger when I use the application, than what he shows as screen shots.

And of course the iso performance that he shows at iso16000 would not only be sensational if these were true 100% crops... but rather miraculous!

jhal said:

Canon or Nikon don't give anything for free.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid they do. For my sins I've signed off the no charge equipment invoices but I'd also say it doesn't work and I wouldn't recommend it as a policy for engendering any loyalty.

jhal said:

They will probably pay above second market value to replace like with like and the photographer will to buy the new equipment at a hefty discount. The photographer will also make it public that he switched to brand xxxx like Rouse did and probably will be appointed as one of the brand's ( Canon / Nikon) ambassadors etc etc.

Click to expand...

That is a better way of doing it, even if in reality the photographer gets the equipment for next to nothing because the trade in price is so high and the discount on the new equipment is so great.

jhal said:

This type of deals happens with well known photographers not the likes of you and I....

I know when Nikon got the new teles 300/500/600 and the D4 they offered it on trial to one of the sports photo agencies here. Canon also loaned the 1Dx to the same agency for testing ( pre-production model). The agency is using Canon

meland said:

jhal said:

In certain cases Canon & Nikon offer incentives such as buying back the existing gear and replace it with their own. Of course the end user, that he/she is making a living out of photography, will have to be happy with the gear before the change over.

Click to expand...

You would think so and in most cases you would be right. However there are quite a few 'equipment whores' out there who are quite happy to use anything if it is free. If someone had been switched to another brand by free equipment we would be very, very wary in attempting to switch them back by the same method. Any fool can give equipment away!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Little mixed up about noise
From the d3 nikon had a better s/n ratio than canon at high iso.

Before that no one could say that nikon was better than canon and low light situations

bronxbombers said:

One very odd statement "One of the reasons I changed to Nikon years ago was because of the noise performance. Since the change I have watched as Canon continued along the same path with noise and I was happy to stay with the D3 and then the D3s. In my opinion Nikon have always had the best noise performance from their sensors and using high ISO on a Canon sensor just rendered too much noise."

???

everyone knows that Nikon sensors used to be wayy behind, who on earth switched to Nikon from Canon to get better SNR in the early DSLR days??

maybe by early days he means D3s and later and he stuck with film for a long time??

he did talk about ugly stuff in low iso shadows, but the thing is canon still has trouble there and yet he said 1dx was perfect so....

Click to expand...

--
Life is a battle wishes aunt Titti