Who's waiting for Nikon D800 and Canon 5D-MK3 ? Releasing this FEB/MARCH?

[itznfb]

What happened to it? What are the things which you don't like?

It's just not any better than what was already out. A couple more useless megapixels... less than a 1/3 stop better ISO over the D90. The people that claim it has better ISO performance than that drank too much koolaid. This was basically confirmed when the D7000 teardown took place and revealed it actually had the old Sony sensor and not the new Nikon sensors everyone expected.
And from the ones I've tried and the people I know that own them about 60-80% of the bodies are flawed in that the images rendered just aren't sharp at all. Example, we took several bodies set them up in a test scenario and one was able to produce sharp images while the others just could not. They weren't out of focus, they just couldn't produce a sharp image. There are a lot of complaints about this and the main reason people think the Body Only boxes were only available for sale for a few minutes and then pulled, and just became available again this week.

Bottom line is Nikon most likely had a success with marketing and sold tons but I don't know a single person going from D90 to D7000 or D300s/D300 to D7000 who is happy about their purchase. If buying today I'd get a D90 over a D7000. It just doesn't offer anything over the D90 worth the extra $400-$500.

[lkiller123]

That's just too bad. One of the things that was most hyped about was the ISO - up from 6400 to a whooping 25600. You also mentioned that it used the same exact sensor as the D90, but with more pixels jammed in there. I just can't imagine how the picture will look like in ISO 25600
Some friends of mine even took the D7000 in place of their D300S. I just can't see the reason behind it. If you are talking about a D90-D7000 step up, that is a bit justified. But why D300/s "step-up?!"

Lucky for my uncle, he went from the D80 to the D7000, but returned it right away.

[itznfb]

Yea I mean as long as the D7000 you're shooting with can produce sharp images then yea it's still a great camera. But the ISO performance is no where near where it was hyped. It's not the same sensor as the D90 but it is an old Sony sensory that has been around just as long. The D3100 however does have a new Nikon designed sensor. Yea I can't see anyone that knows how to use a D300s trading it for a D7000. They are in completely different leagues. I've been seeing new in box D90's going for close to $600. Even at $800 the D90 just blows away the D7000 in price/performance as well as consistent well established performance.

I just don't think this is going to be an exciting year for Nikon. 2nd half of the year maybe. The D800 and D4 won't be anything special either. Maybe a slight bump in ISO performance. Dual card slots for the D800 hopefully. They will only be 16-18mp not the 24mp people are hoping for. Some of the nice features of the D300s will make it into the D800. Really when you look at anything created since the D3 (3 years ago now) DSLR evolution has been rather stagnant. Something significant would have to change in the overall way the DSLR functions in order to really make waves and get real photographers excited. I see the same across most forums as well. Most lifer photographers who are also gear heads have shifted their focus from cool technology in bodies to hopeful improvements in lenses and accessories.

[1ke]

Even on the D700 which I had for about a week and a half, I can say I never got a "good" picture above ISO 6400. Anything above 800 I used noise reduction in post processing to make it acceptable. I would be willing to argue that some shots just cannot be taken well without flash or lighting. I commend Nikon for really pushing the ISO, but it just doesn't work for me.

[itznfb]

Even on the D700 which I had for about a week and a half, I can say I never got a "good" picture above ISO 6400. Anything above 800 I used noise reduction in post processing to make it acceptable. I would be willing to argue that some shots just cannot be taken well without flash or lighting. I commend Nikon for really pushing the ISO, but it just doesn't work for me.

It all depends on the conditions. Anything above ISO6400 on the on the D700 is software rendered sensitivity not physical sensor sensitivity. You're basically going to get noise and washed out color no matter what. At ISO6400 though you should be able to shoot without degradation given the right lighting and exposure. I shoot quite a bit at the zoo at ISO3200 just to get 1/1000+ action shots or just when it really low light like here, this shot is straight out of camera:


In the larger version of the shot you can definitely see where the high ISO took a hit in the lower right side of the shot and especially in the shadows. If I had spent some time in post that could be cleaned up.

The only thing I'd like to see from new FX sensors is clean shadows at high ISO. I don't know if it's possible but it'd be nice to not have nice high ISO shots without blotchy noisy shadows.

[Mescalamba]

I wonder.. why is D7000 not that good as K-5. Or K-5 isnt that good?

When I saw high-ISO samples from D7000, I wondered how it could be hyped for high ISO when its pretty much same as before. D700 is really much better..

Though, DxOmark compares it normalized to 8 mpix, thats probably where that "high ISO" came from.. quite logical that if SNR is decent, higher mpix downsized to 8 mpix will be better than 12 mpix. Though, 12 vs 16 mpix is in real life almost zero difference in size. Cause even 12 vs 24 mpix isnt 100% increase. 100% increase is 48 mpix..

Reminds me, that if Sony makes decent 24 mpix APS-C in A77, there should be some visible increase in quality (though I doubt bit about high ISO they claim).

[itznfb]

Reminds me, that if Sony makes decent 24 mpix APS-C in A77, there should be some visible increase in quality (though I doubt bit about high ISO they claim).

the A77’s design includes two translucent mirrors which would merge into a single image, seventy percent of which would be piped to the electronic viewfinder while thirty percent would be siphoned off to the optical one

That doesn't make sense to me.

[tiro_uspsss]

I'm not camera tech-savy.. but will the 5D-MkIII do away with the stupid 4GB/~12min video footage limit? (oh & some kind of auto-focus during video shooting would be nice too! )

[Metric]

I'm not camera tech-savy.. but will the 5D-MkIII do away with the stupid 4GB/~12min video footage limit? (oh & some kind of auto-focus during video shooting would be nice too! )

The 4GB limit all depends on if Canon is willing to switch from the FAT32 filesystem (I guess they could always split the video into 4GB chunks, but I don't know if there's enough I/O bandwidth to do that yet - maybe DIGIC V?...)

[tiro_uspsss]

The 4GB limit all depends on if Canon is willing to switch from the FAT32 filesystem (I guess they could always split the video into 4GB chunks, but I don't know if there's enough I/O bandwidth to do that yet - maybe DIGIC V?...)

yeah I knew it had to do with FAT32.. dont see why they dont move away from it

[Metric]

yeah I knew it had to do with FAT32.. dont see why they dont move away from it

I'd imagine they would but many of the >4GB filesystems are either proprietary (ExFAT) or not "easily" readable across all OS platforms - ext3/ext4 would be great if Windows properly supported it

[tiro_uspsss]

I'd imagine they would but many of the >4GB filesystems are either proprietary (ExFAT) or not "easily" readable across all OS platforms - ext3/ext4 would be great if Windows properly supported it

I was going to suggest NTFS.. but then all the crapple users out there would whine & moan stuff 'em I say!

[1ke]

May just be that Canon doesn't hire the greatest group of programmers. I don't build cameras so I don't know how in depth that transition really is. But if the big guys aren't doing it, then you know its probably pretty difficult.

[Janno]

i'm waiting for 5d3!

...so the prices of 5d2 would drop a notch and i could upgrade in peace.

[lkiller123]

Reminds me, that if Sony makes decent 24 mpix APS-C in A77, there should be some visible increase in quality (though I doubt bit about high ISO they claim).

By the way, can someone explain to me what is a SLT(single-lens translucent) camera? What make it different from SLR (besides the obvious) and especially, the mirrorless interchangable lens cameras (such as the NEX series). What is the advantage and disadvantage between those cameras?

[itznfb]

By the way, can someone explain to me what is a SLT(single-lens translucent) camera? What make it different from SLR (besides the obvious) and especially, the mirrorless interchangable lens cameras (such as the NEX series). What is the advantage and disadvantage between those cameras?

Mirrorless is just a point and shoot with a bigger sensor and interchangeable lenses. Translucent is a 1 way mirror that doesn't need to move out of the way in order for the image to hit the sensor.

[1ke]

Pro's: EVF good for overlays, framing, previewing post processing, FPS is super high, theoretically less wear

Con's: Not analogue.

Differences not really that important for most people. I prefer optical but its what I grew up on.

[Mescalamba]

By the way, can someone explain to me what is a SLT(single-lens translucent) camera? What make it different from SLR (besides the obvious) and especially, the mirrorless interchangable lens cameras (such as the NEX series). What is the advantage and disadvantage between those cameras?

Its not that much different from SLR, just mirror is translucent (blocks around 30% of light, so its around 1/3 EV slower).

Advantage is, that it can use same AF system as regular dSLR, so it has very fast AF. Another is, that you dont need to flip up and down mirror, so it can shoot very fast (A55 has 10 FPS).

Disadvantage, well, it looses that mentioned 1/3 EV. It can sometimes show some ghosting (double lights usually). For now, its EVF only, so no OVF. Though, A77 is supposed to have hybrid OVF, which will be similar to one in Fuji X100.

Another disadvantage is, that heat from sensor and sensor stabilisation stays where it is, so A33/A55 tends to overheat when shooting video (it overheats faster when stabilisation is enabled). I guess Sony will eventually solve this in future model, anyaway A33/A55 are pioneer models, so no wonder it has some bugs. One more bug is viewfinder blacking out when you shoot 10 FPS. Its bit too much for that current EVF.

Yea and it can be slightly smaller, cause you dont need to have OVF and mirror doest need any moving mechanism. Not sure if being smaller is exactly advantage, definetly not for my hands.

Both A33/A55 are good cameras, with pretty fast AF, stabilisation in body and fast framrate. And EVF if you like that kind of stuff. If you want you can remove mirror and shoot in manual focus mode without worrying for ghosting.

[Hondacity]

feb13....

d700 prices droped to 2199.....

indicates.............new camera?

[Mescalamba]

Or indicate that others are eating sales of Nikon. Sony is currently making quite a lot of trouble to others (not mentioning that its making sensor for D7000). K-5 is very tempting even for Nikon users. I think that its quite possible that theres nothing new incoming, just Nikon needs more money.

Though they should release something new, cause they are bit loosing face now.. D7000 is in shadow of competition, compacts generaly sux, nothing to fight m4/3s or NEX. It wont kill them, but something turning attention to Nikon would definetly help them.

[Hondacity]

yep differing perspectives..

k-5....we tried the pentax..their focus system is the worst.

yep mirrorless is interesting...they're selling good.. Nex is good but i think its still limited.

[1ke]

I own an E-P1. Its just a high end P&S. If I was going to buy again, I would spend my money on the new Fuji X100. Primarily because of looks and a larger sensor. The switch from APS-C to 4/3 is noticeable. I felt like I lost a lot of control with DoF and ISO. The mirror-less system is very very good as a second camera or a high end P&S but if you are willing to sacrifice size, there are some bridge cameras that are a lot nicer than the m4/3 camera offerings.

[lkiller123]

I've also heard that the Pentax k-x offers an extremely good image quality compared even to the high ends offered by Canon and Nikon. Some claims that the image quality is comparable to the full frames.

[1ke]

It is my opinion that the increase in sensor size vs image quality is a function of diminishing returns. There is a fantastical allure to full frame that leads people to believe that they need to buy full frame in order to have top notch image quality.

[Hondacity]

I've also heard that the Pentax k-x offers an extremely good image quality compared even to the high ends offered by Canon and Nikon. Some claims that the image quality is comparable to the full frames.

k-x.

image stabilization issues...
focus tracking...