What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?

[AprilForever]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

[neuroanatomist]

You repeatedly insisted that high fps were required to take good photos and that skill was no replacement for this which obviously leads one to conclude that you're insisting that high fps is required to get good photos.

Link, please?  In particular, when did I state that one could not get good photos without high FPS?  Pity you don't seem to understand the difference between 'helpful' and 'required'.  I can't help if you draw completely bogus conclusions from my statements, but please do not misrepresent what I'm actually writing.   

[Chuck Alaimo]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

Different strokes.  mRAW is what I shoot the majority of the time because full RAW is overkill.  That gets right back to the point of the other reply I left here, that I hope this would be a spit in either the 1d or 5d line - not a replacement.  There are many of us who don't need mega giant files.  The 5d3 is a great all around camera workhorse.

Crop mode would be kind of useless for me as the vast vast majority of the time I want the FOV of a FF camera.  With the exception of the formal portraits, anything more than mRAW is overkill.  I'm not swaying there isn't a time and a place for what a mega mp body can do, but for me the benefits just aren't there.  plus there is the extra $$$$$ that would need to be spent on CF cards, HD's and upgrading my PC because as a wedding shooter something like the d800 would triple/quadruple the the overall memory used.  Hell, if it takes 20 minutes to transfer 16 to my computer - on a d800 I would need at least 4 more 16 gig cards - that's over an hour extra just to get the files on the computer.  Then comes the culling, which again will take much longer.  The majority of these shots will only be printed up to 5x7, so yeah, mega MP is overkill.  Unneeded for me. 

Spit the line - a mega mp body will not kill 5d3 sales as each cam is meant for different things (same goes for 1D series, sports shooters for sure woud rather have fps that MP).     

[Chuck Alaimo]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people.  From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever.  However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful.  The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera.  This would be revolutionary for Canon.  But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it.  Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach.  I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS.  Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame.  Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).

Having more (real) resolution at no cost is always welcome, and allows for more flexibility in post.

As for the other stuff, it does not appeal to me. I dont want in-camera downscaling, cropping, or extra quantization, even if it gives me modest reduction in filesize/increases in framerate.

-h

I know quite a few nikon shooters that would have bought d800's if it had mRAW sRAW.  It's the #1 thing mentioned when i hear nikon folk asking for upgrade advice.  For weddings, nikon shooters recommend the d700, d3 and d3s because the files size on the d800 is too large for that kind of work. 


Here are some quotes from nikon users:

" I would look for a used D700, D3, or D3s. The D800 files are going to be way too big for your needs. The D4 is somewhat overpriced for what you are going to need."

"D3s is the leader for low light, D4 is a piece of junk. D800 is crap unless you're in a studio. Wouldn't touch a canon unless 5DMrkIII"

" Best wedding camera on the market today is the D3s. The best value wedding camera on the market today is the D700."

" I agree with Brady, D3s is a beautiful camera. Shooting with 2 32GB CF cards with one for immediate backup is a great way to shoot a wedding with confidence! D800 is a body geared towards the landscape/commercial world but not for weddings. D4 was a dud."


I could keep going with these quotes. 

[Sporgon]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

Yes, the point of RAW is non processed information, allowing for post processing in 16 bit. It's quite possible users may want to pp images that aren't going to be greatly enlarged or used for web viewing. The larger the MP the more useful this mode for those that understand the true might of 22 MP ( let alone 40 ! )

[Hobby Shooter]

Canon can call it whatever it wants, but the product line can certainly benefit from a true successor to the 1DsIII. I have no use for a mega megapixel body, but know lots of people that are still hanging on to their 1DsIIIs because neither the 1Dx or 5DIII are compelling enough reasons to trade them in.

IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

[V8Beast]

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII

[pedro]

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII

I never owned an 1DsIII either, not my budget anyway. But coming from a 30D my 5DIII is a huge step up and it blows me away...anytime I pick it up. If it doesn't it's always the dude behind ;-)

[bdunbar79]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

You don't know why anyone would?  I'll tell you.  If you're a sports photog, and have a MEDIUM amount of time to get photos out, you can still shoot in sRAW and still have a lot of processing freedom over JPEG.  It comes in really, really handy when you have to shoot good, quick shots, but still have time to process a bit to print an 8 x 10.  I shot 5000 sRAW files at the GLIAC Swim meet and I was really thrilled over the IQ when processed and converted to jpg.  Shooting just in jpg would not have maintained the IQ I was able to maintain in sRAW, especially with a 1DX where the sRAW files were amazing.  The whole reason to shoot sRAW is much lower file size, much faster upload to computer time, while still maintaining a high level of IQ, close to RAW, but better than jpg.

[bdunbar79]

And as you said elsewhere on this site, without high fps, you can't take good photos

Obviously the mods removing your previous remark and susequent rebuttals to the same effect wasn't sufficient to prevent you from having another go at the expired horse....

Thank you for your insightful comment. Now would you like to comment on the topic of the 5Dx/4D?

...and thank you for flagrantly misrepresenting what I said.  Now would you like to provide a link to where I stated, "Without high fps, you can't take good photos,"

You repeatedly insisted that high fps were required to take good photos and that skill was no replacement for this which obviously leads one to conclude that you're insisting that high fps is required to get good photos.

or, perhaps you'd like to suggest that the 5Dx/4D will actually be a lens, and not a camera?

Nope - It's going to be a horse, of course.

No dilbert, he never did.  Sorry.

[CarlTN]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

You don't know why anyone would?  I'll tell you.  If you're a sports photog, and have a MEDIUM amount of time to get photos out, you can still shoot in sRAW and still have a lot of processing freedom over JPEG.  It comes in really, really handy when you have to shoot good, quick shots, but still have time to process a bit to print an 8 x 10.  I shot 5000 sRAW files at the GLIAC Swim meet and I was really thrilled over the IQ when processed and converted to jpg.  Shooting just in jpg would not have maintained the IQ I was able to maintain in sRAW, especially with a 1DX where the sRAW files were amazing.  The whole reason to shoot sRAW is much lower file size, much faster upload to computer time, while still maintaining a high level of IQ, close to RAW, but better than jpg.

Well said!  It also comes in handy when you know you want to shoot at really high ISO, and you know there is resolution loss at that setting...so why waste file size on something that isn't using all the pixels anyway?  Still way better than shooting a jpg.  Not every photographer shoots in a studio at ISO 100, with strobes.  Some of us are outside shooting fast moving things, even when it's getting dark.  If the final image can't be printed at 24 x 36 at 300 dpi and have every one of those dots razor sharp with real detail, so what?

[Peerke]

On topic:

If it will be called 4D, I for sure won't buy it. I can't even stand the thought on it. Nightmares I had, Nightmares. Thanks for this post.

[risc32]

i don't have any use for sRAW either. when i'm shooting sports or something like that where i might crank out thousands of shots i shoot jpg. i dial it in, and shoot jpg. if i had the memory card space, wanted my camera buffer to bog down(that could mostly be fixed with a fast card), and had time to fool around on a PC i'd shoot this stuff in RAW. but obviously people differ. that's cool. options are cool.
  honestly, the only reason i came to this thread is because the title reminded me of a scene from a "revenge of the nerds" movie. the characters are stoned on a deserted island and ...... "what if cat, really spelled dog?"
  yup, i sure am something....

[CarlTN]

Risc32, haha, I need to look up those movies again, I forgot about that!

[emag]

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

I've often used MRaw for time lapse.  I find it gives me PP flexibility without huge file sizes.  YMMV.