Sorry I missed the point entirely. I thought the original poster had aleady decided to buy a good DSLR, and wanted advice on whether it should be a Canon or Nikon (Nikon vs. Cannon).

Given that, many decisions have already been made. Nikon or Canon? Answer draws many differring opinions, but I am pretty sure the answer isn't format or brands other than Nikon or Canon.

Howie, my interpretation of the original request is that it mentions Canon and Nikon, but does not necessarily limit the range of choice to those two brands. We don't know that many decisions have been made, but we do know that price is not a binding constraint and the person's mind is open to advice. I as well don't think format is THE answer, but rather PART of the issue list to consider.

Time for Valkyrie to let us know what else we can say helpfully!

Mark, I was just going by the name of the post - "Nikon or Cannon". Given that question, I still don't see how the answer could Sony.

"Do you want chicken or fish?"
"I'll have the roast beef." Wrong?

Howie, OK I ignored the title and just went straight for the content of the post. But, hey, you know, if I go into a restaurant intending to eat chicken or fish and the staff are really persuasive about the qualities of the roast beef I may just change my mind .............!

I see your point. Especially if you ask what kind of fish is that and they say carp. Any piece of chicken might seem better. Maybe you just thought you wanted fish or chicken.

But if you go to KFC, don't wait for beef. It's chicken or fish. And I have never understood why I would go to a steak house to order chicken.

OK then, a Nikon or Canon DSLR? I'll have a 4x5 film camera.

Not a bad choice Howie. There's a guy here in Toronto with a glitzy studio down by the waterfront where the rent has to be steep who uses a 5*7 view camera and produces the most gorgeous wall-size "platinum prints" (he says) that sell framed in the range of 3500 ~ 4500 dollars EACH. Well, film is ALMOST dead, but not quite!

I also think we've been trolled. How many "photography" students would misspell "Canon" twice?" Once might be a typo, twice probably isn't. As for price being no object, it's always an object: if Mom is going to buy you any kit you want, tell her it's $10,000, then buy the cheaper one and send the money you save to Meals on Wheels. There are hungry people out there. For somebody who's thinking about a "Cannon," I doubt that it makes any difference which system you buy into.

And for a student who is interested in landscapes, action photos and portraiture, why not go for something more creative? I'd suggest doing cross-category stuff like action-landscapes, or landscape-portraiture.

By the way, for those who haven't seen it, the latest issue of Aperture magazine has a section devoted to the photography of Jessica Lange.

JC

Could be - but the evidence? If Valkyrie doesn't know how to spell Cannon the first time why shouldn't he/she mis-spell Cannon the second time? Anyhow, trolled or not its been a bit of fun.

You have a point of course, David. It's not perhaps so clear-cut as deciding on a format first (money not being a major concern).

At present, the D2X has an image quality and enlargability approximately on a par with the 5D, though both are different format cameras. However, I foresee that Nikon will not be able to maintain this image parity with the larger format Canons in the future as pixel density increases. A full frame 35mm sensor with the pixel density of the 400D would be 26mp.

The main investment when choosing a brand is the lenses which one gradually accumulates. Camera bodies and their features and functionality are improving year by year. People tend to get caught in a particular system because of the value of their lenses.

A student who opts for a Nikon without regard to format might, a few years down the track, regret not being able to switch without great expense to that 26mp 1Ds4 which he thinks he needs for his new large format printer.

Ray, I think this is right-on. It is also one of the reasons why I opted for a used 1Ds instead of a new 20D, at the time; the 1DsMkII was already on the market and I saw the trend: increasing MP-count, allowing more cropping/greater enlargement, and obviously the larger the sensor the more likely there will be yet greater MP-count while preserving high quality. So anyone looking down the road and thinking they may want this flexibility should take sensor size into account, amongst other things. That said, one can always switch systems and sell used lenses, but there is a loss as well as a nuissance factor doing the transactions and getting accustomed to another camera system.

But getting back to John Camp, it really is strange that Valkyrie hasn't responded to any of this yet. Maybe we are being trolled...........

i always think it interesting when someone starts a thread like this, more than a week ago, dozens of really informative posts follow, and the original poster neither weighs in with a more refined definition of his needs or a mere thank you to all the folks that tried to help him. kudos to all for adding their $.02; personally i often wonder "why bother?"

It looks to me as if we were baited - someone with poor spelling skills up to mischief trying to get a nasty debate started - we won!

The good thing though is that the really expensive lenses can often be used both with APS and FF sensors.

I don't believe that Nikon has plans to let Canon get a significant lead in resolution. If APS really cannot manage resolutions in the 16-22 MP range, then they will go for FF.

Regards,
Bernard

yea, first clue: a student for whom "price is not really an issue;" not any student i ever knew!!

second clue: a sister "in the business" who says nikon is the industry standard. well respected, fine equipment manufacturer (god, if the new 16-35 can match the optical quality of the nikon 17-35 we'll all be in canon FF heaven!), industry leader, heavy market share hitter, . . . but industry standard?

i think we'e been had!!

Yes, but it did make for an interesting and quite civilized discussion. Probably more civilized than the OP was hoping for.

Well Eric, we should become sponsors of some sort of cross brand temporary exchange programe, shouldn't we? I let you use my rusty d2x for one week while you send me your 5D?

Cheers,
Bernard

If you throw in one or two of your nifty mountain prints, I'll be sorely tempted.

Best,

Eric

"If APS really cannot manage resolutions in the 16-22 MP range, then they will go for FF."

This is probably THE question. Interestingly, I have a lens designer friend whom I asked about this a couple of years ago. His comments, based purely on his experience and very rough maths at the time, were to suggest that building lenses capable of working with 15~16MPixel + APS sensors MIGHT not be an economically viable option! This was apparently based on the QC issues which would potentially arise from the extremely tight tolerances he foresaw being needed.

I just put this in here as it was something that I found very interesting and it certainly swayed my decision making. We live in fascinating times though and I suspect that both Canon and Nikon have their futures mapped out very carefully for the next few generations of digital cameras - Oh to be a fly on their walls!

if money is not an issue go for the 1Ds Mark II.

Nah - you're under-achieving. If money is not an issue why not go for a P45 set-up? That would take the Valkyries for a ride, wouldn't it?

Bernard,

I think you left out a letter in the adjective preceding the word "d2x."

Best,

Paul

Re trolling, the clue is the username. IME if someone puts a number after their UN it's usually a DOB, which makes valkyrie 42 years old.

- DL

Thanks, Don. I think you've discovered the Fountain of Youth! I think I'll change my username to EricM1978 (sounds so much better than EricM1939.)

- Eric19--

Whether troll or not, I've loved reading everybody's opinions. I teach college photography and I love that this fight exists even amongst those with no real photographic experience. My Dad shot with Nikon. I shoot with Canon. I tell my students to buy a camera that they can afford, that feels good and that they can grow with. I almost always suggest Canon or Nikon. IF Canon releases an entirely new line this year I'll probably be saying "Nikon? What's a Nikon?". I like the d200, but the 5d is great. I hate the XTi, but the D80 is good for beginners. But please, don't try and compare the 2Dxs with the Ids Mark II, or now with the Id Mark III. And besides, any photographer who enjoys low light has got to go CMOS

That requires a certain leap of faith, Bernard. One might presume that Nikon will rise to the challenge and at some point begin producing full frame sensors rather than play second fiddle to Canon. However, Canon is one of the few camera manufacturers that actually make their own sensors. They have a great wealth of experience in FF sensor production, which is growing year by year, and I think it is unlikely they'll be selling their FF sensors to Nikon.

I'm reminded here of the Kodak 14n difficulties. There's no doubt it would be possible for Nikon to eventually produce a camera with a FF sensor, but would it be possible for them to produce one that is as good as the future range of Canon FF cameras?

Good question........but what are the latest rumours about Canon FUTURE FF cameras? Any fresh gossip from out there in Japan, Bernard?

Cheers,

Mark

Of course Nikon would not have to make its own larger sensors; it could get them from its collaboration with Sony: shared design efforts, fabrication by Sony, probably on steppers made by Nikon, which is a major stepper maker. I see no reason why Sony would not be capable of scaling up from its successful 15.7x23.5mm format sensors (both CCD and CMOS) to 24x36mm if there were signs of adequate demand at adequately profitable price.

What would be the barriers to up-sizing? The only one I see is the added difficulty and cost due to the need for multiple exposures in the stepper, due to the 26x33mm chip size limit stated by Canon again in its 1DMkIII white paper. And numerous companies are capable of fabricating such sensors (Panasonic; Kodak; Dalsa; Tower Semiconductor in Israel and the English fab. who between them made the sensors for the Kodak 14/N, SLR/N and SLR/C; etc.) so I see little reason to think that a huge chip maker like Sony would have any fundamental problems.

Then again, my fantasy is Nikon/Sony launching high end models using a sensor format of about 24x31mm to 24x33mm: whatever is the largest that can be fabricated without that special multiple step process and is compatible with 24x36mm equipment like lenses. The width limit comes from Canon's mention of a 26x33mm size limit in fabrication; the 24mm height is the maximum for full backward compatibility with 35mmm lenses and such. The lower width (31mm) allows for the possibility that the sensor might ned to have a mm or so of "non-image recording" area near the edges of the 26x33mm maximum total chip size.

Being a few mm narrower than 24x36mm could bring a major cost advantage; a cost advantage that Canon seems to be pursuing with its persistence in using a 1.3x crop format for its top selling pro models.

BJL,
I agree in principle here, but I suspect there might be a large number of trade secrets and patents involved in the refinement of such a sensor which gives Canon an advantage. Clearly I'm not familiar with the detail of the production processes and integration of the sensor into the camera to produce the exceptionally low noise/high ISO performance that is now a trade-mark of Canon DSLRs, but I'd be willing to stick out my neck and say it's not just as straightforward as having the machinery to stamp out the sensors.

The issue of adequate demand and adequate profitability might be another stumbling block. What would motivate Nikon to start looking at FF sensors for their cameras is a loss of market share to Canon due to, for example, a 22mp successor to the 5D being available at a reasonable cost of, say $2,000.... at least this sort of thing. In order to wrest back that loss of market share, Nikon would have to come up with a FF sensor design at least as good as what Canon is offering.

This simply might not be possible. The Kodak 14n line was not a success even though it was cheaper than the Canon 1Ds and marginally higher resolution.



If there would be significant cost savings in producing a 24x31mm sensor compared with a 24x36mm sensor, I don't understand why it is not being done. The area of such a sensor is only marginally less than that of a FF 24x36mm sensor. There would not only be full compatibility with all 35mm lenses but the corners of the frame would be subject to slightly less vignetting.

Perhaps the reason is the very odd aspect ratio which would result, 1:1.29, which is slightly squarer than the 4/3rds aspect ratio. Perhaps this is seen as a marketing disadvantage. Perhaps there are too many people who consider DSLRs to be status symbols, who would be uncomfortable with the thought that the reason for the very odd aspect ratio of their status symbol is merely to reduce production costs. Just guessing .

Nikon does make a sensor, the LBCAST, which has some advantages over CCD and CMOS. They've used it in the D/H series, but only up to ~4mp. Wikipedia reports rumors of an 8mp LBCAST in the next generation D3H, which would compete with 1DMIII as a news and sports shooter.

When Nikon first announced the LBCAST, it was assumed that it would be a main-line sensor; I don't know if that's out of the question now, or not, or if there are problems fabricating a FF version of it; but since it was around four or five years ago, and Nikon is still using it, I would assume that some development has continued.

Kodak and Nikon have cooperated in the past. Kodak has a very good CCD chip in the new M8, 10 mp at 1.3x. If they went FF with that and got ~18-19mp, it would compete quite nicely with the next generation 1DsIII, which is expected in around 22mp. The fly in that particular ointment is that Kodak could be preparing that FF chip for a new Leica R.

I think that Canon's new camera top-line model will have everything including the kitchen sink attached to it; their weak spot might be the lens line-up, especially at the wide end. There are rumors of a new series of lenses, made especially to handle the higher resolution of a ~22mp sensor, but there have been rumors of that since rumors were invented.

The next Nikon/Canon bodies may be the end of the serious mp competition, and the beginning of serious competition in other areas -- DR, low-light, selectable/multiple frame sizes for different kinds of shooting, perhaps (if they don't have it -- I don't keep up) a blue tooth/cell phone connnection for direct transmission of news photos to an editing receiver. All for the greater glory of converting a photographer into a camera pointer.

JC

Interesting post John, but I hardly think some-one paying around 8K for a 1DsMkiii would have the profile of a "camera pointer" - that kind of dough usually signifies a more serious-minded photographer!

A distant dream of mine - a Leica Summicron lens attached to a DSLR 20+ MP FF camera - that would blow the world away!

Nah - you're under-achieving. Book time on the Hubble Telescope.

That made my day!

For a particular kind of pro -- a newspaper guy -- the expense isn't in the camera, it's in the photographer's salary. At a modest-sized metro paper, a photographer on an average salary will cost the paper ~$100,000 a year, when you include the paper's share of social security, medical insurance and pension; compared to that, an $8,000 camera that will last for several years is small potatos.

Like this: suppose you were able to shoot and download each series of shots on a continuing basis, via cell phone. That means that an editor could sit at a computer and watch the shots streaming in. Say it's a political rally of modest importance or a football game: they know they've got space for one shot on the inside metro for the political rally, and when a shot streams though that's "good enough," they cut the photographer off, and move him to the next assignment -- say, the closest house fire. Meanwhile, at the football game, they know they're going to use three shots in color: they want one close-up of a quarterback being chased or caught, one pass reception, one touchdown. As they get each one, they could check it off and maneuver the photographer around the field to maximize his chances of getting the next one. I worked for newspapers for quite awhile, and believe me, this type of situation would be very attractive for editors who are pushed both for time and material. I bet you could squeeze a couple of extra assignments per day out of a photographer: his camera would become a kind of monitoring device that would not only tell you what your guy is doing, but would tell you when you could move him on. It would also remove most of his judgment, and there are a lot of editors who would like that, too. That's where the "camera-pointer" line comes from.

JC

I can see no way that designing a larger sensor requires extra "trade secrets" other than the fabrication issues that I mentioned above, which a number of sensor makers clearly know how to handle. As far as designing as opposed to fabrication, larger photosites are clearly no problem, and once the individual photosite is designed, filing out a larger design by using adding more rows and columns of them seems rather trivial. I have to think that the issue is purely a business decision based on balancing costs (both development costs and unit manufacturing costs) against the expected sales potential.

The aspect ratio does not have to be so odd: the range I suggested includes options for 5:4 and 4:3 shapes (24x30, 24x32), rather common choices in larger formats for both sensors and prints.

But maybe there is a strong conservative force at work in the 35mm based world, demanding images of the shape that is familiar from 35mm film, no matter how easy it is to crop. And even if this is achieved by limiting the camera to what is essentially a crop from what could be achieved with a "taller" frame: one of the same width but greater height. For example, Canon persists with a 3:2 frame format of 28.1x18.7mm in the EOS-1 D MkIII even though the fabrication size limits mentioned by Canon would almost certainly allow a taller format like 28.1x20mm and probably up to about 28.1x22mm. The total chip size limit mentioned by Canon is 33x26mm, so even if 28.1mm is the maximum active area width due to losing 3.9mm at the sides, the same 3.9mm lost vertically would allow up to 28.1x22.1mm. It would be too much of a coincidence for the maximum possible width and height for the active area come out to be in 3:2 proportion when the 33x26mm limit is quite a different shape (1.27:1).

Keeping the 1D series crop format at exactly is a mystery to me when Canon keeps making the point that this is about the largest sensor size currently possible without the cost penalty of multiple step fabrication. Firstly, a taller frame could easily be used with a 3:2 crop mode and crop lines marked in the VF, so nothing is lost compared to a frame that is less high but no wider. Secondly, there are many professional photographic situations that benefit from less wide shapes like 4:3 and 3:2, and when cropping to those shapes, the extra height would give a somewhat larger format. And isn't bigger always better, at least if the extra cost is not too great and the lenses available all cover the larger frame?

A final note: it is hard for me to see a rational basic for the facts that
- one area of high end photography (everything larger than 35mm format) uses almost exclusively on 4:3 and/or 5:4 formats, with even square sometimes seeming more popular than 3:2;
- another area of high end photography (35mm and the 1.3x crop, along with "APS-C" DSLR formats) uses 3:2 formats exclusively; and
- at smaller formats still (FourThirds and compact digicams) the dominant format shape choice swings back to 4:3 sensor shape, with the 3:2 format digicams of years past now gone from the market.

Some of this has to be a largely irrational attachment to the familiar.

Maybe, but camera costs are probably independent of salary costs, and so saving a few thousand on each camera is still significant to the accountants. I see this when I have to justify the cost of a new office computer to my employer, even though the total cost of my desired options is about one month of my salary every few years.

But I do believe that there are other reasons for even expensive cameras like the EOS-1 D MkIII, D2Xs and D2Hs using formats smaller than 35mm film: the combination of the resolution/telephoto lens size advantages of having pixels that are not too big with the operating speed (frame rate etc.) advantages of not having too many pixels to read out and process.

I must admit I just can't see how you could be right here. A CMOS sensor consists of various components at each photosite to process the signal. The design of many of those components will be patented. It's even possible the technique that Canon has used to reduce the gap between each microlens, in the 400D and later in the 1D3, is a patented process which Nikon or Sony cannot use. That doesn't mean of course that they cannot achieve the same result through a different process, if that's possible. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.

Unless Nikon already have a high pixel count, prototype FF sensor they are working on, it's not going to be good enough to simply use the same processes and designs, but with larger photosites. They'll have to bestow a usable ISO 6400 capability on a pixel no larger than a D2X pixel, just to catch up with Canon. I'm assuming here, of course, that the successors to the 5D and 1Ds3 will have increased pixel count and be at least as good as the 1D3 in terms of low-noise/high-ISO capability.



Definitely. Irrational attachment to the familiar is a strong force which seems very prevalent in human affairs .

Thom Hogan is looking for a ~22mp FF in the next Nikon D3x.

JC

He may be looking, but will he find it? Anyhow, if he has inside information and you've heard it, surely Canon has too..............this could be interesting!

Ray, as I indicated before
1) Sony already has the technology to make good DSLR sized photo-sites, in both CMOS and CCD. In fact Sony is making CMOS photosites slightly smaller than anything from Canon: 5.5 microns in the D2X and D2Xs vs 5.7 microns in the 400D, and 7.2 to 8.2 in Canon's FF models. I have not compared per pixel performance between the D2Xs and the 400D, have you?

2) A Sony/Nikon 24x36mm format sensor would probably have larger photo-sites that the D2Xs, as that 5.5 pixel pitch would give about 30MP, beyond what is generally expected at the next generation of Canon FF. Indications are that 30MP would be too far for Canon to go with its next FF model, at it would likely over-reach the resolution limits of many Canon lenses. (Not to mention rather uncomfortable upper limits on the DOF possible at apertures big enough to limit diffraction adequately and thus get the full 30MP worth of detail.)


Firstly, the point about needing "pixels no larger than a D2X pixel" is not true as explained above: pixel pitch of about 7.2 microns wold be enough to "catch up with Canon" as far as current offerings, and I very much doubt that the next generation of 24x36mm sensors will have pixel pitch as small as the 5.5 microns of the D2X.

Secondly, talk about needing good ISO 6400 performance is taking the high ISO obsession to an extreme. Larger formats in particular are far more about high resolution and good dynamic range at low to moderate ISO than handing extremes of sensor underexposure (low light, high shutter speed shooting). Even Canon persists in making its high ISO, high frame models in formats smaller than 35mm, like the new 1D MkIII. And even the 20D, 30D and D200 offer higher frame rates than any FF model.
If Nikon goes to a format larger than DX, I envision it being for the type of photography served by the 1Ds series. (How often do you feel the need for ISO 6400 at apertures f/2.8 or bigger? At smaller apertures (higher f-stops) than that, the big format, big pixel noise advantage is illusory).

Thirdly, referring back to the comparison of the D2X's 5.5 micron photo-site design from several years ago to Canon slightly larger and more recent 400D photo-sites, how much of a high ISO performance gap is there? (Actually, I interested to see how Panasonic goes in pushing the limits of noise levels, highlight headroom and dynamic range with its new 4/3" format nMOS sensors with 4.7 micron pixel pitch. The nMOS design supposedly allows larger electron wells than CMOS at the same pixel pitch, helping to allow smaller pixel spacing. For some time now, Canon CMOS has had the largest minimum pixel pitch, for whatever reason.


I do not see much basis for that.
The 1DMkIII pixel size is the same as in the 1DsMkII, so going beyond the current 16.5MP of the 1DsMkII would require smaller pixels than the 1DMkIII. In particular, to be consistent with your above talk about Nikon needing pixels no larger than 5.5 microns, you should surely be looking at that same pixel pitch from Canon, meaning photosites about half the area of those 1DMkIII. Why should we expect that Canon will anytime soon be able to go so far below 1DMkIII pixel size while still matching the 1DMkIII in terms of low-noise/high-ISO capability?

BJL,
We could go back and forth like this till the cows come home. Neither of us, presumably, has inside knowledge of current prototype developments in either camp. It's always possible that Nikon, with or without collaboration with Sony, which is after all a competitor, might trump Canon at some future date and come out with a FF 35mm camera which is considered better than any Canon model in all aspects that count. Who knows!

My point basically is, if you are trying to choose between the 2 systems and format is an issue for you (which I think it should be), then going with the company that already has a superb track record in that larger format (having decided the larger format has more appeal) makes more sense than opting for a company that has no track record in that larger format.

However, there's no guarantee that such a decision will prove to be right in, say 5 years' time, after having accummulated thousands of dollars worth of Canon lenses. But I know which decision I'd make .

In very practical terms, for all those interested in FF format, or larger, the next big decision point about system preference will come with the first model to supercede the 1DsMkII. If it's Canon, the main decision will be the user-value of the extra pixels relative to the cost; if it's any one but Canon - that raises major issues about investments in lenses and other peripherals. It's hard to predict technology, being on the receiving end; but the track record suggests it will be Canon. Assuming the format remains the same size, the pixels will need to be smaller. That in turn raises questions about "pixel quality" (i.e. hardware and firmware)which won't really be answerable till the erstwhile camera is tested - again, because the vast majority on the receiving end simply don't know what is up their sleeves at the moment. There may be breakthroughs in materials technology, sensor design, manufacturing technology and signal processing that we'll learn about only when they appear. As usual - it's a conundrum for people entering the market or contemplating an upgrade - how long do you wait relative to the unknowns of what's coming and when!

In the meantime I save my money AND buy printer stuff .

Yep, this is obviously speculation at this stage, but we can already anticipate a few more things:

1. There will be no agreement on the measurment of noise for the next high end DSLRs. Some will like the Canon noise better, some will prefer the Nikon noise better. Overall, most people will not bother checking and will just assume that the Canon is less noisy because it is a Canon,

2. There will be no agreement on the measurment of DR for the next high end DSLRs. Some will prefer the smoother curve of the Canon with more noisy shadows, while others will prefer the more contrasty Nikon with cleaner shadows,

3. The comparisons, if any, will typically be done using a neutral RAW converter like Lightroom or ACR. It appears at the present time that those converters are benchmarked using Canon cameras and then extended to cover Nikon as well, the end result being that few Nikon shooters are happy about the default conversions delivered by ACR/Lightroom, while Canon users are overall very happy. There will therefore be no fair comparision of the RAW image quality of these 2 bodies,

4. There will also be no agreement on how to measure the physical resistance of the bodies (resistance to light rain for instance...),

-> We will probably see statements about the Canon superiority that will not be backed up by actual detailed comparisons, because of these issues, and also on the basis that pixel peeping is something of the past.

All in all, Nikon has been slowly taking back the upper hand in overall DSLR sales (at least in Japan and the EU), and I foresee a strong resistance from Canon in the high end, both in actual product and also in the marketing dept.

The only real question to my eyes being: is the Nikon going to be superior enough that some key Canon shooters have no choice but to acknowledge it?

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard,

Re your point 3 - is this because Canon has been less secretive about the recipe than Nikon - remember all that stuff about the proprietary algorithms when the D2X came out?

On the whole what you describe looks like a menu for some exciting debates to come - I wouldn't for a moment assume that pixel-peeping is "something of the past"; at best it is "dormant" - just waiting for the next good opportunity to demonstrate it is live and well. Anyhow, fine, from time to time the industry needs a good pixel-peep doesn't it - keeps 'em on their toes, which is just what we consumers need most - competition.

Cheers,

Mark

Hello Mark,

Most probably so. It is pretty ironic that in some circles, the willingness of Nikon to keep control on the RAW conversion will probably do them a diservice since their camera will only be evaluated with a third party RAW converter.

In all fairness though, those who bother to check the abilities of a top level DSLR should do it using the best availalbe RAW converter, and not a standard one. It will probably end up being different tools for both bodies.

Doing so requires to:

1. Acknowledge that ACR/Lightroom might not be the best converter for all applications,
2. Bother identifying the best tool for each DSLR, and then bother learning how to use it.

In a way, comparing the D3x and the 1dsIII using lightroom is like doing a comparison of image quality using Sigma lenses on the ground that you want to compare sensors...

Completely stupid since nobody will use these bodies with Sigma lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Completely stupid, but it will happen anyhow on the grounds that the conversion parameter should be a constant between the two comparators. In principle though you are right - each technology should be evaluated using the tools that the professionals would use to derive the best results it can yield - after spending the 1000s they will cost to buy - ouch - my money for the mega-megapixel DSLR is now being "identified" bit by bit.

Agreed: so I will disregard your previous attempts to argue how difficult it would be for Nikon to come up with a competitive larger than DX format option.


That is completely different from your previous point, which was essentially a claim that Nikon needed to have pixel pitch no greater than 5.5 microns (28.6MP in 24x36mm format) with noise as good as Canon is promising for its still unreleased 1DMkIII sensor with 7.2 micron pixel pitch (16.5MP in 24x36mm format). Could you at least admit that those were totally biased terms of comparison, before shifting to a completely different line of argument?

In fact, I am trying a new policy: when a person's arguments are refuted, and the response is to change to completely different arguments in support of exactly the same conclusion, my interpretation is that the person is working backwards in defense of an entrenched belief, casting around for arguments to support it (i.e. to "prop it up"). That is more like religious or political debate that rational, open-minded scientific discussion, so I intend to drop out of of any discussion which goes in that direction.

You are nitpicking. BJL. Since we have agreed that neither of us have any inside information of what's currently on the drawing board, and even though that point was not made at the beginning of the discussion, it must have been quite apparent to both of us. Any precise statements about future pixel pitch of FF sensors should have been understood in this context, as guesswork but based upon a reasonable prediction of trends.

It is not unreasonable to expect that the 1Ds3 will have a 22mp sensor, followed by a 5D successor with a similar (or even greater) increase in pixel count, causing Nikon to attempt to capture lost ground by introducing its first FF sensor with 28mp, or thereabouts. I say this is a reasonable predicition because Canon already have a DSLR with the pixel pitch of a 26mp FF sensor (the 400D) and probably are already working on a 1Ds4 and a 3rd generation 5D with pixels counts approaching 30mp.

These companies have some sort of road map, don't they? If you have been in the business of producing FF sensors for several years, as Canon have, then you've probably got a fair idea of what products you are going to roll out for the public in, say 3 years' time.

It might be reasonable to presume that Nikon has been doing at least some work on its first FF sensor, but it's not going to pass muster if it's a 16 or 22mp camera in 3 years' time when Canon is offering 30mp DSLRs.

If Nikon is working on a FF sensor that has a pixel pitch significantly bigger than 5.5 microns, then they'd better release it soon or the game is lost .

I seem to recall a statement from Nikon that they had no intention of developing a 24*36 format. Of course they can change their minds, but that would be the clearest evidence to date of their intent. As for Canon, we don't have any idea yet - as far as I know - whether the next 1Ds will be 22, 26 or something else. Anyhow, idle speculation is fun.

Me too, but arguably it was hedged with words like "no current plans". Nikon does seem to have kept up with some 24x36mm sensor R&D, and stories of prototypes being field tested have popped up from somewhat credible sources, like our host Michael Reichmann some years ago and Thom Hogan more recently. Of course not all prototypes lead to products.

I am inclined to bet against 24x36mm from Nikon, but not at extreme odds.