Re: Sigma's new 45MP camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ScotchBright, May 22, 2011.

  1. ScotchBright

    ScotchBright Guest

    On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:30:08 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >"Only" $9700, but at least now they have a model with a competitive
    >resolution (15MP full colour, which should be on par with 22MP Bayer
    >cameras).


    Well, that ought to force down the price of the recent cameras
    in Nkon's D3 line (D3-S and D3-X).

    They're great cameras, but they can't possibly justify
    charging more than 5 grand for the D3-S when a Canon that shoots
    comparable quality images but at considerably higher resolution is
    around the same price.

    And the X? Well, that's priced right out of reality. Yes, it's
    a great camera, but you can get cameras that can do almost everything
    it can do for a couple thousand cheaper.

    This will force down the price of those two from Nikon, and
    therefore it is good news.
    ScotchBright, May 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ScotchBright

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:53:41 -0400, ScotchBright
    <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:30:08 +0200, Alfred Molon
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>"Only" $9700, but at least now they have a model with a competitive
    >>resolution (15MP full colour, which should be on par with 22MP Bayer
    >>cameras).

    >
    > Well, that ought to force down the price of the recent cameras
    >in Nkon's D3 line (D3-S and D3-X).
    >
    > They're great cameras, but they can't possibly justify
    >charging more than 5 grand for the D3-S when a Canon that shoots
    >comparable quality images but at considerably higher resolution is
    >around the same price.
    >
    > And the X? Well, that's priced right out of reality. Yes, it's
    >a great camera, but you can get cameras that can do almost everything
    >it can do for a couple thousand cheaper.
    >
    > This will force down the price of those two from Nikon, and
    >therefore it is good news.



    Don't be silly. The only thing that will cause a fall in sales/drop
    in price of these D3 variants is the introduction of the D4. Nikon
    has never had any need to reduce the price of the D3s/D3X, nor to
    offer rebates.

    The D3s is an exceptional performer, with extremely low noise at high
    ISOs. It is a very strong seller. Canon has nothing in its range
    that competes with it - the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are
    comparatively weak performers at high ISOs and their strong AA filters
    take away most of the resolution advantage that a 21.8 MP sensor
    should provide.

    The D3X has been a very strong seller right from the start, and is
    still a strong seller. Canon cannot compete with the D3X because
    their 21.8 MP sensor is noisier and is fitted with a strong AA filter
    that smudges away fine detail. The D3X's AA filter has a much subtler
    effect and the result, in terms of detail retention, is exceptional.
    Perhaps Canon will catch up one day.
    Bruce, May 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ScotchBright

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ScotchBright
    <> wrote:

    > >"Only" $9700, but at least now they have a model with a competitive
    > >resolution (15MP full colour, which should be on par with 22MP Bayer
    > >cameras).

    >
    > Well, that ought to force down the price of the recent cameras
    > in Nkon's D3 line (D3-S and D3-X).


    it won't affect anything.

    > They're great cameras, but they can't possibly justify
    > charging more than 5 grand for the D3-S when a Canon that shoots
    > comparable quality images but at considerably higher resolution is
    > around the same price.


    assuming you mean the canon 5d mark ii, it's nowhere near as good at
    high iso, it has a slower frame rate and a slower and less capable
    autofocus system, just to name a few things.

    resolution isn't the *only* metric for a camera, and unless you print
    really large, it doesn't even matter.

    > And the X? Well, that's priced right out of reality. Yes, it's
    > a great camera, but you can get cameras that can do almost everything
    > it can do for a couple thousand cheaper.


    nope.

    > This will force down the price of those two from Nikon, and
    > therefore it is good news.


    it won't make a whit of difference.
    nospam, May 22, 2011
    #3
  4. ScotchBright

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >On 5/22/2011 9:29 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >> On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:53:41 -0400, ScotchBright
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:30:08 +0200, Alfred Molon
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Only" $9700, but at least now they have a model with a competitive
    >>>> resolution (15MP full colour, which should be on par with 22MP Bayer
    >>>> cameras).
    >>>
    >>> Well, that ought to force down the price of the recent cameras
    >>> in Nkon's D3 line (D3-S and D3-X).
    >>>
    >>> They're great cameras, but they can't possibly justify
    >>> charging more than 5 grand for the D3-S when a Canon that shoots
    >>> comparable quality images but at considerably higher resolution is
    >>> around the same price.
    >>>
    >>> And the X? Well, that's priced right out of reality. Yes, it's
    >>> a great camera, but you can get cameras that can do almost everything
    >>> it can do for a couple thousand cheaper.
    >>>
    >>> This will force down the price of those two from Nikon, and
    >>> therefore it is good news.

    >>
    >>
    >> Don't be silly. The only thing that will cause a fall in sales/drop
    >> in price of these D3 variants is the introduction of the D4. Nikon
    >> has never had any need to reduce the price of the D3s/D3X, nor to
    >> offer rebates.
    >>
    >> The D3s is an exceptional performer, with extremely low noise at high
    >> ISOs. It is a very strong seller. Canon has nothing in its range
    >> that competes with it - the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are
    >> comparatively weak performers at high ISOs and their strong AA filters
    >> take away most of the resolution advantage that a 21.8 MP sensor
    >> should provide.

    >
    >What about the Canon 1D IV? The high ISO performance isn't quite as
    >good, but still very good, and it's a higher resolution camera, as well.
    >This doesn't compete with the D3s?



    Read what I said:
    "Canon has nothing in its range that competes with [the D3s] - the 5D
    Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are comparatively weak performers at high
    ISOs and their strong AA filters take away most of the resolution
    advantage that a 21.8 MP sensor should provide."


    >> The D3X has been a very strong seller right from the start, and is
    >> still a strong seller. Canon cannot compete with the D3X because
    >> their 21.8 MP sensor is noisier and is fitted with a strong AA filter
    >> that smudges away fine detail. The D3X's AA filter has a much subtler
    >> effect and the result, in terms of detail retention, is exceptional.
    >> Perhaps Canon will catch up one day.

    >
    >Ah, OK. I get it. Just trolling.



    No, not trolling at all. It was a reasonable, measured, factual
    response to a mischievous troll, a.k.a "ScotchBright".

    I pointed out why Canon lags some way behind Nikon when it comes to
    high-end DSLRs. The reason why I wrote "Perhaps Canon will catch up
    one day" is that Nikon's D4 and the D300 and D700 replacements will
    all be announced soon, almost certainly by the end of 2011.

    We sell the full range of Nikon and Canon DSLRs in our stores. In the
    consumer and prosumer sectors, Canon competes very strongly, with the
    7D being a particularly good performer that offers excellent value for
    money. But at the high end, Canon needs to improve its products just
    to compete with Nikon's current offerings. Nikon's next generation of
    prosumer and pro-grade DSLRs will raise the bar even higher.

    I feel certain that no-one at Canon would disagree with any of the
    above. The sales figures tell the story: Canon has lost the clear
    lead it had before the D3, D3X, D700 and D3s appeared.
    Bruce, May 24, 2011
    #4
  5. ScotchBright

    ScotchBright Guest

    On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:27:00 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >Bowser <> wrote:
    >>On 5/22/2011 9:29 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:53:41 -0400, ScotchBright
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:30:08 +0200, Alfred Molon
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Only" $9700, but at least now they have a model with a competitive
    >>>>> resolution (15MP full colour, which should be on par with 22MP Bayer
    >>>>> cameras).
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, that ought to force down the price of the recent cameras
    >>>> in Nkon's D3 line (D3-S and D3-X).
    >>>>
    >>>> They're great cameras, but they can't possibly justify
    >>>> charging more than 5 grand for the D3-S when a Canon that shoots
    >>>> comparable quality images but at considerably higher resolution is
    >>>> around the same price.
    >>>>
    >>>> And the X? Well, that's priced right out of reality. Yes, it's
    >>>> a great camera, but you can get cameras that can do almost everything
    >>>> it can do for a couple thousand cheaper.
    >>>>
    >>>> This will force down the price of those two from Nikon, and
    >>>> therefore it is good news.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't be silly. The only thing that will cause a fall in sales/drop
    >>> in price of these D3 variants is the introduction of the D4. Nikon
    >>> has never had any need to reduce the price of the D3s/D3X, nor to
    >>> offer rebates.
    >>>
    >>> The D3s is an exceptional performer, with extremely low noise at high
    >>> ISOs. It is a very strong seller. Canon has nothing in its range
    >>> that competes with it - the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are
    >>> comparatively weak performers at high ISOs and their strong AA filters
    >>> take away most of the resolution advantage that a 21.8 MP sensor
    >>> should provide.

    >>
    >>What about the Canon 1D IV? The high ISO performance isn't quite as
    >>good, but still very good, and it's a higher resolution camera, as well.
    >>This doesn't compete with the D3s?

    >
    >
    >Read what I said:
    >"Canon has nothing in its range that competes with [the D3s] - the 5D
    >Mark II and 1Ds Mark III are comparatively weak performers at high
    >ISOs and their strong AA filters take away most of the resolution
    >advantage that a 21.8 MP sensor should provide."
    >
    >
    >>> The D3X has been a very strong seller right from the start, and is
    >>> still a strong seller. Canon cannot compete with the D3X because
    >>> their 21.8 MP sensor is noisier and is fitted with a strong AA filter
    >>> that smudges away fine detail. The D3X's AA filter has a much subtler
    >>> effect and the result, in terms of detail retention, is exceptional.
    >>> Perhaps Canon will catch up one day.

    >>
    >>Ah, OK. I get it. Just trolling.

    >
    >
    >No, not trolling at all. It was a reasonable, measured, factual
    >response to a mischievous troll, a.k.a "ScotchBright".


    I ask honest questions when I ask them on this group. I don't
    start or get into arguments. Therefore, how am I "trolling"?

    >
    >I pointed out why Canon lags some way behind Nikon when it comes to
    >high-end DSLRs. The reason why I wrote "Perhaps Canon will catch up
    >one day" is that Nikon's D4 and the D300 and D700 replacements will
    >all be announced soon, almost certainly by the end of 2011.
    >
    >We sell the full range of Nikon and Canon DSLRs in our stores. In the
    >consumer and prosumer sectors, Canon competes very strongly, with the
    >7D being a particularly good performer that offers excellent value for
    >money. But at the high end, Canon needs to improve its products just
    >to compete with Nikon's current offerings. Nikon's next generation of
    >prosumer and pro-grade DSLRs will raise the bar even higher.
    >
    >I feel certain that no-one at Canon would disagree with any of the
    >above. The sales figures tell the story: Canon has lost the clear
    >lead it had before the D3, D3X, D700 and D3s appeared.
    ScotchBright, May 26, 2011
    #5
  6. ScotchBright

    Bruce Guest

    ScotchBright <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:27:00 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >>Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>Ah, OK. I get it. Just trolling.

    >>
    >>No, not trolling at all. It was a reasonable, measured, factual
    >>response to a mischievous troll, a.k.a "ScotchBright".

    >
    > I ask honest questions when I ask them on this group. I don't
    >start or get into arguments. Therefore, how am I "trolling"?



    Maybe when you ask questions, they are honest. I don't know, because
    I have never read one of your "honest" questions. Your posting that I
    replied to contained not questions, but provocative statements that
    are the hallmark of a troll.

    Reply if you like, but I won't see it because I always put trolls like
    you in my kill file. Bye.
    Bruce, May 26, 2011
    #6
  7. ScotchBright

    Guest

    On Thu, 26 May 2011 21:54:29 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >ScotchBright <> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:27:00 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>wrote:
    >>>Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>Ah, OK. I get it. Just trolling.
    >>>
    >>>No, not trolling at all. It was a reasonable, measured, factual
    >>>response to a mischievous troll, a.k.a "ScotchBright".

    >>
    >> I ask honest questions when I ask them on this group. I don't
    >>start or get into arguments. Therefore, how am I "trolling"?

    >
    >
    >Maybe when you ask questions, they are honest. I don't know, because
    >I have never read one of your "honest" questions. Your posting that I
    >replied to contained not questions, but provocative statements that
    >are the hallmark of a troll.
    >
    >Reply if you like, but I won't see it because I always put trolls like
    >you in my kill file. Bye.


    ...and then you put the "twit" in "Twitter".

    Good for you.

    March on.
    , Jun 3, 2011
    #7
  8. ScotchBright

    John Turco Guest

    ScotchBright wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:27:00 +0100, Bruce <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> Bowser <> wrote:
    > >>> On 5/22/2011 9:29 AM, Bruce wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > >>> The D3X has been a very strong seller right from the start, and is
    > >>> still a strong seller. Canon cannot compete with the D3X because
    > >>> their 21.8 MP sensor is noisier and is fitted with a strong AA filter
    > >>> that smudges away fine detail. The D3X's AA filter has a much subtler
    > >>> effect and the result, in terms of detail retention, is exceptional.
    > >>> Perhaps Canon will catch up one day.
    > >>
    > >> Ah, OK. I get it. Just trolling.

    > >
    > >
    > > No, not trolling at all. It was a reasonable, measured, factual
    > > response to a mischievous troll, a.k.a "ScotchBright".

    >
    > I ask honest questions when I ask them on this group. I don't start
    > or get into arguments. Therefore, how am I "trolling"?


    <edited>

    You're >all< being manipulated, by "King Troll" (i.e., "Bruce").

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #8
  9. ScotchBright

    John Turco Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    >
    > > ScotchBright <> wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:27:00 +0100, Bruce <>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>> Bowser <> wrote:
    > >>> Ah, OK. I get it. Just trolling.
    > >>
    > >> No, not trolling at all. It was a reasonable, measured, factual
    > >> response to a mischievous troll, a.k.a "ScotchBright".

    > >
    > > I ask honest questions when I ask them on this group. I don't
    > > start or get into arguments. Therefore, how am I "trolling"?

    >
    > Maybe when you ask questions, they are honest. I don't know, because
    > I have never read one of your "honest" questions. Your posting that I
    > replied to contained not questions, but provocative statements that
    > are the hallmark of a troll.
    >
    > Reply if you like, but I won't see it because I always put trolls like
    > you in my kill file. Bye.



    Well, then, "Bruce" -- >you< should reside in your own cyber-dungeon.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jupiter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    339
    Jupiter
    Feb 23, 2004
  2. rolento

    Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    457
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  3. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    465
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  4. Mikevt1

    Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray

    Mikevt1, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,351
    Graham Fountain
    Oct 17, 2006
  5. Pete Stavrakoglou

    Re: Sigma's new 45MP camera

    Pete Stavrakoglou, May 20, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    306
    Pete Stavrakoglou
    May 23, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page