where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Willis said:
...
I might feel differently when I get a blue ray player, but for the Cable TV content, there isn't a lick of difference.
...
You will not see the difference, at least not from a distance, even with BR.
as for content from cable TV, well... most of the times it's 720p or 1018i
as for canon vs. nikon I also like the colors on canon pictures more, but it can be easily fixed in PP, as for noise - d3s has an acceptable (pro) IQ up to iso 25600 and that's amazing!
Johnnyapple - Booo!
i swear u guys, sometimes. . . rofl. . .
Willis - 24p is important, because it's the filmic "look" a lot of people appreciate which roots back to Muybridge. It's not a compatibility thing. When you start getting higher frame rates it looks like video (gross).
But I love video games...
alphanikonrex said:
That's why my dad claims he switched to Canon!
And that is why I believe Canon slipped into number one. The colors of the Canon photos appear more striking and appealing however the colors are wrong, way off actually, but people respond to warmer looking photos. So it appears Canon lets people see what they want to see, not what is true and accurate, and tell people what they can comprehend, more megapixels is better.
Yap you are correct, colors are wrong, are we satisfied in the output were we cant get the right things?
I DONT know why people are please with pixels and video?
how many times doe we do the print, and what size?
we can get better video in our digicam.
and what will be happened if our DSlr in the video mode?
it will affect the sensors?
There's a lot who are switching to Nikon due to accuracy of AF and lenses,
Only the things doesn't like with Nikon, too costly and the Service are not good.
alpha - as far as You can make the colors look warmer on any nikon dslr, You can't make AF work better on Canon dslr, neither You can make their glass better; so I prefer to stick to Nikon, play a little bit in PP, and have a great photo and great experience with taking it.
tiongsonf said:
Service are not good.
In LA it is with the repair center in El Segundo, If there is a problem (which I've never had) you chew someones ears out without risking a hangup call... As to the topic Nikons are made for people who just wanna shoot and argue over composition, many Canon users spend more time showing off their camera than they do using it... It's funny how Canon lowered the mpx of the mark D IV to get better ISO performance and it still sucks at the top!
kyoshinikon said:
It's funny how Canon lowered the mpx of the mark D IV to get better ISO performance and it still sucks at the top!
The camera the 1DMarkIV replaced was the 1DMarkIII which was a little over 10MPs. I believe you are confusing it with the 1DSMarkIII which is over 21MPs. The new 1DSMarkIV is due out later this year, and is supposed to have 30+ MPs.
I'll say this much... I prefer Nikon's naming scheme to Canon's any day.
+1
Just stop for a moment. A decision on a manufacturer, unless you have a large budget, is much more than just a camera body.
Twenty-five years ago I went Nikon. With a fair number of Nikon lenses, all MF, I waited to go digital until there was a body that would accept my old lenses. (Thank goodness I hadn't gone Canon).
Now I am digital, with all new lenses and my trusty D200.
Does anyone out there think there is any way that I am looking at Canon when thinking about a new body? No way.
Now I have a D3s. I don't even pay attention enough to Canon to try to figure out their spagetti plate model numbering scheme.
The bottom line is this:
If you want to get out and shoot, buy Nikon.
If you want to spend your time keeping up with a wierd numbering scheme and talk about cameras, buy Canon.
If you want to look at your cameras, buy Leica.
But i want to do all three!
Willis said:
I'll say this much... I prefer Nikon's naming scheme to Canon's any day.
I don't agree that Nikon's naming scheme is really that good aside from the 'flagship' progression of D1, D2, D3 etc. You can make 1d mark x, 5d mark x, and 7d mark x cameras into infinity and still see easily where each sits both historically and within the current lineup, whereas the Dxxx, Dxx, and Dxxxx lines will require scheme changes after D600, D900, D90, and D9000. The hierarchy of Dx > Dxxx > Dxx > Dxxxx seems like something that came about without consideration of the long term. This also holds true for Canon's lines below the 7d. Maybe the solution will be that Nikon considers using a letter other than 'D' somewhere in its lineup at some point in the future :) (aside from the 'X' and 'S' updates).
That being said, it doesn't really matter to me how Nikon decides to name their cameras as long as they keep up the quality and compatibility (an FD to EF style change would turn me away from any manufacturer).
I just hate the thought of typing 1DS Mark IV all day long.
CassiusRoads, Nikon's nomenclature has been the same for decades. It is waaay more stable than canon's has ever been. In fact i'd say it was Nikon who started the whole letter-number naming sequence before anyone else. In the past Nikon has followed the pattern of F100, F301, N6006, etc. so they've got plenty to work with. For example D700, D700S, D700X, D701, D701S, D701M, D7000, D7007 etc.
Don't forget the D750!
NikoDoby said:
CassiusRoads, Nikon's nomenclature has been the same for decades. It is waaay more stable than canon's has ever been. In fact i'd say it was Nikon who started the whole letter-number naming sequence before anyone else. In the past Nikon has followed the pattern of F100, F301, N6006, etc. so they've got plenty to work with. For example D700, D700S, D700X, D701, D701S, D701M, D7000, D7007 etc.
I do agree that Nikon's system has been more stable than other manufacturers, but I also think it could be improved. I do like being able to see where a camera fits just in its name (growing up and starting photography in the digital age I was rather confused that the F80 was newer than the F90). I would like to see something such as a D701, where the level of the camera is clear in the '7,' and there is much room for its successors (ex. 702, 703), instead of the current pattern of changing the first number to denote successors and generally signifying the level of camera with the number of zeroes that follow (the Dxxx, and Dxx lines being somewhat muddied in this sense though). The problem with this is that the change from D700 to D701 really doesn't seem to be as much of a leap as to a 'D900,' so marketing could play a big role in naming decisions. Maybe an FM, FM2 etc. style progression would be more marketable, but "DM" sounds a bit odd to me for some reason... so I don't really have a good answer, but I think that there is room for improvement in Nikon's naming scheme.
I really like the way Nikon names their cameras. It's obviously much simpler and much clearer than Canon. In fact, it's funny that this topic arose because I was just thinking what a pain Canon's names were. I think it's far more preferable to consumers to be able to actually pronounce the names of their cameras, both because it gives them a sense of knowledge and it helps them stay on track with the latest camera models available.
As for the photos . . . I am positively shocked at the overwhelming difference between the D3S and the 1D Mark IV. The D3S makes the 1D Mark IV look like a Rebel! A friend of mine, who is a total Nikon photographer just came to me and went on and on about how impressed he was about the 1D Mark IV. Maybe if I show him this comparison, he'll change his mind.
Canon doesn't have ANYTHING on Nikon with the D3S as their flagship camera. The D3S is even better-looking!
The 1DsM4 is pretty much a done deal as far as I can tell. It will have more mp than the D3X that's for sure. Just how much more is the unanswered question but the 32mp rumor is very strong.
Don't think about the MP's ... I guess 15-20 is optimal! Let's have a look at the ISO-Quality of a 30MP's Sensor! The Producers recognize that there isn't a need of high MP's, it is much more the ISO-Quality, because both types of Camera are for reportages!
Greetz!
Yes but high ISO quality is not that important for a high megapixel studio camera. The trend now is for medium format quality in a DSLR package. Just look at all the attention the Leica S2 is getting. I wouldn't call that a high ISO machine but then again for low ISO studio work or outdoor shoots its very desirable.
You must log in to post.
