Wow!!! Canon sure did leapfrog Nikon

[david choo]

Steve has a valid point. The 1D mark II's 1/250th flash sync max is painful for many sports shooters... my friends who shoot sports for a living are so used to shooting at 1/500th say they're not moving to the mark II.

 

I look at the 1D mark II as the Digital 3. =)

[john_adams9]

Steven Steiner,

 

How in the world do you get that film has a resolution of about 18MB?

 

I might give slow slide speeds a comparable rating of 8MB and thats it if we are comapring 35 mm.

 

Film vs digital is about the same. They both transmit analog information that is stored on either square pixels or irregular shaped film grain. The data is processed by the A/D (analog to digital) converter which you may refer to as After the Death (A/D) of Film.

 

I have three film cameras and the Canon D60 with the 6.3MB sensor. The digital camera is far better at ISO 800 vs film at ISO 800. The film cameras are about comparable at ISO 100 in my opinion which is not studied since I rarely shoot with 100.

 

Not a scientific analysis but it is my experience and my Canon D60 tells me that it has harvested over 11,000 images now.

 

But I do believe that film cameras have superior metering systems and that is very important. I spend a lot of time at Photoshop "fixing" improperly exposed images. Mostly due to the fact that lighting is frequently poor.

[Spearhead]

Who cares what's in space? I'm not shooting there, have no plans to go, and don't expect to be asked to go. My requirements are completely different than NASA's, as, I'm sure, are those of everyone else on this post.

[scott_eaton]

The problem here is that Canon has much greater production control over their sensors than Nikon does, who I believe relies on Sony. Since it's obvious to anybody that these machines are basically built around their sensors it's no wonder Nikon has not had such smooth sailing. It's obvious Nikon has not transitioned as well to digital from film based SLRs as well as Canon has.

 

My own view is that pro-sumer digital cameras like the Rebel and D70 will become the real cameras of popularity and help keep things moving in the digital industry. Much like advanced amatuer SLR's kept film SLR sales alive like the AE-1, T90, FE/FA/FM2, etc. All I can say is it's about time since I find smaller sensor cameras regardless of resolution to have dramatically inferiour image quality and ergonomics than these latest full dSLRs.

 

Strong agreement with John's assesment of film/megapixel ratios. I'd rather see more R&D put into more dynamic range and improved noise ratios than more resolution.

[andrew robertson]

Kelvin, don't hold your breath. Nikon has pretty much shown everyone that it plans to

stick to 1.5x sensor cameras for a while, or else they wouldn't be offering $1000+ lenses

for it.

 

Nikon has to achieve several things before they can claim they've caught up with Canon.

 

1. Full frame DSLR. People have been moving to Canon in DROVES because of this.

 

2. High resolution sensor. Nikon's current highest resolution sensor in 6 megapixels.

Canon has doubled this.

 

3. Show a commitment to R&D. Nikon's LBCAST CCD was developed in-house, but is

disappointing compared to the CMOS currently deployed in ALL current Canon DSLRs.

 

4. Consolidate instead of fracturing their lens lineup. Nikon's lens compatibility checklist

is more like an encyclopedia, with caveats here, there, and everywhere. With Canon, all EF

lenses are compatible with all EOS bodies, past, present, or future.

 

5. Generational gap - at any given point, Canon generally has a camera for sale that Nikon

can't match. Nikon needs to introduce a camera that BLOWS AWAY the Canon competition,

not just attempt to match it a year later.

 

When these criteria are met, then Nikon can truly say they are competing at the same level

as Canon. Right now, they are playing catch up, as they have been for at least two years

now.

[majid]

The main characteristic about leap-frogging is that the other frog gets to leap back immediately afterwards.

[peter_phan]

<i>If my observatons are correct, the Canon 1D MKII has a max flash sync speed of 1/250 vs. the D2H sync speed of 1/500.</i>

<p>

Sorry. The Canon 1D MKII and Nikon D2H both have a flash sync of 1/250s It is also worth noting that the Canon EOS 1V and Nikon F5 have flash syncs of 1/250s, too.

[umd]

Now <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020503fujifilms3pro.asp">this</a> is quite a leapfrog, in a different and more important direction than sheer pixel count.

[Landrum Kelly]

Okay, so the Kodak 14n is not either of these two (Nikon or Canon), but it does use Nikon lenses, a modified Nikon body, and has a 24mm x 36mm sensor--and, even if it does not have the quality of the Canon 1Ds, it also does not have the price (now about $3,000 versus $7,000). At 14 megapixels, it does have the resolution, although perhaps not superior image quality overall to the 1Ds (debatable). Kodak could become a major player if it can speed things up and get a camera out that beats the noise problem (not to mention the noise reduction problem) in a more durable housing. By moving away from film, Kodak has to be watched closely, especially as it continues to use the Nikon mount and modified Nikon bodies.

 

Yes, Canon trumps Nikon for now, but there are other players in this game, and the game changes fast. The real question is what's coming next, and how fast prices are going to drop on the 1Ds. I watched the Kodak 14n drop fast in price, from around $5k to around $3k. The resolution is quickly becoming so good that we are beginning to get to the point of diminishing returns for most persons. My only digital is the Olympus E-20, and thus I have no axe to grind on this one. I just want to know what to buy next, especially since I have a few Nikon lenses, and I am not completely satisfied with the Canon 10D and cannot afford the 1Ds. Perhaps the upcoming PMA will shed a bit more light.

[ilkka_nissila]

A lot of peoplethink the 1D has lower noise than the D2H because it appears to be so because of gray card noise measurements. What you're forgetting is that noise in smooth areas can be reduced by filtration, at the cost of quality of detail rendition.

 

Look at the dpreview comparison pictures from the D2H and 1D. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2h/page22.asp

 

The 1D produces severe colour artifacts in areas where the D2H gives clean detail. This is an obvious sign of manipulation of the raw image data (by noise reduction algorithms) in the case of the Canon. Alternatively it could be a lens quality problem but I doubt it.

[peter_phan]

Ilkka, a lot of people are now basing the D2H noise observation on actual, hands-on usage. There are also Rob Galbraith's D2H-1D comparison shots taken at a hockey game. But all this is moot. The 1D is a two year old camera that has now been discontinued and replaced. With the D2H being a 4mp camera coming two years after the 1D, noise shouldn't even be as big an issue as it is on the D2H. One only wonders how well an LBCAST-sensor D2X will perform, with potentially twice the pixel density.

[andrew robertson]

Twice the noise?

[larry_tudor1]

As far as I know,Nikon rely on Sony for their sensor only in the 2/3 size and lower.All their pro models comes with their own Nikon sensor.

[steve_daggs]

Peter,

 

My error, you are correct about the D2H flash sync max of 1/250th. As a sports shooter, not having the 1/500th flash sync is problematic. Fortunately, I had no plans to buy a D2H. I am quite happy with my D1X. I also wasn't aware that the F5 had a max of 1/250th. I went to digital from N90s film bodies...never owned the F5.

[peter_phan]

<i>As far as I know,Nikon rely on Sony for their sensor only in the 2/3 size and lower.All their pro models comes with their own Nikon sensor.</i>

<p>

The Nikon D1, D1X, D1H, D100, and D70 all use third-party CCD sensors (Sony). The only Nikon DSLR that uses a Nikon sensor is the D2H.

[majid]

The only way to get 1/500 X-Sync is to use a leaf shutter (as in medium format lenses) or an electronic shutter (as in the 1D and D70). Focal plane shutters "wipe" a narrow strip of clear aperture (between the two curtains) across the frame at speeds higher than the X-Sync, and flash would only expose that strip, not the whole frame.

[oliver_tan1]

Are we supposed to buy a NEW DSLR camera EVERY year? Why not buy a DSLR that caters to your needs and use it until you need something better? This is like film and digital all over again. Oh, did anybody mention that it's not all about the equipment but the "thingy" behind the equipment?

[robert_reiss]

Many speak of the high price of the 1D Mark II. However, looking at historical prices of top of the line DSLR's, the $4500 price tag doesn't seem that outrageous to me, especially if it is a tax deductible purchase and one will be spending less on film and processing. This camera seems like it will serve many photographers well for several years to come and will likely retain its value for resale purposes.

[Landrum Kelly]

Oliver, you certainly have a valid point, and I think that these things are getting good enough that most of us soon won't feel the need to upgrade. I have personally felt limited by the 5-megapixel camera I have been using (for a variety of reasons), but some others (more current--mostly Canon) in this same range are better. I know that a lot of good pictures have been made with 3.2, but some of us are going to keep wanting more and more resolution. Maybe we're greedy, or maybe some will do big prints. My own question right now is how much data is someone going to get on a 24x36 sensor sooner or later--not because I plan to buy it but because I just wonder what kind of technology is coming that will allow more data to be collected on smaller and smaller sensors. The 24x36 is hardly small (to say the least), but it isn't like a medium format digital back, either. (Will it ever be?) Another question I have is whether or not people are going to flock in droves to smaller lenses, or whether standard lenses with 24x36 sensors will become a (not "the") digital standard. I mention all of this since Canon presently has the best 24x36 digital camera out there, and I really don't see Nikon leap-frogging them anytime soon. Then again, I've been wrong before. Hope I haven't gotten too far off topic. It's just that the posted question raises all kinds of questions in my mind about which way the digital trend is going to go, and what is going to happen to the 35mm tradition. The Olympus E-1 seems to have been stillborn from the assembly line and is not likely in my opinion to create a lasting new standard. I wonder if Canon or Nikon will set a new standard besides 35mm, or with smaller, lighter lenses.