pRICE cUBE wrote:
[quote=Billybob]
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
The 1DX Marl 2 has a gain in dynamic range but if I was stuck with a 1DX I would be happy as a clam. I don't recall last time someone looked at one of my sports pics and said, "Dang, look at the dynamic range on that shot!".
I am not sure why the Nikon D5 scored so low on noise in comparison, it seemed as though they were on a roll and had Canon's number.
True on the DR, but if I paid that much for a camera, it would need to more than just a sports shooter. It better be able to do an adequate job of landscape shooting as well!
As for the D5 noise, I don't know if it's better or worst than it's predecessors. I do know that the low-light samples I've seen--not just from Nikon but from actual photographers in the field--look pretty amazing. Suffice to say, if someone were to offer one to me, I would not hesitate to say yes.
However, I would still want the Canon's 16 fps!
The samples i have seen from the D5 look great but Nikon set the bar and now they have come up short. The fanboys that used to be so smug are freaking out that Canon took a jump on the leapfrog but Nikon didn't.
I expect the D5s to have a reworked chip but that will be two years out.
I shoot Nikon but I am hardly a fan. I am quite amused at all the fanboy energy used to argue what brand is better on photo forums.
It is rather crazy. You'd think that they were on a company's payroll or heavily invested in their stock. It's really crazy when recreational photographers, like myself, argue about which $6000+ sports camera--that they will never buy (or at least not before they drop below $3000)--is better.
One rumor I heard was that Nikon decided to bring the chip design for the flagship sports shooter in-house for pride and bragging rights. Unfortunately, they were just not up to the task of surpassing Sony and, now, Canon. If true, they may just need to eat crow and go back to Sony for the 5Ds
