3 types of pro bodies make sense

[poias]

I think 3 types of pro bodies make sense. 1) high res, 2) high speed and 3) high DR

I think Nikon might be going that route first -- high rest D800, high DR D4, and may be high speed D4s in the future.

May be I am just hallucinating, but makes sense.

 

[friedmud]

I think 3 types of pro bodies make sense. 1) high res, 2) high speed and 3) high DR

I think Nikon might be going that route first -- high rest D800, high DR D4, and may be high speed D4s in the future.

May be I am just hallucinating, but makes sense.

Make sense. Do you think "high DR" should be "high DR / low noise"?

 

[poias]

I think 3 types of pro bodies make sense. 1) high res, 2) high speed and 3) high DR

I think Nikon might be going that route first -- high rest D800, high DR D4, and may be high speed D4s in the future.

May be I am just hallucinating, but makes sense.

Make sense. Do you think "high DR" should be "high DR / low noise"?

Yup, just overall better IQ that becomes the brand's flagship. High Res and High Speed are variations that cater to specific shooters.

 

[bycostello]

i'd say just 1 with all that!

 

[dr croubie]

Whereas canon's had the split of:
1D: high speed
1Ds, highres, high(er) DR, low(er) noise (than the 1D, although they don't really have a low-MP high-iso D3s direct-competitor)
for 10 years, and now it's combined into the 1DX, high-speed and (allegedly) higher DR and lower noise in one. But they're still going to lose out on the high MP market, or they're banking that 18mp is "high enough".

I still don't believe a D800 is 36MP, because it would be around $3-4k, I reckon it's either a D4X or a new model between the D700/D3 lines, so D453434000 by their naming conventions.

In the red corner, I wouldn't be surprised at a 30+MP studio-version, less-rugged, less-AF, low-fps 2/3/4D @ $3-3.5k, which will keep the 5D3 for the 1DX-sensor in a lower-specced body...

 

[pwp]

I think 3 types of pro bodies make sense. 1) high res, 2) high speed and 3) high DR

+1 ....nice!

You have articulated an interesting concept. Of course it would be cool to have bodies that did absolutely everything, but we're not there yet. For my work the 1D4 comes close.

I guess I partially head in this direction when I'm planning what to take on a job. 1D4 for speed, 5DII for high res and in my case 7D for light weight and reach (1.6X). The 5D classic comes out if I want a particular look in a portrait. Different photographers will have their own body trifecta according to their project requirements.

When HDR is called for I'm happy blending a bracket of exposures.

Paul Wright

 

[nightbreath]

I think 3 types of pro bodies make sense. 1) high res, 2) high speed and 3) high DR

I don't see a reason why you can't mix your options #2 and #3 in one bottle. You can use the same generation of sensor to have high speed / high DR / good ISO performance in one camera (such as 1D X) and high res in another (rumored Nikon D800 as an example).

One thing I don't understand is why they haven't yet created an adjustable parameter "apply additional noise reduction to RAW" that slows down your speed, but applies some sophisticated noise reduction techniques if you don't care about FPS. 1D X will have this enabled by default when ISO is set to 32'000 or above (got the idea from here: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/eos-1d-x-sensor-broken-down/), but it can't be controlled by you as "low", "moderate", "high" value.

 

[JR]

Well, I think Canon was going the other way with only 2 bodies when they announced the merging of the 1DIV with the 1DIIIs (to become the 1DX), and then adding a 5DIII to the mix. However of Nikon does come out with a D800 in the $4000 range and if it has good sales numbers, it might make sense for Canon to introduce three FF bodies: 1DX, new high MP model, and 5DIII. The new model number might be a 1 series or something between a 1 and a 5 depending if they decide small formfactor body or pro series form factor (with integrated grip).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The number of MP has little to do with the price, cost to make a sensor is more dependent on the size than the number of photosites. It has everything to do with noise and DR, its a compromise and salesmanship. People will buy more MP and pay more, because they think it costs more to make the sensor.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

One thing I don't understand is why they haven't yet created an adjustable parameter "apply additional noise reduction to RAW" that slows down your speed, but applies some sophisticated noise reduction techniques if you don't care about FPS.

Because better results will be given working with RAWs after the shooting session, as always. So far, in-body processing is focused on convenience and flexibility, and so far additional processing has come at the cost of more noise (i.e., highlight tone priority leads to more noise in shadows, if I remember right).

Camera manufacturers would rather output clumsy JPEGs than be seen adding features which sink the speed of their cameras relative to competition - there isn't much marketing to be gained from it, no real drive for such a thing given the workflows (or lack thereof, in the case of most JPEG shooters) and a fair bit of potential downside.

 

[nightbreath]

Because better results will be given working with RAWs after the shooting session, as always.

I clearly understand that computer should do the processing, not the camera. But there might be something that could be done in-camera to improve image quality (such as "dark frame", "bias frame", maybe something else). Reduced FPS of 1D X for high ISO gave me the idea Canon might be using this technology in the camera.

 

[torger]

Because better results will be given working with RAWs after the shooting session, as always.

I clearly understand that computer should do the processing, not the camera. But there might be something that could be done in-camera to improve image quality (such as "dark frame", "bias frame", maybe something else). Reduced FPS of 1D X for high ISO gave me the idea Canon might be using this technology in the camera.

Reduced FPS at very high ISOs may simply be because high ISO leads to noiser files which leads to lower compression ratios which leads to more data per frame => lower throughput.

 

[Cannon Man]

If 18MP is enoughf for you the 1DX is all of the above. Its super high speed, great IQ and low noise because of the new lower MP sensor and all that prosessing power.

 

[troy19]

I think 3 types of pro bodies make sense. 1) high res, 2) high speed and 3) high DR

I don't see a reason why you can't mix your options #2 and #3 in one bottle. You can use the same generation of sensor to have high speed / high DR / good ISO performance in one camera (such as 1D X) and high res in another (rumored Nikon D800 as an example).

+1

So there could be:

1D X for pros (12fps, 18MP)

5D X for pros, semi-pros and amateurs (same sensor as 1D X, but much lower fps, say 4 - 5 fps)

5D S for pros, semi-pros and amateurs also (new sensor with 30+ MP).

X series adresses wildlife, sports and so on.

S series adresses studio, landscape, architecture, macro and so on.

Too bad for me, I'm on wildlife, landscape and macro, so I have to buy both 5D X and 5D S, though can afford none of them

@nightbreath: nice website, like the style of your photos.

 

[nightbreath]

I clearly understand that computer should do the processing, not the camera. But there might be something that could be done in-camera to improve image quality (such as "dark frame", "bias frame", maybe something else). Reduced FPS of 1D X for high ISO gave me the idea Canon might be using this technology in the camera.

Reduced FPS at very high ISOs may simply be because high ISO leads to noiser files which leads to lower compression ratios which leads to more data per frame => lower throughput.

I'm not familiar with the logic of A&D conversion, so correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems that more processing power is required for complex textures. From my experience scenes with lots of leaves on trees might be more capacity-consuming than other shots I normally take. More capacity required for a file could mean that more data should have been processed and more processing power required.

Interesting to see whether FPS depends on scene you're capturing, so we can identify whether complex textures affect FPS or some additional technique is applied to reduce noise in 1D X. Would be great if someone else can share his thoughts on this too.

P.S. Sorry for off topic

@nightbreath: nice website, like the style of your photos.

Appreciate your feedback thank you. How did you find address to my web-site?

 

[troy19]

How did you find address to my web-site?

was just curious about "luxury" in your profile