New Canon DSLR. Yup, I know wrong forum but...

[espn]

Yeah. But the market of these cameras ARE catered to the professional market,. both the 1DS MK II and D2X are both priced very highly.

How much of a market share do they contribute to? Consumers who buy high-end products.

Correct they are both priced highly, D1X was half the price of the 1Ds. I foresee this time it would be the same. D2X probably near $8K and 1Ds MK II near $14K again.

Highly priced no doubt, but which is in a faster range to grab? That's something we all know...

You pay $14K for a top of the end, and you pay $8K for the top of the end. Your choice, isn't it?

I could use the remaining 6K for lenses and other stuffs.

 

[nightpiper]

Mmmm... depends. Today we can still get SR44's and AA batteries - these are commonly available in most countries, and we still get film, so your ancient FM or FM2 will still work, and will probably work flawlessly till they stop selling film. These are rugged mechanical beasts which can keep on working. However with DSLR's, there are many questions. CF cards may be obsolete / unavailable when the successor is out 3 generations later, and our existing CF cards may be dead due to old age and use. USB/FireWire may not even exist. They will have broadband wireless or some new gizmo everywhere. You may not be able to connect to a PC at all. You will surely need replacement batteries, and for many digicams with proprietary rechargeables, they may not be available at all. The 16th generation 60MPixel 3d-holographic DSLR will make the existing D2X/1Ds look like toys. You wouldn't even feel like shooting with the current models.

well, this is good for the economy. :bsmilie:

things get obsolete, people buy new things, people upgrade & the co. gets to continue to manufacture newer stuff! this is great isn't it.

the only question to whether 20yrs later can use it to take pic really depends on whether its still working or not. :bsmilie: nikon F & F2 i believe have no more spare parts. if urs is still working, great, but once broken, time to BUY! BUY! BUY! :cheers:

(ps. not forgetting lens compatibility in 20yrs time. )

 

[Watcher]

My take on the practicality of the 1Ds mkII is similar to the one i posted on the D2X in another thread - the resolution (for both) is too high. Save for those who do careful tripod work, much of the resolution is going to waste, and just clogs up the CF cards and harddisks.

I too have this feeling. I mean, to me, the D2X is almost too much at full resolution (except for landscape) for general use. Of course, there are there that says that it can be cropped out. But unless you have no time to change lens, a pro shooting with an inappropriate lenses all the time? :dunno:

Mind you that the D2X and 1Ds Mk II is for the pros.

 

[Watcher]

Correct they are both priced highly, D1X was half the price of the 1Ds. I foresee this time it would be the same. D2X probably near $8K and 1Ds MK II near $14K again.

Highly priced no doubt, but which is in a faster range to grab? That's something we all know...

You pay $14K for a top of the end, and you pay $8K for the top of the end. Your choice, isn't it?

I could use the remaining 6K for lenses and other stuffs.

Precisely. Even though both are "top of the range", the price is very different. Unless Canon drops its price drastically, the D2X is going to make a killing; matching the price of 1DMk2 with approx 50% more rez of the 1DMk2.

At 12MP, few would need more resolution. Why? It already encrouch on MF-digital backs' resolution at a significantly lower price and greater lens selection. At 16MP, and at those prices, those who needed and could afford it would already have bought a digital back. Also, for 25% more MP, but lower battery and fps, you pay at least 50% (or $5-6k) more (based on projected price). And they can't cut the price of the 1DsMkII that significantly as it would hit into the price of the 1DMkII itself.

The question is again, as I had asked before: is FF worth it?

 

[mpenza]

In both camps, there're probably some pros with existing arsenal lenses which they would want to work with the "normal" field of view on a FF DSLR. It's interesting to see how the two different approaches by the two companies work out over the medium term. For newcomers (pros or not), it probably doesn't matter much. And for others like me, a smaller than FF sensor is probably more than welcome.

 

[Amfibius]

Is FF worth it? Hmm, money issues aside, would you rather shoot with a 35mm film SLR, or an APS SLR? And why? :think:

After all, the APS SLR magically transforms all your telephoto lens by 1.5X! And you would have to print poster-sized before you see a difference! And, it's more high tech! So watcher, if I forced you to go back to film, are you going to choose an APS camera?

(Note to humour impaired: last paragraph strictly tongue in cheek)

BTW, I might not be able to justify spending thousands of dollars for a new 1DS, but in a year's time when the 1DS starts appearing in the used market, i'll certainly be able to afford it. Hilarion is selling a mint 1DS in the B/S forums right now ... only my realization that i've been spending too much on new toys lately stopped me from sending him an immediate email saying GIMME GIMME GIMME I'LL HAVE IT NOW!!! :devil: :devil:

 

[Vinnievinyl]

Is FF worth it? Hmm, money issues aside, would you rather shoot with a 35mm film SLR, or an APS SLR? And why? :think:

BTW, I might not be able to justify spending thousands of dollars for a new 1DS, but in a year's time when the 1DS starts appearing in the used market, i'll certainly be able to afford it. Hilarion is selling a mint 1DS in the B/S forums right now ... only my realization that i've been spending too much on new toys lately stopped me from sending him an immediate email saying GIMME GIMME GIMME I'LL HAVE IT NOW!!! :devil: :devil:

FF or not??? That's a good question. I believe Nikon has the ability to built a FF DSLR but first they have to fulfill their committment to the DX format. I believe one day Nikon will built a FF Dslr when film has really come to an end. I also believe at the moment, there is still a profitable number of film users that Nikon is unwilling to give up this market.

One very important factor could be the Kodak FF pro DSLR. Nikon may have signed an agreement to supply Kodak with the DSLR body that they cannot produce any FF DSLR at the moment. The American may have paid the Japanese a huge sum of $$$.

 

[kongg]

Its great to see a smaller sized company challenging a corporate giant, and gaining ground slowly.

 

[Amfibius]

Its great to see a smaller sized company challenging a corporate giant, and gaining ground slowly.

What do you mean?

Nikon vs. Canon in 2004? Or Canon vs. Nikon in 1986? :devil:

 

[dkw]

Its great to see a smaller sized company challenging a corporate giant, and gaining ground slowly.

Quite the reverse I think. Nikon WAS the corporate giant in photography and Canon the upstart until not too long ago. Unfortunately the advent of digital photography has caused an erosion of Nikon's advantage in camera and lens design, and Canon's growth in recent times has been fuelled by their excellent CMOS sensor. Look at what has been done with it, 1.6x 6MP, 1.6x 8.2 MP, 1.3x 8.5 MP, FF 16.4 MP. The noise control on the new 8.2 MP 20D sensor is nothing short of incredible. They're getting so familiar with this sensor and skilled with tweaking it, and I don't think they're even finished yet. From what I've heard, Nikon make great bodies; responsive, great AF, good ergonomics, excellent flash metering etc, but I think this dependence on third party sensors is hurting it badly. Too bad, I really did prefer to have the Nikon badge on my cam..........

 

[bcoolboy]

Whoa! Did I start another Iraq war here?

To clarify, I posted the news about the new Canon DSLR just for us (in this Nikon group) to appreciate the recent developments between two of the BEST camera companies around. Specially during the Photokina period.

As for myself, I'm a Nikon die hard fan. Always have and always will be. But I do appreciate new developments, aesthetic or technogical, be it from Sigma, Minolta, Lieca, Hasselblad or whatever.

But I do know you guys are just having a friendly discussion about the subject, anyway. And that's precisely what I think this forum is about. A place to have a friendly exchange of ideas, right?

For guys who want to use Nikon, go right ahead. If you think Canon meets your needs, be my guest. I think its like the discusion between which is a better lense, the AFS 70-200 VR or the AF 80-200 D ED, it will never end. Both are good with its pros and cons and suits a particular group of users needs (and budget) so....

Just keep on shooting....

Cheers guys,
bcoolboy

 

[Amfibius]

But I do know you guys are just having a friendly discussion about the subject, anyway. And that's precisely what I think this forum is about. A place to have a friendly exchange of ideas, right?

YUP!!!!

We are all FRIENDLY and we LOVE each other :lovegrin:

/me runs up to Nikonians and gives them all a LOVING hug :lovegrin: :lovegrin: :lovegrin:

Watcher? *kiss*kiss*kiss*

 

[marcwang]

Wah... the argument is getting hot, and I shall harass the thread a little :devil: .

WHat I have observed is that Nikonians are defending the D2x and Canonians are building a moat round the up coming 1DsMk2 as well. But who can blame ? Thats human nature to defend something you consider dear to you. I have even thought my VW Golf is better than a V8 muscle car, just because it drinks so much less.

I'll give me 2 cents worth... in the area of FF vs APS sensors. I once drooled over the 1Ds FF sensor, simply because I love wide angle. But I've given this subject much thought, and I have decided that APS sensors may actually be beneficial to certain areas of photography as well. Nikon and Canon has solved the wide angle problem with top notch DX/EF-S lenses. That provides canon with 16mm at the wide end (35mm equi) and 18mm for Nikon. And this in my opinion is enough. It is true that the SIGMA 12-24 would give a FF camera a 12mm focal length, but honestly...... only a select few would choose to shoot this wide. So basically, the wide angle aspect has been pretty much solved in APS size cameras.

Now, let bring the telephoto side of things into the picture. WIth a D2X, a 500mmf4 lens, "becomes" 1000mmf4. With a FF, 500mmf4, is 500mf4. But given the resolution in the 1DsMk2, you sure can crop... which is even better because you can choose to compose your picture in Photoshop, with room to spare. But shooting speed is compromised in a 1Dsmk2, as compared to the D2x, which may prove crucial in certain aspects of photography.

If APS sized sensors, can provide the same quality and resolution with a FF camera in future (which is probable), I may be at a fix which way would I go. FF or APS.

Someday, I would think, it may just voice down to which lens is easier and cheaper to manufacture. A wide angle DX/EF-S (which there is already a solution), or a high speed super tele. I would think, a 10-22 or 12-24 would be more easily attainable, than trying to build a 1000mmf4 for a FF, when it "only" takes a 500mmf4 in an APS SLR.

This leaves my comment open ended........

 

[espn]

FF or not??? That's a good question. I believe Nikon has the ability to built a FF DSLR but first they have to fulfill their committment to the DX format. I believe one day Nikon will built a FF Dslr when film has really come to an end. I also believe at the moment, there is still a profitable number of film users that Nikon is unwilling to give up this market.

The point of FF is is it worth the cost & market? How many can afford a FF? Why build a FF to supply it as sponsorship to pjs who use it for free and work?

And seriously, I hope film never dies, at least for slides & bnw.

 

[Watcher]

Watcher? *kiss*kiss*kiss*

:bigeyes:

*Me runs fast fast fast! *

 

[Watcher]

Nikon and Canon has solved the wide angle problem with top notch DX/EF-S lenses. That provides canon with 16mm at the wide end (35mm equi) and 18mm for Nikon.

Just like Amfibius protested when I called the 18-70 AF-S ED DX lens a 'L' lens, I too will protest that the EF-S 10-22 is NOT in the same league, especially when no one here has taken and seen shots taken with this lens. Furthermore, the variable max aperture rules it out of Nikon's so-call pro range of lenses which all has a fixed max aperature.

If APS sized sensors, can provide the same quality and resolution with a FF camera in future (which is probable), I may be at a fix which way would I go. FF or APS.

Same here. Except that it is not only probable, it is definate. The question is when and at what price.

Someday, I would think, it may just voice down to which lens is easier and cheaper to manufacture. A wide angle DX/EF-S (which there is already a solution), or a high speed super tele. I would think, a 10-22 or 12-24 would be more easily attainable, than trying to build a 1000mmf4 for a FF, when it "only" takes a 500mmf4 in an APS SLR.

This leaves my comment open ended........

Precisely my point.

 

[Vinnievinyl]

The point of FF is is it worth the cost & market? How many can afford a FF? Why build a FF to supply it as sponsorship to pjs who use it for free and work?

And seriously, I hope film never dies, at least for slides & bnw.

Well, I also hope film never dies.

BTW, the cost of a FF DSLR for Nikon mount(Kodak) is less than S$8,000.00. Not so expensive even compare to Canon's 1d mk2. And I reckon D2x will cost more than this.

 

[NorthernLights]

Just so we Nikon die hards know the competition. Just for your interest and comments (of course as compared to Nikons latest offering, the D2X): -
Canon will announce a new Pro D-SLR at end of Sep.

It is named, 1Ds Mark II...

* 16.3 MPixel
* 5fps
* Full Frame CMOS (36x24mm)
* ISO 50-3200
* Shutter Speed 1/8,000s - 30s
* E-TTL II
* DIGIC II
* available in Nov.2004

http://www.eos-d-slr.net/1ds_mark2.html

cheers,
bcoolboy

You are correct. Wrong forum.

Troll Alert!!

 

[espn]

Well, I also hope film never dies.

BTW, the cost of a FF DSLR for Nikon mount(Kodak) is less than S$8,000.00. Not so expensive even compare to Canon's 1d mk2. And I reckon D2x will cost more than this.

I certainly hope not

 

[2100]

Just like Amfibius protested when I called the 18-70 AF-S ED DX lens a 'L' lens, I too will protest that the EF-S 10-22 is NOT in the same league, especially when no one here has taken and seen shots taken with this lens. .

Well, just to provide some info, I have seen direct A-B comparison 10-22 vs 12-24 sigma. Can't remember if the body is 20D or not but it was taken at another country's Canon HQ, it was posted in a dpreview thread. Sigma 12-24 is softer in the centre, 10-22 is pretty sharp. Corners, 10-22 is slightly sharper too. But 10-22 suffers from really unsable CA (for my use) in the corners, barrel is also quite high....i suppose it was shot wide open? Of course one can also argue that the 10-22 is more than good enough, coz the sigma is excellent in the barrel and CA departments.

From my experience, the sigma 12-24 is pretty sharp only when stopped down to its optimum f16 and f27 for 12 and 24mm respectively. So it's pretty specialised in terms of usage.....