Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (1)
- ggbutcher 1:57PM
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Also, this is at 2.8. I want a lens that is sharp from 1.4 - 2.0 in the 50mm + focal range. Being sharp at 2.8-8.0 is table stakes. My 20, 28 and 50mm Ais that have been in production since 1981/83 are just as sharp in this range as modern lenses, which given there small size, is why I bought them last year brand new to use for landscapes.
http://christophe-nober.photodeck.com
Nikon Canon Better Body
D7100 / 70D (Similar Spec)
D300 / 7Dmk2 (Canon)
D610 / 6D (Similar Spec)
D750 / 5Dmk3 (Canon is much better specced if these 2 can even be compared)
D810 / 5Ds (Similar Spec)
D4s / 1Dx (Similar enough Spec)
Since my hiatus it seems as if nothing has changed on Nikon's side. All of these intentionally crippled cameras as to not encroach upon the sales of another will continue to keep nikon in second place... Not one of their current fx cameras (including the Df) is without an obvious intentional cripple while Canon seems only interested in adding and fixing their products. this is why I like many nikon users I know are still holding onto their D700's
Back to the topic the 5Ds looks great but luckily this is one category I think nikon holds well in still. The D810 is a very capable body so I dont expect a 50mp+ counter from Nikon any time soon.
The 11-24mm looks very intriguing and if made, I hope it prompts nikon to make their 10mm aspherical they patented years ago.
For example
D3 = 9 fps
D700 = 5 fps
the D700 was a completely different camera to D3 and considerable cheaper
I am not sure of your point let alone your agenda kyoshinikon. The D7100 EATS the 70D all day and every day. Low light performance of the D7100 is way better, AF coverage is way better too - but lets not talk 'spec', lets talk reality - the Nikon bodies out perform (in the real world), the Canon bodies end of story. My D750 makes the 5D2's and 5D3's in my club look pretty crappy for noise and DR. I'm on the image selection committee and so get full res copies of the images to look at and they are way behind us. Not to mention that the prices don't compare too well (5D3/D750).
I wouldn't fall for the 'spec' trick if I were you. It will be interesting to read respected reviews in the coming months.
I am more interested in the real world handling. I borrowed a D750 and was more than disappointed with my experience. I found there to be too many "cripples" to the camera to make me want to drop $2500 on one. The low light is still one of Nikon's best suits and the D750's image quality was out of this world but in terms of handling and toolset it bothered me enough that I felt I was working with a D90 level of a camera.
Surprisingly enough the one feature I thought I'd hate I liked a lot. The flip screen while it wouldn't be of much use to me works very well and has a nice image. I am no longer anti flip screen.
I also like the flippy screen BTW, but it is nowhere near as good as the proper flippy screen on my old D5000. The D750's screen is no help at all with the body in portrait position.
I know I am in the minority on the D750 but I wish there was just one camera somewhat optimized for sports under $6k. I don't need 10fps or 100 frame buffer. I am just disappointed that none of the cameras other than the D4s in the lineup seem to have the 6fps min with 1/8000, large top screen, and good AF combo. The D700 does...
I may wind up with a D810 as it is a fantastic camera on its own.
I can only speak of what I know (D7100/D750):
I am not sure of your point let alone your agenda kyoshinikon. The D7100 EATS the 70D all day and every day. Low light performance of the D7100 is way better, AF coverage is way better too - but lets not talk 'spec', lets talk reality - the Nikon bodies out perform (in the real world), the Canon bodies end of story. My D750 makes the 5D2's and 5D3's in my club look pretty crappy for noise and DR. I'm on the image selection committee and so get full res copies of the images to look at and they are way behind us. Not to mention that the prices don't compare too well (5D3/D750).
I wouldn't fall for the 'spec' trick if I were you. It will be interesting to read respected reviews in the coming months.
This is something that I have been thinking about for a couple of years. A couple of years ago, I perceived that Nikon was a little ahead of Canon. I spent considerable time researching this as my investment in Nikon was mostly depreciated and changing systems would not have cost much. My perception reinforced my commitment to Nikon.
What I have since been surprised at is how long it has taken Canon to come out with answers to the D800 and D7100, especially the D800. I figured that they were slow off the mark, but would eventually leapfrog Nikon (and Nikon would leapfrog Canon in a couple of years).
So when I saw the latest 5D specs, I thought, "Canon is finally back in the game." However, now that I hear that the dynamic range is no better than the 5DM3, I am concerned about Canon. It is like Canon's President is thinking, "My god! We are falling behind Nikon and cannot catch up! But we have to do something or we are going to stop bleeding! Let's release a 50 megapixel camera."
Except that is not very impressive. Nikon could do that tomorrow just by cutting an FX sensor out of the same wafer that they are cutting the current DX sensors from. And that sensor would have about 54 megapixels. However, I think that Nikon is smart enough not to play that game.
Instead what they have done is the truly impressive achievement. 36 megapixels is awesome resolution with the best dynamic range money can buy. I cannot overstate how useful that extra dynamic range is in post. They resisted the urge to sacrifice some of this dynamic range on the alter of megapixels. They know that unless you are spending more than $6,000 on a lens, more than 36 megapixels will not be that useful. It is for this reason that I think that my D800 is the best camera ever made, except for its smartly tweaked successor, the D810.
I hope that Canon gets its act together, as we need a smart Canon with great product to keep Nikon on its toes. However, this latest camera, if the dynamic range results are what they seem to be, gives me cause to worry. I am not a Nikon fanboy. I wish Canon was twice as good as Nikon, because then my Nikon would be 25 to 50% better.
But at the end of the day, say in 10 years, all of this camera spec stuff will be forgotten, and the focus will be on lenses, where the performance really matters.
Megapixels SCHMEGapixels!! Give me a D400 damn it!
Dave
Nail in the coffin for pro DX
You may be right. However, respectfully, even if engaging a "crop mode" on a full frame body allowed me to get the same high frame rate and increased buffer that would be possible on an equivalent native DX body (which STILL hasn't happened yet mind you), Nikon would still be unwise to force all of their serious DSLR customers accept only FX bodies for pro use, for the following reasons.
(1) The DX view through an FX optical viewfinder would be cropped and more difficult to see. I can imagine someday that when you engage "crop mode" the viewfinder would automatically magnify the view so that the image in the viewfinder remained just as large (if the camera used an EVF or a hybrid EVF/OVF). But I don't think we are there yet.
For many wildlife photographers who invest in expensive heavy super telephoto lenses, the area of the frame outside DX is not used 99% of the time and only adds significant (2) SIZE/WEIGHT and (3) COST to an already heavy and expensive system without offering any more quality to the end result. The people who buy these lenses usually have more than one body and many would buy a pro DX body to complement an FX body. I might do that myself right now. But don't force me to buy a 54MP D900 for $4000 when my primary need would be better served by a leaner 24MP D400 costing less than half that amount.
If Nikon really never again offers a pro DX option, while other companies continue to surpass Nikon with their APS-C options (Canon, Pentax/Ricoh, Samsung, Fuji), Nikon will continue to slowly lose some of their best customers.
The megapixel pendulum is swinging way to one side right now. A 50 megapixel camera is equivalent to medium format film; it's a tool for poster size prints. Few of us really need or use all that "power;" not to mention the enormous files just use up storage space and slow down processing. I think someday the pendulum will swing back, and a pro DX body will appear again. But I'm not holding my breath. Nothing to do but watch it play out for now.
Dave
Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
1 10-30, 30-110
As far as colors are concerned , using Lightroom , I didn't notice any color differences using RAW files .
On my site , dare anyone say which pictures come from Nikon , Canon and so on ...
Colors essentially depend on software and operator ;-)
http://christophe-nober.photodeck.com