Dear Santa (Nikon),
- Thread starter Marcel
- Start date
Fuji x10 is a completely different thing - it's a Canon G class camera, a pocket camera with a somewhat bigger sensor. I was referring to a SYSTEM cameras (xe i xm, specifically, to be precise enough). Now, you advise me to get a DF, right? A camera which is 3 to 4 times more expensive than any of those aforementioned. And one fine day, I could come home from some night event, like concert, New Year's Eve celebration on the streets, just to realize that my colleague made two times crispier photos with his "pocket system" XM, at 12800 ISO? Thank you, but, no, thanks...
I don't know what else to advice you. It seems that you'll find something negative about the cameras. I'll challenge your colleagues for you in a shootout if I had a Nikon Df if the high ISO is what we are talking about.
I don't know your background or experience with regards to photography but based on your remark, you lack self-confidence. Sorry if I am too frank but that's just what I am sensing. Granted that I have no right to get into your business if you like to compare specs and products with your colleagues at this point. I hope you'll find the correct answer in due time.
Well, it was just an example (colleague etc.). The point is, it seems that Nikon and Canon are very reluctant to make a MAJOR step up in hardware - radical change of the sensor(s). If you compare the level of noise on dpreview's "studio comparison tool", for example, between Fuji XE1 and ANY recent DX camera, at, say, 25600 ISO, you'll see (yes, see!) what I mean. Why, even D800 shows more noise than XE1 (full frame vs APSC!!!). I hope, this will give you a good insight into the issue. If not, sorry - I am not an ophthalmologist...
Last edited:
Marcel - please kindly forgive me about going off topic one last time.
@DraganDL
I am more than happy to entertain your questions but this is not the right thread for it. You can create a separate thread if you want to but we shouldn't be hijacking this thread for your pointless debates. If you are a believer in those systems with 5 limited lenses, feel free to get them and move on. If I wanted to get the Fuji XE1, X1, I can but I am not interested. I would rather get the Panasonic GH3 with 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100mm f2.8 zoom lenses or choose Sony A7/A7r full frame but these MILC are just too awkward for me to handle which is why I don't buy them for that reason. Imagine using a Sony A7 and mount a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and using manual focus to shoot wildlife or sports. What is the point?
Anyway, let's all move on and continue with the Santa's special wish.
Last edited:
OK - It sounds like I hurt someone's feelings, which absolutely was not my intention. In order to clear possible misunderstandings, herewith I claim that I did not compare these system cameras (Nikon vs Fuji) nor would I ever switch from my Nikon to "5 limited lenses" system (although I am far from being anybody's fanboy, and that includes being a Nikon's fanboy).
It was all about the one thing - the quality of the sensors.
And, please, do notice that this is a thread in which different people express (their own) different wishes concerning the future Nikon's camera hardware (hence "dear Santa, I would like..."), so neither anybody here is hijacking anybody's thread, nor anybody's debate is pointless (wise men say: if we all think the same, it means someone here is not thinking enough)...
It was all about the one thing - the quality of the sensors.
And, please, do notice that this is a thread in which different people express (their own) different wishes concerning the future Nikon's camera hardware (hence "dear Santa, I would like..."), so neither anybody here is hijacking anybody's thread, nor anybody's debate is pointless (wise men say: if we all think the same, it means someone here is not thinking enough)...
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Dear santanikonite, I want a lens that will give me great low light performance along with great DOF for macro. Oh and and it needs to be a 1:5 magnification ratio. And atleast 200m with 5cm min focus 
Don't worry too much, we Mods have thick skin.
I've had a look at the preview studio camera tool to compare the xe-1 to the d7000 and d600 and sony nex-6. What I found is that at high iso, although the XE-1 looks cleaner, it might have done so at the detriment of resolution. It seems the noise is gone, but also some resolution. I don't know how a raw file with a good noise reduction would be. Remember that what we see in the preview site is how the different companies want their noise to look like once converted to jpegs.
Seems the XE-1 files are clean and nice, but my brother in law has one and I just find the grip to be very uncomfortable FOR ME... For others, i can't say.
Enjoy your Nikon!
To Marcel ("Enjoy your Nikon!"):
Thank you! That's exactly what I'm doing - like I said, I would not go for any other brand (and if you would excuse me for a little boasting: I used to own a Nikon cameras some 35-25 years ago - the good old F, FM, FE and my ex-wife had that small, toy-like "EM")...
Thank you! That's exactly what I'm doing - like I said, I would not go for any other brand (and if you would excuse me for a little boasting: I used to own a Nikon cameras some 35-25 years ago - the good old F, FM, FE and my ex-wife had that small, toy-like "EM"
)...
Last edited:
@gqtuazon, don't worry Glenn, you are allowed to go off topic in a post that is in the "off topic" section.
Roger. I'll fire away then.
DraganDL: Just like Marcel have pointed out, we have thick skin as moderators. It is not about me that I am trying to avoid these type of measurebating. Some of the frequent forum members are uncomfortable when this type of discussions are happening which is what I am trying to avoid.
I think the bottomline here is a miscommunication. You just need to be careful on how you type your statements since "perception" could change or be translated to different meaning or conclusion which is why I mentioned previously that you lack the confidence, ability or possibly gear envy once you started comparing sensors and your experience with other forums. That's probably not your intention but that's how it is being perceived by me.
I understand that this is a "wishful request" thread and my original remark made me curious on why would someone like you feel being looked down by other photography forums. Granted, Dpreview is one of those forums where gloves are always off and if you frequent that forum, you will see plenty of that type of discussion.
"I" viewed your given examples when comparing extreme ISO images such as 25,600 or ISO 12,800 to be pointless since the majority of the photographers including pro photographers who work for magazines and weddings will rarely use and print those type of images taken at that ISO level. I certainly would not shoot that high ISO since you loose DR as you increase your ISO level. So, trying to justify or defend a sensor at that level, to me is pointless since they all suck and they are not being widely used in real world application.
The better example in sensor evolution/manufacturing is the lead that Sony have produced with their A7 and A7r as far as mirror less is concern that is "full frame". Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm, Sigma, and Panasonic have not.
Nikon on the other hand was the first one to produce the 36 mp camera and has the highest rated sensor when it comes to high ISO capability. With that said, your statement quote: "The point is, it seems that Nikon and Canon are very reluctant to make a MAJOR step up in hardware - radical change of the sensor(s)." end quote, does not make sense to me. What exactly do you mean by radical change? Are you trying to imply that Nikon does not have a camera sensor that meets your expectation or that can meet your intended purpose?
I must ask myself then if I should even go further with this discussion since even "if" Nikon or other companies produce your ideal sensor, what is the likelyhood of you buying it at a higher price? If the answer is not likely, then, I revert back to my original statement of "this debate is pointless". Why? Too many "measurebators" around the internet spend too much time wishing and bitching that Nikon for example, releases a 70-200mm f4 VR zoom lens. When Nikon did released one, the typical respond is, it is too expensive. I'm not implying that you are one of them, but it is common on some of the forums that I visit.
@gqtuazon
No one ought to have "thick skin" here. But we all ought to tolerate each other, in terms of being aware that the others just might have needs, wishes, dreams...that differ from ours. For example, you say "...the majority of the photographers including pro photographers etc.". But I can assure you that it is not quite so - many photographers, and I mean very, very large number of them occasionally or on the regular basis shoot the concerts, happenings, stages (like in a theater and so), "street life" in the evening or/and at night , birds and animals who often become active and approachable at the dusk, where even the "fastest" lenses cannot compensate for a lack of light, thus requiring the use of high ISO (if you consult the EXIF of such photos, you''ll notice that very often these are taken at 6400 ISO or higher ISO value. These photos, however, belong to the category which, in terms of aesthetics don't have too much in common with the photos of the bride and a groom etc.).
Thank you for your understanding, and may your cameras continue to serve you well...
No one ought to have "thick skin" here. But we all ought to tolerate each other, in terms of being aware that the others just might have needs, wishes, dreams...that differ from ours. For example, you say "...the majority of the photographers including pro photographers etc.". But I can assure you that it is not quite so - many photographers, and I mean very, very large number of them occasionally or on the regular basis shoot the concerts, happenings, stages (like in a theater and so), "street life" in the evening or/and at night , birds and animals who often become active and approachable at the dusk, where even the "fastest" lenses cannot compensate for a lack of light, thus requiring the use of high ISO (if you consult the EXIF of such photos, you''ll notice that very often these are taken at 6400 ISO or higher ISO value. These photos, however, belong to the category which, in terms of aesthetics don't have too much in common with the photos of the bride and a groom etc.).
Thank you for your understanding, and may your cameras continue to serve you well...
Last edited: