Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Your thoughts on new camera purchase  (Read 1604 times)
scubarob639
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« on: October 27, 2009, 07:16:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using a 1Dmkll since 2005 and I would like to upgrade to camera with more pixels and better low light capability.  From what I have read, the Nikon D3 appears to be the ticket. I don't need or want video capability. I've been waiting till now to upgrade hoping Canon would come out with a D3ish camera and that didn't happen.  Full frame, big pixels, great low light capability, in 1 series body, $ 4-5K range. I've been loyal to Canon since the 10D, and I need a push to change.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Rob
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2954



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2009, 08:03:31 PM »
ReplyReply

No clue what you are going to shoot or what qualities about the 1DII you like.  For example, why you want the "rugged" body, and why you think "bigger" pixels is important.

Current sensor technolgy means those "smaller" pixels don't scale down in size equal to the increase in pixel count.  Space is reduced between pixels and improved micro lens gather more light.  So more pixels doesn't always translate to less quality - in fact improved sensors/pixels is one reason they are achieving these ridiculous ISO's.

As far as video, this to me is irrelevant.  If you are interested in a still camera the fact that it does video doesn't matter.  The mediums are converging and including video in still dSLR's hasn't increased their price.   Within another year or two it is doubtful there will be another digital camera made that cannot shoot video other than MF.  Once Live View came along, it became just a logical convergence that was mainly firmware driven and didn't require adding expensive hardware. So if you don't need it, then just ignore it.

I guess what puzzles me is why you think the D3 fills the ticket, but the new 1DMark4 doesn't. Not that it matters to me, but to completely re-gear a full lens line up ... I guess I just don't know what is so appealing about the Nikon.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fantastic camera.  I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from, because even a 1DMark3 is a nice step up, and it sounds like if you are a canon shooter the 1DMark4 would make perfect sense.

Now if there is something else you like about the Nikon that the canon just doesn't do or something about the CAnon you just hate , sure.  Maybe it's a good time to switch.

Of course, I'd take a look at Sony if I were switching.
Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1491


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2009, 01:32:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm in the same position, Rob. Been using the 1D Mk II since 2005. I need the build quality and the speed of the professional body, and I was hoping for a full frame 12-16 megapixel camera in the Mark IV. Not that there's anything really wrong with the APS-H format -- I've been shooting in that format since 2001 -- but I would just prefer a full frame high-speed photojournalist's camera. (I've tested the 1Ds Mark III and the 5D Mark II, so I do have some personal research to back up that desire.)

So I do look on with some minor envy at the D3 and the D700. But there's no way I can dump all my gear and switch brands, not after 25+ years shooting Canon. I think I will end up buying a pair of 1D Mark IV bodies and a 5D Mk II to use when I want the full frame.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
scubarob639
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2009, 05:51:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
No clue what you are going to shoot or what qualities about the 1DII you like.  For example, why you want the "rugged" body, and why you think "bigger" pixels is important.

Current sensor technolgy means those "smaller" pixels don't scale down in size equal to the increase in pixel count.  Space is reduced between pixels and improved micro lens gather more light.  So more pixels doesn't always translate to less quality - in fact improved sensors/pixels is one reason they are achieving these ridiculous ISO's.

As far as video, this to me is irrelevant.  If you are interested in a still camera the fact that it does video doesn't matter.  The mediums are converging and including video in still dSLR's hasn't increased their price.   Within another year or two it is doubtful there will be another digital camera made that cannot shoot video other than MF.  Once Live View came along, it became just a logical convergence that was mainly firmware driven and didn't require adding expensive hardware. So if you don't need it, then just ignore it.

I guess what puzzles me is why you think the D3 fills the ticket, but the new 1DMark4 doesn't. Not that it matters to me, but to completely re-gear a full lens line up ... I guess I just don't know what is so appealing about the Nikon.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fantastic camera.  I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from, because even a 1DMark3 is a nice step up, and it sounds like if you are a canon shooter the 1DMark4 would make perfect sense.

Now if there is something else you like about the Nikon that the canon just doesn't do or something about the CAnon you just hate , sure.  Maybe it's a good time to switch.

Of course, I'd take a look at Sony if I were switching.
Logged
scubarob639
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2009, 05:52:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
No clue what you are going to shoot or what qualities about the 1DII you like.  For example, why you want the "rugged" body, and why you think "bigger" pixels is important.

Current sensor technolgy means those "smaller" pixels don't scale down in size equal to the increase in pixel count.  Space is reduced between pixels and improved micro lens gather more light.  So more pixels doesn't always translate to less quality - in fact improved sensors/pixels is one reason they are achieving these ridiculous ISO's.

As far as video, this to me is irrelevant.  If you are interested in a still camera the fact that it does video doesn't matter.  The mediums are converging and including video in still dSLR's hasn't increased their price.   Within another year or two it is doubtful there will be another digital camera made that cannot shoot video other than MF.  Once Live View came along, it became just a logical convergence that was mainly firmware driven and didn't require adding expensive hardware. So if you don't need it, then just ignore it.

I guess what puzzles me is why you think the D3 fills the ticket, but the new 1DMark4 doesn't. Not that it matters to me, but to completely re-gear a full lens line up ... I guess I just don't know what is so appealing about the Nikon.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fantastic camera.  I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from, because even a 1DMark3 is a nice step up, and it sounds like if you are a canon shooter the 1DMark4 would make perfect sense.

Now if there is something else you like about the Nikon that the canon just doesn't do or something about the CAnon you just hate , sure.  Maybe it's a good time to switch.

Of course, I'd take a look at Sony if I were switching.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad