^^^ it's interesting until you see actual images from all three. Check some shots made by all three, on line, and YOU decide what's the most capable. :D
I do get your point, however. Personally, I wouldn't mind a move to an FX format but the price difference isn't all that easy to justify considering the D7100's capabilities. While I would (and am) considering a move to an 810, the jump to the D4s is currently cost prohibitive.
I do get your point, however. Personally, I wouldn't mind a move to an FX format but the price difference isn't all that easy to justify considering the D7100's capabilities. While I would (and am) considering a move to an 810, the jump to the D4s is currently cost prohibitive.
Here are some representative images... br br 1DX:... (show quote)
I would most likely opt for a D810 if I shot with Nikon gear, and didn't need the overall speed of the D4S. The resolution is excellent, and the higher frame-rate (than the D800) can do some action. Its low light performance is actually very good (but not like the D4S). For an all-arounder, that would be the one to get and get to know well. Then take the savings and buy some great Nikon glass. :thumbup:
I would most likely opt for a D810 if I shot with Nikon gear, and didn't need the overall speed of the D4S. The resolution is excellent, and the higher frame-rate (than the D800) can do some action. Its low light performance is actually very good (but not like the D4S). For an all-arounder, that would be the one to get and get to know well. Then take the savings and buy some great Nikon glass. :thumbup:
The frame rate difference is insignificant (I would be interested in any evidence to the contrary). If the D810 "can do some action", so can the D800.
As for the three pictures....all taken were with different lighting conditions and moving parts. To claim one is better than the other... the comparison should be with the same exact photo and conditions. The last picture with the bull looks the worst of the group but had different lighting, dust in the air and lots of movement. Were any of these photos taken with a tripod?
As for the three pictures....all taken were with different lighting conditions and moving parts. To claim one is better than the other... the comparison should be with the same exact photo and conditions. The last picture with the bull looks the worst of the group but had different lighting, dust in the air and lots of movement. Were any of these photos taken with a tripod?
Well, that's real life. If we're talking "all else being equal" you get back to the sterile metric comparison on the Web site that started this particular sub-thread.
Regarding your tripod question I can only speak to the bull riding and the turkey vulture pictures. The former was taken from the general bleacher section of the rodeo and the latter from the driver side of my vehicle out the passenger window while the vehicle was slowly moving so as not to spook the bird. Neither condition was conducive to use of a tripod.
Autofocus is absolutely NOT better on the D4S! There are numerous comparisons that clearly state the autofocus is more accurate and faster on the 1DX. As far as low light goes, shadow detail is better on the D4S at ISOs above 12800, if the image is in focus! Unarguably, the D4S is a great camera, but it really depends on what you're shooting and how much glass you've accumulated to warrant a system switch. It took me two weeks to read through the 41 page autofocus guide for the 1Dx, and set the camera up properly; now I don't miss a shot. I think it's amazing. And, to be fair, I think the D4S is also amazing... Especially it's low light capability. That just simply isn't as important to me. For my style of shooting, the 1DX creates beautiful images; and Canon glass is excellent! :D :thumbup:
Autofocus is absolutely NOT better on the D4S! Th... (show quote)
On the AF I can only use experience; for example we have one recurring situation shooting fast action against a background of a vertical line of narrow poles with 600mm lenses. With the 1DX AF does nothing but seek, the D4 does some seeking but does work, the D4S does not miss a shot.
I should add that we made the decision to upgrade our Nikon lenses over the past year so they are the latest models, the Canon lenses are a couple of years older.
The frame rate difference is insignificant (I would be interested in any evidence to the contrary). If the D810 "can do some action", so can the D800.
I meant this as new model vs new model: D810 vs D4S, not D800 vs D4. For that matter, the D800 "can do some action" too... and 36mp RAW at 4 fps with autofocus is still a lot better than 2 fps film motordrive with no autofocus! Please make no mistake about the fact that I really like the D800, no ifs ands or buts. I personally just prefer a little faster EVERYTHING, now that I'm very spoiled! :D
I meant this as new model vs new model: D810 vs D4S, not D800 vs D4. For that matter, the D800 "can do some action" too... and 36mp RAW at 4 fps with autofocus is still a lot better than 2 fps film motordrive with no autofocus! Please make no mistake about the fact that I really like the D800, no ifs ands or buts. I personally just prefer a little faster EVERYTHING, now that I'm very spoiled! :D
JJ, congrats. Hey, I'M JUST GONNA WHISPER THIS, SO NO ONE ELSE CAN HEAR IT!! But, if you had used a canon 50mm 1.2 lens on your pic, that big'ol door behind you would be GONE!! :lol: :lol: Again, congrats! ;-) SS
JJ, congrats. Hey, I'M JUST GONNA WHISPER THIS, SO NO ONE ELSE CAN HEAR IT!! But, if you had used a canon 50mm 1.2 lens on your pic, that big'ol door behind you would be GONE!! :lol: :lol: Again, congrats! ;-) SS