DXO Labs 1D4 and D3s now out

[Overread]

I don't, then i would need longer lenses for shooting cricket

I haven't shot crickets, but if I were to shoot them I would use a 100mm f/2.8 IS macro lens.

:lmao:

They're a darn pain is what they are!
gah they jump miles (in macro lens terms) heck one of my models jumped into the flash!
Trying to find the insect in teh frame is very hard when it jumps onto your gear.........

 

[Montana]

5DII does very well too. I love the 5DII images, but in high ISO thus far I prefer the images from the mkIV in post. I'll have to do some testing some time if I feel like it. LOL

 

[Derrel]

Some low-light, high ISO shots that show why the D3s is the top d-slr for low-light, High-ISO work.

http://ftp.robgalbraith.com/public_files/D3S_ISO12800_Plate.jpg
http://ftp.robgalbraith.com/public_files/D3S_ISO12800_Announcer.jpg
http://ftp.robgalbraith.com/public_files/D3S_ISO12800_Dancer.jpg

http://ftp.robgalbraith.com/public_files/D3S_ISO10000_Balloon.jpg

What's not surprising is that the "old" Canon 5D, the original 12.8 MP model that gsgary and I still shoot, is still edging out the 1D Mark IV in the DXOMark low-light high-ISO score! I think Canon made a big mistake in discontinuing the original 5D, especially now that Sony has dropped the price of FF to $1899 of so on its A850; I think Canon should have kept the original 5D and sold it at $1899 and effectively frozen out Sony, and thwarted Nikon's D700 by having both the 5D and the 5D II as a really potent 1-2 punch in the FF area. But then again, the FF d-slrs are really,really low-volume products, and the Canon 7D needed a place to compete at the $1699 and now $1599 price point, so Canon killing off the 5D original makes perfect sense for them and their need to sell cameras priced where the greatest number of high-end consumer sales are to be found--around the $1599 price point or lower.

The thing we've learned from the Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 and then D3s is that a sensor that's 864 square millimeters in area or FF, can do better at elevated ISO than a 1.3x sensor that is 548 square mm in area, and that a sensor that is APS-C 1.6x or 329 square mm is at the bottom end of the high-ISO performance chart due to the size of the sensor and the smaller pixel size.

 

[Dao]

I don't, then i would need longer lenses for shooting cricket

I haven't shot crickets, but if I were to shoot them I would use a 100mm f/2.8 IS macro lens.

:lmao:

Does Gary mean the sports that called cricket? You know, the kind that you use a bat to hit the ball.

 

[gsgary]

I don't, then i would need longer lenses for shooting cricket

I haven't shot crickets, but if I were to shoot them I would use a 100mm f/2.8 IS macro lens.

:lmao:

Does Gary mean the sports that called cricket? You know, the kind that you use a bat to hit the ball.

Yes

Not the ones that Overread shoots with those silly little lenses

 

[Overread]

Pfffft that's fake cricket that is!
this is real cricket

as taken with one of those wonderfull little macro lenses

 

[inTempus]

Not the ones that Overread shoots with those silly little lenses

Good grief, what's with the boxing gloves, knee pads and helmet?

Have you ever seen an American baseball player? They don't wear all that crazy stuff! Are the Americans that much hardier that they don't need all that protective gear to play a little baseball?

 

[Overread]

Not the ones that Overread shoots with those silly little lenses

Good grief, what's with the boxing gloves, knee pads and helmet?

Have you ever seen an American baseball player? They don't wear all that crazy stuff! Are the Americans that much hardier that they don't need all that protective gear to play a little baseball?

Pfft baseball - that's a "girls" game over here called Rounders - and they don't wear any of the protective stuffs.

And what about your "football" last I saw you were all hulking around in armoured suits and padding - not like our rugby lot

 

[Formatted]

If anyone is interested, a 600 mm is what is needed to shoot cricket effectively!

 

[gsgary]

In cricket they bowl for the legs as well as the wicket, and when they bowl bouncers at head hight people get hit there are no rules against hitting the batsman when bowling and another thing baseball was based on cricket
Spot the ball fast bowlers can bowl at 90+ MPH

 

[inTempus]

And what about your "football" last I saw you were all hulking around in armoured suits and padding - not like our rugby lot

Oh, you didn't just go there. If you want to start another war, just keep it up.

 

[Dominantly]

Not the ones that Overread shoots with those silly little lenses

Good grief, what's with the boxing gloves, knee pads and helmet?

Have you ever seen an American baseball player? They don't wear all that crazy stuff! Are the Americans that much hardier that they don't need all that protective gear to play a little baseball?

Pfft baseball - that's a "girls" game over here called Rounders - and they don't wear any of the protective stuffs.

And what about your "football" last I saw you were all hulking around in armoured suits and padding - not like our rugby lot

Have you seen the size of our "American Football Players"? IF so, have you seen the hits they dish out/endure? For the power that is running around that field, and action you'll see, the padding is necessary to maintain the longevity of the players for an entire career.

 

[inTempus]

What camera were you using in these shots Gary?

 

[inTempus]

Have you seen the size of our "American Football Players"? IF so, have you seen the hits they dish out/endure? For the power that is running around that field, and action you'll see, the padding is necessary to maintain the longevity of the players for an entire career.

Career? Those linemen wouldn't survive a game without their gear.

 

[Dominantly]

Or that 5'10" running back breaking up the middle, getting smashed.