Hi All,
The new 5D mk II just anounced 21MP ISO to 25,600 priced at $2699.00.
I see a D700 price drop coming very soon! Nikon should keep hitting them out of the park. I wonder what is next. Still waiting for the D3X. I guess we see next week.

Best Regards,
Marty

>Hi All,
>The new 5D mk II just anounced 21MP ISO to 25,600 priced at
>$2699.00.
>I see a D700 price drop coming very soon! Nikon should keep
>hitting them out of the park. I wonder what is next. Still
>waiting for the D3X. I guess we see next week.
>
>Best Regards,
>Marty

I made mention of this on another site but I'm personally waiting for the D700x to come out (if it ever does) that has 1080p video capture. People thought I was nuts to even suggest such a thing, but now that Canon has dropped the other shoe I don't think that's out of the question. It'll be nice to be able to put a 500mm or 600mm lens on your camera and be able to shoot video with it.

As for the price dropping, it better be a HUGE drop to take away from the Canon market. I checked out the Canon's camera and it looks really good. I'm not sure about how well it does with low light though.

I think in the end the consumer is the winner no matter what.

>I made mention of this on another site but I'm personally
>waiting for the D700x to come out (if it ever does) that has
>1080p video capture. People thought I was nuts to even suggest
>such a thing, but now that Canon has dropped the other shoe I
>don't think that's out of the question. It'll be nice to be
>able to put a 500mm or 600mm lens on your camera and be able
>to shoot video with it.

you may like that on a dx camera better.

>As for the price dropping, it better be a HUGE drop to take away from the Canon market.

Respectfully, I disagree. The only thing I can see that the Canon has accomplished is more megapixels, at this point. That really doesn't justify a price drop for the D700, (though it would not bother me if the price came down! ).

The 5DII got a revamp of the 5D AF

Canon modded the shutter just enough to match the shutter rating of the D700

The 5DII has a lower frame rate, and gets no boost like the Nikon from the vertical grip

The 5D is feature limited, in fact, some are crippled, like the ISO auto function that will not let you set a minimum shutter speed. This is just the sort of thing a sports or event shooter wants to control, based on their own shooting technique, lens and the actual situation instead of letting the camera decide when to shift ISO.

The body itself is not the same quality and construction, ie, it has plastic sides and the moisture sealing is only partial.


Also, here is something I'd suggest the curious ought to try to determine if the Canon FF cameras have lower sensor noise and truly superior resolution - once comparative images are published on the 5DII, (Imaging Resource is the best place to go, identical scenes and very controlled lighting makes things apples to apples), take any comparable ISO image from the D3/D700, resize them in a good program like CS2/CS3 to the same pixel dimensions of a 5DII, sharpen to equivalent appearance and actually do some pixel peeping at 100% screen view. Then view them at 50% screen to get an idea of what a print would look like. I think you will be quite surprised how well the FX cameras hold up, (You can also do this right now and compare Nikon FX series images to the 1Ds Mk III at ISO 3200 - Nikon wins, IMO).

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D700/D700THMB.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DSMK3/E1DSMK3A7.HTM

Finally, one other thing to keep in mind is that the jump from 12 to 21 is nowhere near twice the resolution and it shows in the comparison I suggest. It would take a 48 megapixel sensor to double the resolution of the current FX series cameras. Also a 21 megapixel 16 bit tiff, (I keep all my final files in a 16 bit TIFF format, which is why that means something to me - YMMV), is going to take up considerably more disk space, more memory during processing and eat more CPU cycles to process an image.

I'm not all that wild about these high megapixel cameras as you can probably tell by this point.

""

"12 to 21 is nowhere near twice the resolution" - 4,256 x 2,832 vs. 5616 x 3744 pixels. There is also a 14.8MB (3861 x 2574 pixels) setting on the 5D mk II if you want smaller files.

Let's wait for noise comparison but for me the big difference in feature is: 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080p HD) Video @ 30fps.

Cheaper D700 or new D800 soon?

>4,256 x 2,832 vs. 5616 x 3744 pixels

That looks correct on the pixel dimensions but I will say that there is not the huge advantage that one may think for the average, non-wall size print that most photographers make. I'd bet I could take images from a D700 and 5D II, print them at 16x24 and a person would be hard pressed to tell the difference without being told which camera made it.

>Let's wait for noise comparison

You don't have to unless you just want to. Did you try my comparison between the D3 and 1DS with the links I posted? Just curious. I've done it with the ISO 3200, (highest the 1Ds can do without ISO boost)and even just with the jpegs posted, (I imagine the RAW files would make it a better comparison), the D3 images are cleaner and have equivalent detail when sized to 5616 x 3744 and properly sharpened.

>the big difference in feature is: 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080p HD) Video @ 30fps.

I agree, like the D90, the 5D II video is quite interesting and means more sophisticated video integration coming on the next couple rounds of cameras. While what I've read so far indicates that the 5D II has a more sophisticated implementation of video, (at 2.7 times the body price), I think it is impressive that Nikon has a prosumer camera as their intial offering. More to come I'm sure!

""

"Did you try my comparison between the D3 and 1DS" (noise) - I think we will have to wait as per dpreview "EOS 5D Mark II... new sensor is said to be based on that of the EOS-1Ds Mark III (indeed it has exactly the same pixel count) but has several small changes, the hint being that it's actually slightly better".

The native ISO for the 5D Mark II is 100-6400 while for the EOS-1Ds Mark III it's 100-1600 so there must be some differences in noise performances.

I agree that 12 MP is already quite large for most applications but don't forget the ability to crop & still have plenty of pixels to work with.

>The native ISO for the 5D Mark II is 100-6400 while for the EOS-1Ds Mark III it's 100-1600 so there must be some differences in noise performances.

Good point, the 3200 is an ISO boost.

BTW, we should probably take this sort of discussion of Canon gear to a different thread in the other camera systems forum.

""

Maybe the thread is in the right forum for a user in the market for a camera in the D700 segment & looking for info's & opinions.

Talking about the features & performances horse race with a similar priced Canon product & if it may affect the pricing of the D700 or force Nikon to bring out a new product with more features sooner than later or not surely helps making a decision: buy now, wait for price drop (if any) or wait for a replacement (for how long?).

The video thing in DSLR's was introduced with the D90 so it seems logical to discuss if it's useful or not & if it will be added to a D700 replacement or not.

I never visit "the other camera systems forum" & this thread is useful to me. Don't we compare with other products all the time when we talk about gear?

Jacques,

Just my opinion, but this thread now has little to do with the D700 and more to do with the 5D II. After all, there is no comparing "video" capabilities between the cameras, is there??

I've bumped it up to others on the moderator team for their thoughts.

""

it's rather unfair to want to benchmark the MkII against the D700 when there is no MkII available to take both cameras side by side through the race in a controlled environment.

I don't see why you would want video on a camera. Thats what camcorders are for. Besides, how in the world will you keep the focus on the subjects or subject without seeing the transition during playback. You would almost have to manually focus.
This feature to me is useless, it doesn't make any sense, even at weddings. Instead of developing this, use the development $$$ to use for upgrades that need be, and keep the DSLR Cameras, like film cameras or better yet. a SLR the way it was intended to be. Keep the video end out of it.
Just my II sense worth.

Back in the day it was a fight to the death with the martial art of your choice...

Now it's a fight to the marketplace with DSLR bodies and features. A tad more civil, and yet still exciting for us photographers!

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I like the 21Mp on the Canon, it helps on switching to DX.

Other then that; I think what will be next is a firmware upgrade of the D700 to include Video. And then at 24 frames, not the weird 30 frames since that's really missing the boat.

720p@24 is great.

A

-----------------------

>
>
>
>I like the 21Mp on the Canon, it helps on switching to DX.
>
>Other then that; I think what will be next is a firmware
>upgrade of the D700 to include Video. And then at 24 frames,
>not the weird 30 frames since that's really missing the boat.
>
>720p@24 is great.
>
>A


you can't do dx on canon.
canon has sraw which is different. you can't use dx lenses.

I know, but you can crop it

-----------------------

The 5D mkII looks like a very compelling camera. Consider that the body and a good zoom would only be a few hundred dollars more than a D700. And for me, my D3 purchase is on hold.

Vis1

www.interfacevisual.com

>The 5D mkII looks like a very compelling camera. Consider
>that the body and a good zoom would only be a few hundred
>dollars more than a D700. And for me, my D3 purchase is on
>hold.
>
>Vis1

I'm very excited with 5D mkII. It looks exactly like the missing camera in my bag. The only thing I'm waiting to see is some hands on reviews on image quality. If its IQ is as good as 5D or D700 on low ISO (I never shoot high ISO pictures, and never shoot sports), it will certainly be my next camera. True ISO 100 is another bonus point for me.

One other advantage with Canon is that the software comes with the camera and you have to pay for NX2 for Nikon. BTW, the new 15mm 1.4 looks good, too.

I am amazed at the number of people who apparently have the disposable income to switch from Nikon to Canon or vice versa with each new incremental change in bodies. None of the changes seem to have been game-changing (although the high ISO performance of the D700 is close for some things; I shot an amateur hockey tournament (translate - poorly lighted rinks) this weekend with my D700 at ISO 6400 and was amazed at the pictures. With my D300 I was using ISO 1600, and the pictures were not as good as the D700's. The two extra stops make a huge difference with respect to shutter speed, and DOF.)

However, as I was saying, since my collection of lenses would cost upwards of $6000 to replace, and none are usable on Canon - no matter how excited I got, I certainly would find it hard to switch to Canon.

On the other hand, I have resisted any temptation on upgrading my digital body (Nikon D70) through the years, and have 5 lenses. Upgrading to D700 requires to replace 3 of them to take full advantage of FX. If going with 5D2, I can start with the body and one lenses and build the system over time, and the same is true if going with D700. Either upgrade is painful and expensive. Going with 5D2 is not as bad as it seem.

I actually doubt the D700 price will drop significantly, if at all, because the cameras are quite different and the D700 is still quite a compelling option for most people at a great price point. The only thing the 5D2 will do is stop a few of the Canon folk switching to the D700 or Nikon, but if you need a full frame body with pro AF and high fps the D700 is still the best option at that price point. I think at the high end of the market Nikon will win some converts with the D3x if it's 24MP in a pro body. Time will tell.

If you really NEED 21MP then the 5D2 is a great option, but Nikon probably have a similar spec'd camera in the works.

Cheers
Leigh

My Nikonians Gallery

The HD Video feature of the 5Dmk2 is what I am exited about. It is just what I have waited Nikon to offer (full HD). Most likely Nikon has a new camera under development to match 5Dmk2 but I guess that many DX-lens owners will switch to 5Dmk2 intead of D700/D3 since in both switches you would have to buy new lenses anyway.

If the ISO performance wouldn't be the most important feature for me, I would order 5Dmk2 immediately.

Spor Squirrel







Camera: Nikon D200, D70, SB-800, SB-600, 50 1.8, 18-70, 70-300G, Sigma 70-200, Sigma 30 1.4, Tokina 12-24..

The new D90 has video if Nikon users really need this option. I think most consumer models released by Nikon and Canon in the future will probably have this feature as standard anyway.

DX owners can use their lenses on the D700/D3 if they want to in crop mode. I doubt many DX only users could afford to switch systems and if they want to go full frame most would go with the D700 since it would be an easier transition for them. If they really need more MP's then they will certainly look at the 5D2, but they probably figure a Nikon equivalent is not far away so most will hold off.

The high ISO samples from the 5D2 look very good and I doubt there will be any noticeable difference in noise between D3/D700 & 5D2 prints of the same size.

Looks like you will be getting a 5D2 then

Cheers
Leigh

My Nikonians Gallery

In my mind Nikon D90 has not acceptable video. 5D2 most likely will have video good enough to motivate users.

If 5D2 will match D700 in ISO,then I might switch to 5D2 and many others too. But since D700 is in shops now and 5D2 is a future promise, it is fair to hold and wait Nikon's anwer. D700 firmware update or a new camera... something Nikon will announce soon, because 5D2 will be cheaper camera with better features and will win marketshare from Nikon if Nikon does not announce a new camera.

Worstcase scenario is that Nikon will sink because of video feature. Canon has a history with videocameras, Sony too, but Nikon does not.

The bright side is that if Nikon will win videocamera users to Nikon, they will grow a lot.

Sport Squirel




Camera: Nikon D200, D70, SB-800, SB-600, 50 1.8, 18-70, 70-300G, Sigma 70-200, Sigma 30 1.4, Tokina 12-24..

>If 5D2 will match D700 in ISO,then I might switch to 5D2 and
>many others too. But since D700 is in shops now and 5D2 is a
>future promise, it is fair to hold and wait Nikon's anwer.
>D700 firmware update or a new camera... something Nikon will
>announce soon, because 5D2 will be cheaper camera with better
>features and will win marketshare from Nikon if Nikon does not
>announce a new camera.
>
>Sport Squirel

The only 2 real "better" features are the 21MP and video function, and some can even debate whether or not 21MP is better heh. IMO D700 is better with pro AF, better body, built-in flash/commander mode, faster FPS.

I think a lot of us were confused when the D700 was announced, why take away from D3 sales Nikon? But now with the 5D2 and seeing its specs and Canon's current lineup, I have to say I like the philosophy of Nikon better. The 5D2 doesn't have it "all", when it very well could, the 21MP, high ISO performance, pro AF, 100% VF, complete weather sealed body. But they reserve some of those features for the 1D series to protect the $$$. While Nikon gives us a ton of D3 features in the D700. A lot of people will still buy the D3 for longer shutter life, 2 CF cards, pro-body, 100% VF. And I think it's nice to have the D700 as an option too without skimping on important features.

David Wong | D3/D300 | NY Nikonian
www.dmstudio.com

I've done some videography in the past and knowing what I know, I'm still hesitant to get too excited about the video capability in these cameras (5D Mark II and D90) for a few reasons.

I'm really excited about the potential of shooting high quality video with depth of fields similar to film or SLR cameras. But that's about where it stops. What about autofocus? Does it work like a dedicated video camera does? What about microphone input capabilities? As far as I know, there are none.

This would be a great tool to capture relatively stationary video clips with no sound, but other than that - I don't know what I'd do with it.

HOWEVER, all that being said - we're definitely moving in a cool, new direction. It may be one day that videography and photography are more along the same lines than they are now.

Jason

Maybe I'm out of touch but I usually want to just capture photos. The more electronic stuff in a camera the more to go wrong. Why is the video capture that important?
Also, when I'm photographing wildlife I want a faster fps. The 5D isn't even at 4 from what I'm reading. The D700 can be boosted to 8 fps.
The auto focus system on the CANON Mark III was really bad (I know I used 3 different bodies that CANON customer service kept telling me were defective and to try a different one). The 40D auto focus has some of the same problems (the 30D didn't seem to have the problem).
If the 5D has the same sensor or auto focus system (the 50D does) then will the problems be transfered to those cameras as well?
I realize that there are different software adjustments but ...

Like I said maybe I'm out of touch. The camera I liked the most was my PENTAX spotmatic that was all manual.

"capture relatively stationary video clips with no sound" - From the Canon EOS 5D Mark II preview by Rob Galbraith:

- 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080p HD) @ 30fps
- Auto WB
- Autofocus during shooting (slow contrast detect type)
- capture a full still photo during shooting video & clip resume automatically after
- external stereo mic jack

We can probably expect similar features on the D400, D800 & D4's...

Why do people resist the addition of the video feature? After all Live View is already a video, the change is just capturing it.

Maybe you did not notice but multimedia is a big thing on the web. On-line newspapers like the NYT for example also have some videos.

If you are way out there with all your heavy long lens gear & tripod, pressing a few buttons & capture a complimentary video to your stills will have no applications at all on news, tourism, ecotourism or adventure travel websites?

What about shooting stills during a family event but to be able to also add a clip or 2 to your memories or in your DVD or slide show? What about capturing some usable frames @ 1920 x 1080 pixels?

Does the 30 fps translate to photograph capture? Can you take individual frames from the video capture for photographs?
Otherwise - at less than 4 fps it doesn't come close to D700.
I am assuming that is why you quoted the specs.
I really just want to know -

I shoot both CANON and NIKON so don't have favorite just want good camera

"Can you take individual frames from the video capture for photographs?" - why not, they are non-interlaced .mov's. They don't replace full stills but are quite usable on the web or for small prints.

Edited to add HDMI still capture (1920 x 1080 pixels):

You can download full size (276 & 228 mb!) .mov clips shot with the 5D Mark II on the bottom of the page here.

I don't want to switch to Canon, I want new Nikon bodies asap as I hate to have to carry also a Handycam when my priority is stills but video could be useful & I don't want to downgrade to the D90.

>Why do people resist the addition of the video feature? After
>all Live View is already a video, the change is just capturing
>it.
>
>Maybe you did not notice but multimedia is a big thing on the
>web. On-line newspapers like the NYT for example also have
>some videos.

Yes, we noticed. But we prefer to shoot video with 3-chip cameras. I have a still photo feature on a prosumer handycam. I never use it.

It's a bit like a box of Cracker Jacks with a free toy.

Perhaps it will be useful for some people reading this thread. I hope they enjoy it. But it's unlikely to be a motivation for me to buy a particular camera. When I want video, I'll pull out my video camera.

-----
reader
Gallery

I am with you on this concept. We are heading in the direction of "jack of all trades, master of none." Look ma, ah can take movies with ma piktur camera! This is a selling point that will play well in Wal-Mart. That being said, I think that we all know that Canon has always been about the marketing and Nikon has always been about the engineering. I expect before long, Canon will add the ability to play music, movies and surf the web to their product. You might even be able to make a phone call while capturing those once in a lifetime videos of the new puppy peeing on the rug.
I would rather see R&D improving still capability so that the original poster can make the landscape photos he is seeking without dropping forty grand.

The bottom line is this:

If a photographer can't capture a beautiful image with an excellent camera like the D700, switching to Canon isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Both brands have great bodies and lenses. It's up to the user to take full advantage of what each system offers.....

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

That bottom line applies to every new body-du-jour :
my new BigBlackCamera and its effect on my photography.

>The bottom line is this:
>
>If a photographer can't capture a beautiful image with an
>excellent camera like the D700, switching to Canon isn't going
>to make a bit of difference.
>
>Both brands have great bodies and lenses. It's up to the user
>to take full advantage of what each system offers.....
>
>

Same logic applied: if you can't capture a beautiful image wit an excellent camera like the D70, upgrading to D700 isn't going to make a bit of difference. Both bodies are great bodies and can use the same lenses. It's up to the user to take full advantage of what each camera offers....

Time to stay with D70, anyone?

We are talking about art, creativity & vision. The latest & the newest body will not revolutionize your photography.

There is plenty of great D70 shots & plenty of D700 bad ones out there, just run a search on flickr.

>We are talking about art, creativity & vision. The latest
>& the newest body will not revolutionize your
>photography.
>
>There is plenty of great D70 shots & plenty of D700 bad
>ones out there, just run a search on flickr.

That is exactly my point and I agreed with the original post. The most important part of photography is the person behind the camera, not the camera itself.

I have seen plenty of bad photos from friends and co-workers whom keep upgrading their cameras to the latest-and-greatest bodies, keep using the cheapest cheapo lenses and shooting in programmed modes. Even in programmed modes, some pictures didn't have the correct exposure or focus on the subject. They could have been better off with a $200 P&S. Of course still have to same something nice... about the camera.

That line is much thinner between the D700 and 5D than the D70 and D700!

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

But the logic applies, though. If a person couldn't make good pictures with a D70 (or any other models), D700 won't help a bit and there is no point to upgrade.

You are correct. If one can't make good pictures with their current camera, no reason to upgrade!

However, if one is limited by a missing feature/function on their current body, upgrading might be warranted. Or, if one simply has lots of expendable income, upgrade away.........

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

There is some truth to this, if you are shooting nice simple landscapes, with good lighting. Good composition, and technique will allow a good photographer to make a great photo with a D70, while someone without skills will produce poor work even with a D700. But put the skilled photographer in a poorly lit ice rink, shooting youth hockey, or many other similar situations, and they will get much better shots with the D700, while the work with the D70 will border on unusable.

The logic is clear. I can take great pictures with "what ever" camera, but I want to have as good camera that I can afford to and I am willing to carry with me. I also want to shoot videos!

I have got used to the idea that my "point and shoot" -camera can shoot still and video. All my mobile phones can shoot video and still, my video camera can shoot still and video. But my SLRs... they shoot only stills.

This will change eventually as it has allready changed "point and shoot" -cameras and mobile phones. The change has started in the forms of D90 and 5D2. I expect that in near future there will be only SLRs with still and video capabilities.

The demand for videos is clear. Have you ever heard of device like Television (streaming video) or services like Youtube (videos)

Still pictures have been dominated the world of visual multimedia but that's only because the technology haven't been good and economical for videos. Now it is!

Sport Squirrel


Camera: Nikon D200, D70, SB-800, SB-600, 50 1.8, 18-70, 70-300G, Sigma 70-200, Sigma 30 1.4, Tokina 12-24..

>I have got used to the idea that my "point and
>shoot" -camera can shoot still and video. All my mobile
>phones can shoot video and still, my video camera can shoot
>still and video. But my SLRs... they shoot only stills.

that's exactly why mobile phones still have pretty lousy communication quality. too many gadgets (and thus budget) packed into the box while totally neglecting the primary function of the device. it's amazing how lousy the communication quality is still today even on the most expensive devices.

I am not that keen to see the same development in DSLRs. I hope they will at least be smart enough to offer alternatives w/o Video.

>I see a D700 price drop coming very soon! Nikon should keep
>hitting them out of the park.

the fact that Canon did not react (although having the MkII in their pocket) as Nikon announced the D700 is for me an indicator that there is not much migration between the brands in this market segment.

as soon as you have a nice collection of glass, the cost of changing brand is high.

ISO is better or same than on D3 or D700:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/2868119820/

And you must know that this is 21mpix camera , Nikon have 12mpix sensor.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

Noise reduction can be from:

1. better sensors giving better s/n ratio
2. oversampling from more powerful DSP and ADC
3. more processing from DSP engine.

The next generation of any cameras from Nikon or Canon will have at least better 2 and better 3, which mean will have better noise performance. This time, Canon may have leapfrogged Nikon, until the next time.

I'm not sure how you can tell that the 5D MkIII is better or worse than the D3/D700 from the evidence of one shot from the Canon with no comparative shots from either Nikon.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Just looked at shots on DP Review of the new 5D II up to ISO 25600. I'm very impressed. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092001canoneos5dmarkiigallery.asp

I think that the 21mp 5D II is great up to ISO 3200. It would be more than adequate for most photographic applications. Of course, there are too many color specks as ISO goes higher.

Kudos to Canon. Nikon has yet to show a big MP camera!

Best Regards

Jim

impressed? in a way i guess. iso 3200 is ok.
but 90% don't look like 21mp, they're soft at f/5.6-f/8

and this one
a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/originals/img_0453.jpg

shows a strong sharpening halo around black letters on white.
ooops...

check the 5D's samples at imaging-resource.com
they display a similar strong sharpening on any edge with a white background. i thought they were going to skip this processing on 5dmk2 but it seems they never will.

my first bet is that L lenses can't resolve 21mp. maybe they should try a 14-24
second guess is that the AA filter is strong or the in-camera processing in order to get high iso does something to the sharpness.

but Phil thinks "They're just so unreal". gotta love advertising on forums.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=29403893&page=5

http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/09/20/canon-5d-mk2-high-iso-pictures/

not sharp either
i'm thinking not many 5d owners will upgrade quickly to 5dmk2.
you have to resize to get sharp, maybe at 5d's res. so even if the noise is ok you can't print soft images at full 21mp. 5dmk2 is a contradiction, 21mp but not 21mp. my opinion.

In comparing the D3 and 5D-M2 base ISO photos on DPreview I much prefer the color rendition and detail of the D3 to the 5Dm2. The Canon seems overprocessed, which is one reason I prefer Nikon.

(Competition is great for driving innovation.)


Don

Canon is notorious for in-camera processing for getting printable images out of the camera. Nikon typically uses much less aggressive processing in-camera at the default settings, choosing to leave the aggressive stuff to the photographer in post-processing.

The D700 and D3 are highly tweakable, and you can set them up to get the images you want out of the camera. (Very saturated and sharp, if that's the look you like.)

With proper post-processing, there most likely won't be much difference between the final product from a 5D MKII and D700/D3.

Granted, this is purely speculation.

Vice versa, the 5D could be tweaked so that image processing is less-aggressive in-camera.

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Sorin,

Thanks for the link. The final images, comparing different ISO settings with neutral colors is telling.

The ISO 800 image retains superb detail.

By ISO 1000, the image has lost a lot of detail, and has become soft with processing. (Probably just aggressive settings in-camera that can be turned off at the expense of a cleaner image straight out of the camera.)


At ISO 1600 there is no more 'sparkle in the eye'. The details are all pretty soft. Still a very useable image, and one which could be printed large enough to look good on anyone's wall!

The competition will certainly benefit both camps, as if it hasn't already!

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/09/20/canon-5d-mk2-high-iso-pictures/
>
>not sharp either
>i'm thinking not many 5d owners will upgrade quickly to
>5dmk2.
>you have to resize to get sharp, maybe at 5d's res. so even if
>the noise is ok you can't print soft images at full 21mp.
>5dmk2 is a contradiction, 21mp but not 21mp. my opinion.

please post me better high iso samples from d3 or d700.

do some sharpening with this 5d samples and woolla...sharp.

i really like this new sensor form Canon.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

I think we should bear in mind that this is a 21mp file, and we are used to 12mp.

Best Regards

Jim

>please post me better high iso samples from d3 or d700.
This is a challenge as nobody has done official tests of the 5D II as yet
This aside because of the way optics work the 50% extra MP (the difference between 5D and II) is about 15% extra on a monitor - which is useful but not "mega".
What is likely to be important is subtle gradation of tones - which are better with medium format film than 35mm film despite little difference in resolution.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

Len,

I would think that the horizontal pixels would be @22% more than the D700 and @19% more than 5D?

Best Regards

Jim

>I would think that the horizontal pixels would be @22% more than the D700 and @19% more than 5D?
Yes - however it often gets overlooked that if a sensor resolves 100 lpm in isolation and a lens in isolation resolves 100 lpm because of the way physics work the output in a print or on a monitor when lens and sensor are combined is 50 lpm.
With this in mind your 22% and 19% imply resolution increases of 11% and 9.5% in a print or on a monitor.
An important factor is camera processing efficiency - not just MP count.
The modest 2 MP difference between D200 and D300 is far too small in isolation to account for large the "real word" resolution increase.
I have assumed Canon have improved sensor efficiency as well as MP count - making 15% "about right" pending detailed test reviews becoming readily available.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>The modest 2 MP difference between D200 and D300 is far too
>small in isolation to account for large the "real
>word" resolution increase.
>I have assumed Canon have improved sensor efficiency as well
>as MP count - making 15% "about right" pending
>detailed test reviews becoming readily available.

I would assume that in the future, better sensor efficiency would squeeze even more out of the the difference in pixels.

Best Regards

Jim

>>I would think that the horizontal pixels would be @22%
>more than the D700 and @19% more than 5D?
>Yes - however it often gets overlooked that if a sensor
>resolves 100 lpm in isolation and a lens in isolation resolves
>100 lpm because of the way physics work the output in a print
>or on a monitor when lens and sensor are combined is 50 lpm.
>With this in mind your 22% and 19% imply resolution increases
>of 11% and 9.5% in a print or on a monitor.
>An important factor is camera processing efficiency - not just
>MP count.
>The modest 2 MP difference between D200 and D300 is far too
>small in isolation to account for large the "real
>word" resolution increase.
>I have assumed Canon have improved sensor efficiency as well
>as MP count - making 15% "about right" pending
>detailed test reviews becoming readily available.

So what are you trying to say is that we will not see 12mpix vs. 21mpix difference on prints???? hm...

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>So what are you trying to say is that we will not see 12mpix vs. 21mpix difference on prints???? hm...
What I am saying is the difference in RESOLUTION is modest.
With modern software the D3/700/300 have enough resolution for a good 10x8 inch print from 25% of the captured image - the 5D II should have enough resolution for about 12x10 inch print - useful but not significant.
When it comes to fine detail more MP wins for the same reason as medium format film beats 35mm despite little or no extra resolution.
Bear in mind most digital projectors deliver less than 1 MP equivalent, and the just announced Leica digital projector that costs about the same as a D3 plus 70-200 plus 600 VR is only about 2.2 MP equivalent.
The new Leica S camera system has rocked Photokina with a 30x45mm Kodak 37 MP sensor in a body smaller than a D3
OK it needs a new range of lenses.
If the "hints" about 9 Nikon SX lenses turn out to be true Nikon could soon launch a similar system. If they do the new lenses are likely to work with Nikon F mount via an adapter

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

Len

Please can you tell us what SX format is? Thanks.

Richard

>please post me better high iso samples from d3 or d700.
>
>do some sharpening with this 5d samples and woolla...sharp.
>
>i really like this new sensor form Canon.
>

looking at sharpness you can expect very similar sharpness out of 12mp upsized to 18-21 with fractal or sspline. high iso would be better too. this is no joke.

you can also apply sharpening on 12mp. that's not a good point.

when you advertise a camera at 21mp you better deliver 21mp.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

wait for imaging-resource's samples for 5dmk2. then you can switch, you've been thinking for a long time.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

but a900 has even more mp and looks good as sharpness. zeiss seems to make better lenses than canon and for 21mp you need really really good lenses. for that reason alone a900 is more attractive. and that may be the reason for the new ZE series lenses too. L-s not good enough. upgrading to 5dmk2 will require 5d owners to check all lenses for sharpness and eventually change them to zeiss, nikkor or specific L models.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml

http://dpnow.com/5166b.html

images.dpnow.com/5166/samples/DSC00053.JPG
what do you think about 24mp now?

>
>what do you think about 24mp now?

Not much actually, at least in several of these Sony a900 samples. This one in particular shows sharpening artifacts (look at the sideburns and the rim of the glasses) and terrible moire on the front edge of the hat brim. All this despite the low compression JPEG setting claimed by the reviewer? Technicall, it's a lousy example. If this is the best that the a900 can do shooting JPEG, it's a write off compared to even the diminutive Nikon D40 or Canon XT. A moire instead of the texture of the haberdashery material? There is no world or plane of existence in which I have the endless hours to spend post-processing 20+ mp images just to get what comes out of a D40 without any post-processing.

Sony doesn't get it . . . yet. Sony does video brilliantly and has done so for decades. But Sony still doesn't understand still photography the way Nikon does.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

That the 5D Mk II is a very good camera should not be beyond dispute - though whether the extra MP translates into much more than 15% extra resolution over the D700 remains to be seen.
"Nobody" talks much about other image quality factors such as ability to respond to subtle variations in tone - where the 5D should do better than the D700 in much the same way as medium format film does better than 35mm film despite no obvious resolution increase.
That the a900 is on paper an even better camera than the 5D II because of more MP and in camera shake control should not be in dispute, though the UK importers readily accept it does not match Nikon or Canon when it comes to pro grade long or macro lenses or lenses like Nikon's 24-70 and 24-70.
That the 5D and D700 are not targeted at the same markets is obvious from the specification.
Right now around the $2,500 budget for landscapes I would put the a900 first and 5D II second, but for many different subjects other camera are better.
The 5D II is not available for a couple of months, by which time Nikon may have announced a 24 MP FX body.
Digressing the D3 and D700 take good quality A2 pictures at 6400 ISO - and have not stopped doing so because Canon have announced an as yet generally untested new product.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

>Digressing the D3 and D700 take good quality A2 pictures at
>6400 ISO - and have not stopped doing so because Canon have
>announced an as yet generally untested new product.

I really want a FX camera. I put money off to get D700 , but know when 5D II is announced I think that D700 is over priced not only because of less mpix but also because not having video for example , not that I need one but it is always nice to have it just in "what if" scenario.

What I'm "worried" about is not enought resolution in D700 camera in case If I make crops etc.

What do you think about that Len , having "just" 12 because know we saw that noise control is very good at 21mpix - it can be done.

I'm not sure how is with colors , DR, etc..

Kind regards,
Cayzi

"What I'm "worried" about is not enough resolution in D700 camera in case If I make crops" - your profile says that you have a D300. Do you feel the image it produces are large enough for your cropping needs?

D300 maximum image size: 4288 x 2848 pixels, D700: 4256 x 2832 pixels.

>"What I'm "worried" about is not enough
>resolution in D700 camera in case If I make crops" - your
>profile says that you have a D300. Do you feel the image it
>produces are large enough for your cropping needs?
>
>D300 maximum image size: 4288 x 2848 pixels, D700: 4256 x 2832
>pixels.

True. I'm in process of buying D700.

With D300 I get more focal l because of crop factor.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

it will be very difficult to find the right product as long as you do not tackle down your needs. and it is even more difficult if you chase "nice to haves". because those pop up every second day in another place...

What is more important for photographer the Virtual horizon indicates in Nikon D700 or capturing video in canon 5DII?


Nikon D100
nikon 24-85mm 2.8/4 macro _ Nikon SB28 _ Velbon tripod CX-640
MINOLTA Dynax 7000
Minolta 35-70mm 4 macro _ sigma 18mm 4 _ sigma 400mm 5.6 _ achiever 300

Renowned (Pulitzer Prize-winning) photographer Vincent Laforet managed to get his hands on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and seems to be pretty impressed with the results, "...what you can see with you eye in the worst light (such as sodium-vapor street lights at 3 a.m. in Brooklyn) - this camera can capture it with ease." However he seems even more impressed with the Mark II's video capture, "It produces the best video in low light that I’ve ever seen - at 1080p". There are a few downsampled images on his site but perhaps of more interest to many is the fact that Vincent is planning to publish a video produced using the 5D Mark II, we'll update this article once it's live.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092101vincentlaforeteos5dmkii.asp

Best Regards

Jim

he may be an award winning photographer but he said on his blog that $100k cameras are not better than 5dmk2. and also Red isn't performing as good as 5d.

that doesn't sound professional at all. and even more now that we've seen video samples on the web at full res. it's not like it's a secret anymore how 5d's video looks like.

here's the latest sample i've found
http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2008/09/21/547601.html

"it's not like it's a secret anymore how 5d's video looks like."

The issue isn't about the quality of the video/audio etc. These are early days. The point is about how a camera can be used in the new world.

There is convergence between the different disciplines of still photography and moving pictures. Today, you already have cheap software that allows you to create a video by combining photos and movies.

Tomorrow, you can shoot everything on a single camera in a seamless manner. And, display it as a slideshow immediately. The press and wedding photographers will love it.

You have a choice of a video rig with still capture, or a still camera with video capture. Isn't life great?

Best Regards

Jim

>he may be an award winning photographer but he said on his
>blog that $100k cameras are not better than 5dmk2. and also
>Red isn't performing as good as 5d.
>
>that doesn't sound professional at all.

He didn't say that. He said a colleague - described as "a top commercial film editor who regularly edits RED camera footage" who had seen the raw footage from the 5D Mark2 had said the 5D Mark2 is "far superior to the RED camera” in terms of low light performance. It was a very specific comment from someone else about one topic - low light performance. Read it yourself.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/

Until this camera is available and many people can give their own opinions, I will give A LOT more weight to the opinion of a first-rate, experienced, respected pro who has actually used a pre-production camera for a several days - including during a helicopter flight and a shoot using "two models, three assistants, a co-director, one editor, and one makeup artist" - over armchair speculation and conjecture based on a spec sheet and a couple of stray files located on the internet.

Vincent freely admits he had "never shot a film before - of any kind - in my life" but that's what makes his opinion interesting. He is analyzing the video quality from the perspective of a still photographer who needs portability, which is the position of many professionals who are going to use this camera. Michael Mann is not going to shoot his next movie with the 5D Mark2. Annie Leibowitz isn't going to use this camera for her next lavishly funded and equipped Vanity Fair portraits. But a still photographer who is moving around and doesn't have the time or means to haul a truckload of supporting equipment can maybe now shoot videos in situations and locations and with subjects who may have been uncomfortable with the presence of traditional equipment. That's what has Vincent so excited.

If only this guy wouldn't be on Canons payroll, I would be inclined to take his story more seriously. He is not independent and he is certainly not objective. Let's wait and hope that it is any bit as good as he says it is.