HE-llo! Whole new ballgame!

[guy_mancuso]

Well you have a long way to travel my friend. LOL

I know, I know but just think about a leica 2 system budget and that will make your chest hair fall out. OUCH!!!!

[sdai]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

I know, I know but just think about a leica 2 system budget and that will make your chest hair fall out. OUCH!!!!

Budget is always a major issue for REAL photographers. LOL

I'm planning to keep only two M lenses ... the 50 cron and the 90 AA. I still have some manual focus R lenses, and probably will buy a 80/1.4 or 85/1.4 AF-R, a 28-90 or 35-70 AF-R and that's it.

Day dreaming is fun ...

[harmsr]

Guy,

You don't want the 60/2.8 macro. What you want is the Zeiss 50/2.0 macro for the Nikon mount. It is an unbelievable lens.

I'm going to be in line for the D300, and the wait to see what happens with the rumored higher resolution D3? late spring or early summer next year.

Ray

[sdai]

Originally Posted by rosuna

I think the trend is towards CMOS technology for big sensors.

I've just discovered something interesting, Ruben ... all the product images for D3 and D300 on Nikon's press center web site were shot with a PhaseOne P45.

IMO ... that speaks a lot ... they clearly know that CCD is better.

[jrc]

A fellow named Bjorn Rorslett who reviews Nikon products went to Japan for the unveiling of the new Nikons and in regard to the high ISO aspects of the new D3 said, "I couldn't believe my eyes." Apparently the D3 has profoundly clean 6400 ISO, and even up to two stops more...like your next flash system could be a matchbook...Anyway, I've found Rorslett to be pretty reliable, and when I saw his posting, it really perked up my interest.

Guy, if you're thinking about a fill-in DSLR while waiting for an R10, I think the new Nikons could be it -- one guy at the announcment ceremony said the new fast wide-angle zoom was "better than primes," and since it's such a new camera, I'd think it'd hold its value better for resale...One camera, three zooms gets you to 14-200mm...Or, you could start recollecting R glass, and mount it on a 1DsIII. That'd be a killer combination.

JC

[KM-25]

=guy_mancuso;337091Of course Canon being dummies here is doing it now with no real glass support

Really?

How about 35 1.4L on 5D in a two page spread ad in this month's Robb Report that brought in over 18K?...I would call that plenty of support.

24L, 35L, 50 macro, 85L & 135L are plenty for high dollar advertising work. And, by the way, so was the 11MP 1DS so at this point, 12MP and higher is plenty....my D3 and D300 are on order from my rep that gets me stuff as soon as it gets to anyone, I'll tell you all how it is in a few months...

If the only choice for high end lifestyle advertising and stock work was R glass, then no one would be making 250K++ a year shooting Canon full frame bodies...:-).

[sdai]

I think you've missed Guy's point, KM-25 ... to compare the end result from a pixel peeping perspective, the 35/1.4L is really no match to the equivalent Leica setup. As of making money, that's a whole different subject.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by jrc

Apparently the D3 has profoundly clean 6400 ISO, and even up to two stops more...like your next flash system could be a matchbook...

Of course, ISO ratings can be all redefined ... I won't be surprise to read that Nikon's ISO 200 really is Canon's ISO 100, Nikon's ISO6400 is really Canon's ISO3200 etc.

To quote a more reliable source (Rob Galbraith) with proven track record:

... the camera looks like it will produce low light photos that are both massively cleaner and more usable than the D2Xs and in the same ballpark as Canon's EOS-1D Mark III (which is the D3's primary competition). ... We'll need to shoot with a production D3 under real-world conditions to find out whether it approaches, meets or exceeds the EOS-1D Mark III in high ISO image quality.

[carstenw]

Guy, are you talking yourself into "needing" an SLR again, or do you really need it? As far as I have understood from your posts in the last few months, the M8 covers your needs... Of course, we all *want* to have an M8 and an R10, but need is something else

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by sdai

I think you've missed Guy's point, KM-25 ... to compare the end result from a pixel peeping perspective, the 35/1.4L is really no match to the equivalent Leica setup. As of making money, that's a whole different subject.

Well, if you want to peep...is there a place that compares the 35 1.4 R to the 35L?
I would love to see that. The point is that Canon *does* support the full frame cameras with some spectacular glass, enough to where an art director is not going to see the difference if he or she is writing out your check.

The 85 1.2L is one of sharpest lenses ever made for any format by the way...

[carstenw]

Both 35L and 85L have visible CA though, and correcting this will lose some sharpness. You can see it in almost every outside image posted. There are some great Canon lenses, but I have never understood why they don't pay more attention to this aspect of lens design.

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Guy, are you talking yourself into "needing" an SLR again, or do you really need it? As far as I have understood from your posts in the last few months, the M8 covers your needs... Of course, we all *want* to have an M8 and an R10, but need is something else

Unlike two pro friends who have moved on from the M8, I am giving it two more weeks from the time I get back from a shoot that I am on out of the country. We all shoot for some of the same clients and are having a heck of a time with high contrast details breaking up and looking blobbed out with little or no sharpening.

Before taking off for Cabo this week, I spent countless hours in three different RAW converters trying to eek out the last bit of detail that my 5D was gaining easily over the M8. I sent some images off to a client in both exported TIFFS and DNG files for them to use since they kept saying that I was over sharpening the finals and I had to tone it down so that the contrasty transitions did not break up.

The RAW tech at the ad agency that prefers raw files ( Satchi & Satchi ) said they are no longer accepting M8 files since these fine details are not being rendered very well in medium to high contrast situations.

I know this is all a bit off topic, but I am writing this because I *want* to use the M8 for this type of use but if I can not get the blobbing detail tamed, I will have to part with the $5,000 M8 as that is too much dough for an editorial use only camera.

I am looking for solutions outside of those on here since all I seem to get from this group is how good things look in a print, not in a bill paying advertising shot.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Guy, are you talking yourself into "needing" an SLR again, or do you really need it?

Guy's had the M8 for over six months, it must be about time to swap systems <grin>

[stnami]

............. I doubt if things will change must have been a cookie monster as a kid....grew up and became a gear muncher

[carstenw]

Daniel, could you post some crops of the blobbing? I am still not quite sure what you mean, and I don't recall having seen this difference between M8 and 5D myself. I had a 5D for a year before I switched to the M8.

[rosuna]

Originally Posted by sdai

But CCD always archive superior performance benchmarks vs. CMOS to date ... especially in the dynamic range department. This is why all high end applications stick to CCD ... when cost is not an issue.

That is true, only for low ISOs and only if you accept power hungry cameras for studio work. High ISO performance of these cameras is very poor. At ISO 400 the image quality is severely deteriorated. The question is if Leica will develop a studio camera or a compact/portable reflex camera. The DMR has many shared charasteristics of bigger digital backs, but I think Leica needs lower power consumption and better high ISO performance, even if low ISO performance is not so good.

Anyway, the Canon 5D, for instance, is a top performer using a CMOS sensor, even at low ISOs (and its dynamic range is similar to that of the M8).

The technology has evolved, and now the only reason to use large CCDs is because Canon or Sony don't manufacture them. Kodak is manufacturing small CMOS now, and the trend is clear.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by sdai

I think you've missed Guy's point, KM-25 ... to compare the end result from a pixel peeping perspective, the 35/1.4L is really no match to the equivalent Leica setup. As of making money, that's a whole different subject.

Actually, I've tested the 35/1.4 on the 1DsMkII and the 35/1.4 R on the R9/DMR (in the Leica DMR review) and the Canon lens compared very well.

One thing to remember about the Nikons is that they can also use Zeiss ZF lenses. That's a real asset. I've tested the ZF 50 on the D200 and over the next year I want to test all of the ZF lenses (vs. Nikkors) on the FF Nikon.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by KM-25

Well, if you want to peep...is there a place that compares the 35 1.4 R to the 35L?
I would love to see that..

Yes....my DMR review.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by sdai

Of course, ISO ratings can be all redefined ... I won't be surprise to read that Nikon's ISO 200 really is Canon's ISO 100, Nikon's ISO6400 is really Canon's ISO3200 etc.

I would be surprised.The Nikon's tend to run bang on for ISO. That would mean the Canon's tend to be 1/3 stop more sensitive. My source is my own testing. Actual ISO sensitivity tends to be very consistent by camera family, ie: Canon DSLRs are 1/3 stop more sensitive, etc.

[guy_mancuso]

Originally Posted by sdai

I think you've missed Guy's point, KM-25 ... to compare the end result from a pixel peeping perspective, the 35/1.4L is really no match to the equivalent Leica setup. As of making money, that's a whole different subject.

That was my point it was from the pixel prespective and yes canon has some nice glass . i owned everyone of them including every body they made 1ds, 1dMKII, 1dsMKII and the 5D. They have 4 lenses that are very good but even the 24 1.4 is not there greatest , 35, 85 1.2, 135 f and the 200 1.8 are there standouts. Leica R lenses maybe easier to say what are the dogs and there very very few. Now the issue is a 22mpx camera that taxes the system more without new glass system wide to handle it and that is the point. BTW talent and marketing make you money, gear is a support function.