# Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?



## alaskakd (Apr 6, 2012)

I have ordered the 1D-X and I am awaiting its arrival with marked anticipation. The jury is clearly out on the 5DIII. Marginal if any improvement in IQ, better auto focusing and slightly better resolution at high ISO. But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.

Many people are reporting that the 1D-X will be that "step upward" in resolution, focusing and technology that we member rally boys for Canon are dying for. 

I am skeptical - yes as I understand it, the1D-X has an additional processor for managing color analysis for improved auto focusing but what else does it have on board that will make it the worthy successor to the 1D3s?

Yes, weather sealing and unbelievable construction but what about resolution? It is 18 mega pixels so will this camera make me come out of my "emo" corner and start feeling good about Canon again? CAn anyone explain the science behind this camera which makes people think that it will be the bomb and not just bomb?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

It depends what you mean by better. I've had the 5DIII for a bit over a week now, and while it's a great camera overall, I can clearly see the potential for the 1Dx to improve upon it. The 1Dx's IQ remains to be seen, so I won't attempt to speculate on it. That said, the 5DIII's build quality, AF acquisition speed, ergonomics, handling, and buffer size still aren't up to 1-series standards. 

IMHO, the 1Dx's larger buffer, blazing FPS, and dual UDMA 7 CF card slows will enable it to pull a huge gap in speed between it and the 5DIII. Don't get me wrong. The 5DIII's AF is vastly improved over the MKII, but it's still not as snappy or responsive as even my ancient 1DII. If you don't need the extra speed or build quality of the 1Dx over the 5DIII, then it might not be worth the extra money if it doesn't offer noticeable improvement in IQ. Of course, Canon might surprise everyone with killer IQ improvements in the 1Dx.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 6, 2012)

There is little question that the 1D x will be a better camera, but as far as IQ at ISO 100, I doubt it. At ISO 51200, yes!

However, there are lots of under the hood improvements that are significant.

The real question, is "What are they worth to YOU!. 

Not everyone will place the same value on the differences, so for many, the 5D MK II ot 5D MK III provides the features they want and value for price.


----------



## rlarsen (Apr 6, 2012)

The specs on the 1DX have been released, and Canon says it will be the best they've ever introduced.
Just like you find here and on the Nikon forums, reaction will be all over the place.
Many people will love it and others will come up with a long list of disappointments. And then there are those photographers who will carefully decide it fits their needs and will be too busy making pictures to write about the camera. I ordered one but decided the 5D MKlll fits my needs, is less expensive, and is a lot lighter.

Before spending $7,000 you may want to read critical reviews, and actually try the camera before you purchase it. One person said their older 1-D MK ll has better auto focus than the 5D MK lll. That has not been my experience. The new 5D bodies I use have better autofocus than my 1-DMK lln and 1-DMK lV. Those cameras do have faster motordrives though, and results will also be effected by lens choice. Some newer camera bodies out perform certain lenses.

Few people will be surprised when top pros who now use the 1-D MK lV upgrade to the DX for the improved speed and AF technology. New sensor technology will be icing on the cake.

I'm impressed with the 5D MK lll and have used many of the Canon 1-D series and pro film cameras with excellent results, but I've never owned a perfect camera.


----------



## AnselA (Apr 6, 2012)

I find this kind of question perplexing.


----------



## koolkurkle (Apr 6, 2012)

I agree, since I don't know what a D1-x is.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 7, 2012)

alaskakd said:


> I have ordered the 1D-X and I am awaiting its arrival with marked anticipation. The jury is clearly out on the 5DIII. Marginal if any improvement in IQ, better auto focusing and slightly better resolution at high ISO. But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.
> 
> Many people are reporting that the 1D-X will be that "step upward" in resolution, focusing and technology that we member rally boys for Canon are dying for.
> 
> ...



the 1dx is about speed, 12-14fps, instant reaction time, etc. that is what is does better than the 5D3 (maybe the sensor too, but IMO, canon would've bombed if they held back good sensor tech from the 5D3).

if 14fps and short mirror blackout and top weather sealing and all mean nothing to you, then you ordered the wrong model


----------



## helpful (Apr 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> The 5DIII's AF [...] it's still not as snappy or responsive as even my ancient 1DII.



With all due respect, I must disagree here. What lens(es) are you using and what AF settings when you say that the 5DIII is not as snappy or responsive in autofocusing as the 1DII?

With my 24mm f/1.4 L II, 85mm/100mm f/1.8 / f/2.0, 70-200 mm f/2.8L II, 135mm f/2.0L, and other fast-focusing lenses, I find the AF to be more snappy and responsive as the best bodies from both Nikon and Canon that I have ever used--until now this does not include the D4, which, together with the 1DX, would be the only camera more responsive than the 5D3. With a lens like the Tamron 60mm f/2.0 Macro for Canon, on the other hand, AF is not as "snappy," but here the culpability lies with the lens rather than the body. (That lens is excellent, by the way--it is just noisy and slow due to its not being equipped with the latest silent focusing motors.)

And the low light EV -2 sensitivity of the 5D3 is absolutely for real, not a marketing gimmick. I was shooting in theatre/jazz production Thursday evening and had no problem focusing anywhere in the dark theatre--and I'm not talking about the stage, but about the audience. Starting with ISO 25K, f/1.4, 1/10th of a second and even darker than that--it could nail focus like magic. It was necessarily to precisely aim the selected focus point at the subject, but it was easy and felt nearly too good to be true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2012)

alaskakd said:


> But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.



Since 18-22 MP is more than sufficient for me, a 36 MP camera with noise performance that falls apart above ISO 1600 doesn't seem like a game changer to me...

OTOH, adding a pro-level AF to the already-excellent IQ of the 5DII makes the 5DIII a game-changer in my book. How much better is the 1D X? It's better in many ways that are important to me, which - to me - is what matters. If the differences don't matter to you, don't pay for them. 

As a side note, if the D800 is a 'game changer' because of its 36 MP, does that mean the D4 is junk?


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> alaskakd said:
> 
> 
> > But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.
> ...



Lol people are still soooo hung up on mp... I'm going from 21 to 18 this time round and not given it a seconds thought.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 7, 2012)

helpful said:


> With all due respect, I must disagree here. What lens(es) are you using and what AF settings when you say that the 5DIII is not as snappy or responsive in autofocusing as the 1DII?



Let me say up front that I'm still learning the 5DIII's AF system, so I haven't had a chance to really tweak the settings or put it through the ringer just yet. I don't need fast glass for the type of shooting that I do, so my long lens of choice is a 70-300L. With that lens on the 1DII, the camera does an excellent job of tracking subjects in AI Servo in auto AF selection mode (the one where the camera chooses from all 45 points). Using this same setup on the 5DIII, particularly in low light, it takes longer to acquire focus than the 1DII.

That said, if I switch over the zone or one of the AF point expansion settings, the 5DIII acquires focus much more quickly. I still need much more time to practice with the 5DIII, but this arrangement is probably how I'll use the AF for moving subjects from now on.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since 18-22 MP is more than sufficient for me, a 36 MP camera with noise performance that falls apart above ISO 1600 doesn't seem like a game changer to me...



I thought it's the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII, which several reviewers have said is hardly even noticeable in side-by-side testing, that makes it a game-changer?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 7, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Lol people are still soooo hung up on mp... I'm going from 21 to 18 this time round and not given it a seconds thought.



I went from 21mp to 16mp and it was the best move


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 7, 2012)

alaskakd said:


> The jury is clearly out on the 5DIII. Marginal if any improvement in IQ, better auto focusing and slightly better resolution at high ISO. But clearly it is not a game changer like the Nikon D800.



I don't know what reviews you have been reading, but there are plenty of very positive reviews out there and plenty of happy users. The only reason it seems like there is a lot of negativity is because of the fact that it ended up being too expensive for some and they had been waiting forever. I'm very happy with mine and it's definitely a big improvement over the 5DII, I mean it has the same autofocus as the camera you're waiting on. 

And I'd assume that the 1DX will definitely be superior with a price that's twice as high. I think the 1DX is going to be awesome for sports shooters, 12fps is sick. But then again I think some people just want it so they can say they have the best camera Canon makes. But I think the 5DIII is awesome either way.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 7, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> And I'd assume that the 1DX will definitely be superior with a price that's twice as high. I think the 1DX is going to be awesome for sports shooters, 12fps is sick. But then again I think some people just want it so they can say they have the best camera Canon makes. But I think the 5DIII is awesome either way.



I can see me having a 1Dx, keeping the 1D4 for the crop and F/8 focussing


----------



## JR (Apr 8, 2012)

There is no dounbt in my mine the 1DX will be better. Not sure if many of you saw some of the 1DX RAW file posted in another thread today but they look very good. Most of them were shot with a 24mm 1.4L II and let me tell you shooting ISO 12800 with a 24mm is pure insanity. However looking at these file from the 1DX, I was really impressed.

Even if it give us only 1/2 to 1 stop better ISO performance in theory, in practice these ISO will look better I beleive due to its metering system and I suspect higher DR at higher ISO compared to the mkIII...


----------



## cps_user (Apr 8, 2012)

I think you will be dissapointed if you really think the 1dx is going to be better IQ-wise. 

Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range. 

This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

In short, much more room for correction without killing the image. 

In particular in cases where you want to push deep shadows and pull highlights, and do heavy dodge and burn in lightroom for example, I'm positive the D800/D4 chips will give you a clear benefit over the 5d3/1dx. 

In a lot of situations you won't see sensor advantages however.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 8, 2012)

cps_user said:


> I think you will be dissapointed if you really think the 1dx is going to be better IQ-wise.
> 
> Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.
> 
> ...



Indeed. For me I push the shadows but not more than a few stops. 

The bigger difference for me is the overall image, which comes down to the lens. For that reason alone id stick with canon. That said usable 12800 will be helpful for more dof and 3200 with shadows that you can push - they will be both be helpful.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 8, 2012)

cps_user said:


> Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.



As the 1D4 is decent at 12800 I would be surprised if the 1DX didn't manage an extra stop


----------



## JR (Apr 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> cps_user said:
> 
> 
> > Don't really think noise at 12800 is that much better than 5d3 to be honest. And a first quick test with some pulling of that iso 250 file doesn't prove very promising in terms of dynamic range.
> ...



Me too! At least 1 to 1.5 stops over the 1DIV i think.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 8, 2012)

cps_user said:


> This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik
> 
> In short, much more room for correction without killing the image.
> 
> ...



Interesting test. I suppose the conclusion is that if you make a habit of missing an exposure by 3-4 stops, the D800 is a better machine than the 5DIII. I have no problem conceding Nikon's superiority in that regard, but in all my years of shooting, I have never once missed an exposure by 3-4 stops. I'd venture to say it would be difficult to miss an exposure by 4 stops by a soccer mom using her iPhone. Heck, I feel like the world's worst photographer if I miss an exposure by 1 stop  

Like you said, in many situations this sensor advantage won't be evident. I think the Nikon's flat looking files would bug me a heck of a lot more than the instances where I need to pull 4 stops of shadow recovery, which is never.


----------



## cps_user (Apr 8, 2012)

True.

But there are cases where you surely couldd benefit from wider dr and the option to get detail in both the deepest shadow and brightest highlights. I'm sure we all have a couple of files in our archives where we had to give up on either one of them, or where we wouldve liked more leeway to mould the file to our wishes.

In this respect, I think Nikon wins this round. Their processor is both capable of great high iso and has better dr, so sensor-wise the d4 beats the 1dx, at least this is how it well might look like.

Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 8, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> cps_user said:
> 
> 
> > This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik
> ...



Realistically I don't think anyone is taking about rescuing 4 stop unexposed files but rather HDR situations using a single shot. 

There are situations when better quality deep shadows would help me. For example, when I'm shooting a bride getting into or out of the car I don't particularly like to use flash as it changes the shot significantly and inverse square law of light means only the closer person will be lit. Having a single exposure for this situation would be fantastically useful.

It's not someone which will affect all photographers but it will affect some.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 8, 2012)

cps_user said:


> But there are cases where you surely couldd benefit from wider dr and the option to get detail in both the deepest shadow and brightest highlights. I'm sure we all have a couple of files in our archives where we had to give up on either one of them, or where we wouldve liked more leeway to mould the file to our wishes.
> 
> In this respect, I think Nikon wins this round.



Agreed on all accounts. If maximum DR is the most important factor for a photographer, then Nikon is the clear winner. Fortunately, DR is just one of many elements of performance that go into what and how I shoot, and it's not so important that I feel inclined to abandon the Canon system. 



PhilDrinkwater said:


> Realistically I don't think anyone is taking about rescuing 4 stop unexposed files but rather HDR situations using a single shot.
> 
> There are situations when better quality deep shadows would help me. For example, when I'm shooting a bride getting into or out of the car I don't particularly like to use flash as it changes the shot significantly and inverse square law of light means only the closer person will be lit. Having a single exposure for this situation would be fantastically useful.



Anyone can relate to the benefits of greater DR in practical, real-world situations as you describe. While the test conducted in that link is interesting from a strictly academic standpoint of gauging sensor performance, I have a difficult time relating to the method used to illustrate their point. Pulling four stops of shadow recovery is equivalent to an 16-fold increase in light, and if you haphazardly pulled that much shadow recovery in 99 percent of images, you'd end up with the ugliest, flattest POS you'd ever laid eyes on  It's one thing to recover some shadow detail. It's another thing entirely to turn your shadows into midtones, which is essentially what that Dutch experiment sought to accomplish. 

Now, I think a much more effective test would be if someone as qualified as yourself busted out one of these shots of a bride getting out of car, applied the necessary shadow recovery in post, then shared the before and after images the illustrate the benefits of the Nikon's DR advantage  That's something everyone can relate to. 

I just find the idea of intentionally underexposing an image by four stops, then trying to save it in post just for the sake of experimentation, a bit silly since it isn't a situation you'd ever encounter in real life. Unfortunately, a lot of people find bizarre experiments like that quite compelling.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 8, 2012)

cps_user said:


> Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.



I dont think anyone is in a position to say whether it is or it isn't yet as it hasn't been tested yet


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 8, 2012)

Short answer - YES (Long Answer Below).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Long Answer - YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> cps_user said:
> 
> 
> > Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.
> ...


No... But I think the signs are all these. My tests so far say its equal to the others in high ISO midtones and shadows, but low iso dr? It doesnt seem to be the case. 

I'm not sure canon promised that though. They said the 1dx would be the best canon offered. They've been very clear on that...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 8, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > cps_user said:
> ...



You have a production 1DX then? or even a pre-production model? What did you analyse to come to that conclusion? And you are comparing it with? And do you have that camera?

What tests are you doing? Against what files?


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


Comparing d4/d800 samples with 1dx samples posted the other day.

It's far from conclusive which is why I said "it doesn't *seem*", but I'd bet £50 on it right now. Certainly compared with d800 low ISO DR and probably d4 low ISO DR too.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 8, 2012)

So I thought I'd share some more in depth thoughts about how low noise in the shadows is actually useful in a real life situation 

Firstly, it's fair to say with my wedding work that I use flash as little as possible. That doesn't mean I don't use it, I do, but I don't like to use it where I can avoid it and I personally dislike mixing flash with daylight, especially to pull a whole block of shadows like the shot below.

So take this shot:







The bridal party were going from Warwick castle to the glass house on the grounds, where the reception was being held. What I wanted was the castle in the background and the party in the foreground.

When it's processed and the shadows are +2 stops and warmed, this is what you get and what I really wanted:





However, now look at the shadows at 100%:





.. which I then have to clear up with some localised NR (thank you LR4!):





The reality is that this file is perfectly fine, especially for wedding use. After NR and at the size this will be printed, it will be fantastic. However, would I *prefer* cleaner shadows for this? Absolutely. It wouldn't stand up to commercial use though. 

In reality I probably could have pushed the file another 1/2 stop brighter to help the shadows, but we were working *fast* as anyone who has done an Asian wedding will know


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 9, 2012)

Thanks for the example, Phil. Great work as always. 

Here's one I dug up. There's a lot of contrast, and not much shadow detail. 






This is more of what I was going for, and yes, more DR and shadow recovery would have been highly beneficial.






That said, the real culprit here is that I f'd up the exposure. I should have anticipated the backlighting and opened up the exposure by a stop. An ND grad filter would have worked wonders as well, but like you said, you can sometimes overlook these things inadvertently in the heat of the moment


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 9, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Wrong conclusion.
> 
> The extra DR is of benefit when there is a big separation between the brightest part of your image and the darkest shadow.



Thanks for the insight. I will be sure to remember that from this point forward, as I had no prior knowledge to what DR meant. I will continue to use a camera's DR as a crutch for improper technique.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 9, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> So I thought I'd share some more in depth thoughts about how low noise in the shadows is actually useful in a real life situation
> 
> Firstly, it's fair to say with my wedding work that I use flash as little as possible. That doesn't mean I don't use it, I do, but I don't like to use it where I can avoid it and I personally dislike mixing flash with daylight, especially to pull a whole block of shadows like the shot below.
> 
> ...



P.S I should really make the point that this doesn't happen very often. I mean it's not like us brits have any light to play with usually


----------



## JR (Apr 9, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Comparing d4/d800 samples with 1dx samples posted the other day.
> 
> It's far from conclusive which is why I said "it doesn't *seem*", but I'd bet £50 on it right now. Certainly compared with d800 low ISO DR and probably d4 low ISO DR too.



I am not convinced the file that were leaked of the 1DX are that representative. First I hate the settings (a picture of a shinny car metalic surface does not constitute a great test in my personal view), second, I am a bit surprised these file are even available to be honest given Canon is so secretive to release any more sample. This makes me wonder if these were shot with the final firmware or just a pre-production model...

Not saying the D4 is not a great camera, but maybe we should wait till the 1DX is actually out and shipping before declairing it defeated!


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 9, 2012)

JR said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing d4/d800 samples with 1dx samples posted the other day.
> ...



I don't see it as defeated. I still think the 1dx will be the better camera overall.. But I don't think the 1dx sensor will be better than the d4 sensor. 

I just don't think the sensor differences will be relevant to the vast majority of people - me included in the vast vast majority of cases. 

I've said it before but lenses are more important than the sensor in most cases - and in that I'm glad I'm with canon for their incredible primes especially.


----------



## JR (Apr 9, 2012)

I guess each company is taking different approach. You are right about Canon prime, they are addictive! Still cant wait for the 1dx to be out, Irregardless its relative position with the d4, it will surpass what ever i would need in a camera anyway!


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 9, 2012)

Totally. I can't wait to get my hands on one!


----------



## Danielle (Apr 9, 2012)

I won't be able to afford it, but the 1dx sounds like the bomb for someone like me. I shoot a fair bit of photojournalism, and that thing would likely rock.

Its an entirely different animal than a 5D mark anything.

Now when exactly will it hit the streets? .... ...


----------



## JR (Apr 9, 2012)

Danielle said:


> I won't be able to afford it, but the 1dx sounds like the bomb for someone like me. I shoot a fair bit of photojournalism, and that thing would likely rock.
> 
> Its an entirely different animal than a 5D mark anything.
> 
> Now when exactly will it hit the streets? .... ...



Was supposed to be end of this month, but now rumored to be delayed to June...wich mean we may not get actual sample in our hands until July or even August! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I suppose the conclusion is that if you make a habit of missing an exposure by 3-4 stops, the D800 is a better machine than the 5DIII. I have no problem conceding Nikon's superiority in that regard, but in all my years of shooting, I have never once missed an exposure by 3-4 stops.



Oh come on now, you know better than to be one of the ones tossing around the "missed exposure" nonsense which is a total red herring. If a scene has say 14 stops that you want to capture and your camera can capture 8 stops it doesn't matter what you do with the exposure it won't work out. While it's nice to be able to rescue a bad miss now and then, things happen, the real story has nothing at all to do with bad exposures and I think you know enough about shooting and cameras to know that.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 9, 2012)

Personally I am the person that would overcome ambient with flash in order to capture the most important details. 

I like to use flash to get shadows where I want, and usually soft ones at that, Shadows are part of a picture and should be used as part of the composition. 

In any picture one has to decide what is the most important and get that perfect, the work out how to get the rest to be very good. That is the main challenge for photographers. Get that right and the rest follows.

I just wish I could do it myself


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of people find bizarre experiments like that quite compelling.



I have no idea what you're talking about (*cough* light leaks when shooting with the lens cap on *cough*).



PhilDrinkwater said:


> The bridal party were going from Warwick castle to the glass house on the grounds,



Why is the father of the bride carrying his cell phone in his hand? Checking his email during his daughter's wedding?!?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why is the father of the bride carrying his cell phone in his hand? Checking his email during his daughter's wedding?!?



He has that latest Nokia 41mp phone that Ken Rockwell says is better than the D800


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why is the father of the bride carrying his cell phone in his hand? Checking his email during his daughter's wedding?!?



I was wondering the exact same thing.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why is the father of the bride carrying his cell phone in his hand? Checking his email during his daughter's wedding?!?



Updating his Facebook status?



briansquibb said:


> He has that latest Nokia 41mp phone that Ken Rockwell says is better than the D800



Since "He who must not be named" said the D800 replaces MF cameras, it only makes sense for MF guys to switch to Nokia now. True story.


----------

