Will Canon price match the 1DX to the D4?

[5D Freak]

Seems Nikon has had a good crack at the video aspect with the D4 specs. Interesting that the native ISO is only 12800 on D4 vs 51200 on 1DX. Loose a lot of DR by artificially expanding ISO. However, those after high ISO would be looking for clean ISO 12800 to 25600. 10(11) fps on D4 vs 12(14) on 1DX. New AF on 1DX. 1DX looks pretty good for the photographer. See how the RAW IQ compares between the two once they're in the wild. I would think they're quite close.

[traveller]

I don't think that people should make too much of the "ISO 12800 maximum without expansion" on the D4 versus the "ISO 51200 without expansion" on the 1D X; I think this is just a difference between the two companies' nomenculture.  The term 'native ISO' is misleadingly used by many people; each sensor only has one native ISO (its base ISO); in Canon's case this is ISO 100 and in Nikon's ISO 200.  Every other ISO is achieved by either on-chip amplification, or by under/over-exposure with post capture software signal amplification.  I had always thought that the switch over point was where the ISO expansion (boost) settings kicked in, but recent forum posts by others have led me to believe that I was wrong in this assumption.  It seems that where this transition occurs is somewhat of an opaque subject that is not revealed by the manufacturers.  Thus, one canot tell from the quoted ISO range specifications what one can expect in terms of signal to noise ratio for each sensor.  It seems that each company has its own standards for what it considers acceptable signal to noise for its cameras "normal" ISO range.  The only way to determine the sensors' signal to noise performance will be to test the actual sensor post-release (i.e. we'll have to wait for DXO Marks analysis).  Of course, some are suggesting that the camera manufacturers are starting to 'cook' their RAW files by subjecting them to a certain amount of post-capture noise reduction during the initial on-chip stages of image read out. 

[5D Freak]

From what I understand, native ISO is amped base iso at pixel level on chip before readout (photos to electrons = base ISO multiplied by amp factor). Expanded ISO is basically software shifting EV after readout (ie pulling exposure). Lo expansion tends to clip highlights and Hi expansion raises the noise floor (along with banding noise and other noise associated with readout). You no longer get true 14 bit quality files from expanded ISOs.

[Maui5150]

Why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ede8I5y_9lw
	Small | Large

There are just as many specs where the 1Dx is BETTER than the D4.

Higher Resolution
Faster FPS
Native ISO I will lean towards Canon based upon past
More AF points.... It is yet to be seen whether the AF8 points in the Nikon make a difference as well as if that advantage is just limited

Nikon looks like it maybe slightly better on Video.

Hey Kia just came out with a new Optima... Maybe BMW will price match

[Maui5150]

And again.. Until we see these Head to Head, one can not really judge.  Specs do not necessarily mean performance, otherwise everyone would be using Sigma 70-200s.

Both cameras seem to have their niches.  Canon delivers it appears bigger pictures. faster burst, and likely better ISO. 

AF looks to be a wait and see.  Canon seems to be 61 versus 51, but we will have to see how the AF points work, especially if Nikon is did this as a last minute Rube Goldberg to make the spec, it may not function as well as people think. 

[EYEONE]

Nikon did a good job with the D4. I think it'll be a killer camera. But I think the 1Dx is pretty clearly better.

It manages to get higher MP, higher FPS, and higher native ISO than the D4. Now granted we haven't seen the ISO in action so it's hard to say for sure. But I can't imagine that the D4 will push two stops just to hit Canon's highest native setting and still have better quality.  I saw in a video online that Nikon is claiming a 1 stop improvement in ISO performance. If that's true I don't see why they wouldn't raise the max native to 25600. We'll see I guess.
I'd be willing to bet money that Nikon added ISO 204K just because Canon had it. But at H4?! Seriously, H4?

But there are things about the D4 I'd love to get on a Canon.
-illuminated buttons.
-the ability to take time lapse movies in camera and export as movies would save me a lot of time.
-Video crop mode would be nice. But it isn't that special since Canon has a Rebel that will do that. Is this feature in the 1Dx?

[wockawocka]

I don't think that people should make too much of the "ISO 12800 maximum without expansion" on the D4 versus the "ISO 51200 without expansion" on the 1D X; I think this is just a difference between the two companies' nomenculture.  The term 'native ISO' is misleadingly used by many people; each sensor only has one native ISO (its base ISO); in Canon's case this is ISO 100 and in Nikon's ISO 200.  Every other ISO is achieved by either on-chip amplification, or by under/over-exposure with post capture software signal amplification.  I had always thought that the switch over point was where the ISO expansion (boost) settings kicked in, but recent forum posts by others have led me to believe that I was wrong in this assumption.  It seems that where this transition occurs is somewhat of an opaque subject that is not revealed by the manufacturers.  Thus, one canot tell from the quoted ISO range specifications what one can expect in terms of signal to noise ratio for each sensor.  It seems that each company has its own standards for what it considers acceptable signal to noise for its cameras "normal" ISO range.  The only way to determine the sensors' signal to noise performance will be to test the actual sensor post-release (i.e. we'll have to wait for DXO Marks analysis).  Of course, some are suggesting that the camera manufacturers are starting to 'cook' their RAW files by subjecting them to a certain amount of post-capture noise reduction during the initial on-chip stages of image read out.

Something here also bothers me. If the native ISO of the D4 is 1 stop above the 1DX then naturally the stop per stop comparisons are a lot closer that the number suggest.

It's difficult to compare ISO 100 to ISO 200 but a lot easier to compare at the top end where the most noise it.

TBH, I don't care, I use the 1Ds3 for everything and the 1DX is 4 stops higher in ISO. We're getting spoilt with these cameras.

[dolina]

I would not be surprised if Canon will be $300 cheaper.

[bvukich]

- wireless work (with accessory - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d0DnEoqm-wc)

Sooooo, sort of like this: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/consumer_cameras_wft/wireless_transmitter_wft_e6a ?