I really want to see the reviews for the 4 new released cameras first before judging what's on paper. I always think it's possible to push the 1DIII sensitivity to ISO12800, since at 6400 it still looks good. I think they should've added at least ISO6400 to 1DsIII, I think it's possible. I don't think it'll affect the 1DIII market as the cameras are in separate niches. I'm afraid that the D3 along with the new telephoto lenses will eat into the sports arena, which was dominated by Canon.
Thomas McConville wrote:
I totally agree, canon needs to lower the price on the 1Ds, thank goodness nikon is FF now, let the FF wars begin.
No way. D3 is not competing 1Ds3 in any mean. It is competing 1D3 and with exactly the SAME price. Even when Nikon release ~20Mp camera next year, it will be $8K. They are in syndicate, didn't you notice?
Nikon's engineers have been busy building a competitor to Canon's EOS-1D Mark III, and our initial impressions, after handling and shooting with the camera briefly, are really positive.
kirstin wrote:
its advertised for £6000 in the UK. Thats $1200 in the us. I have one thing to say: F%*K YOU CANON.
The new imaginary exchange rate when calculating RRPs these days seems to be $1=€1. Still, its a marginal improvement on the old one where companies seemed to think £1=$1 !
Yes, particularly with the exchange rate the UK/US pricing is royally taking the p*ss and does Canon no favours in the PR stakes - not that they'll care since these camaras will largely be bought by professionals for whom it is an expense that will quickly be earned back, or gear-heads so rich that they don't care. As long as Canon think they've got the price elasticity of demand right in each market and they are making money they couldn't care less.
It would be fun to see a Canon UK rep come on here and defend the pricing differential though. As if !
The comments about Canon lowering the cost of its full frame 1ds3 are very interesting, when you consider that Canon's full frame 12.7mp camera (5D) was introduced at a price of $3300, and now sells for $500-600 less. While the specs look quite amazing for the Nikon D3, I haven't heard many people suggest that $5000 for a 12mp cmos sensor might be a little steep, especially when many of its features are also inclded in the sub $2000 offering. Face it every company is out here trying to make a profit.
As the D3 is competitive with the 1d3, it is more than likely you will see another Nikon ff , (d2xs replacement), come to market next year: It will have more mp's than the D3 and it will be priced right up there were the 1ds3 is sitting. While I don't think the 1ds3 will necessarily match the quality of the 22+mp backs, (excluding the ZD) , it should holds it's own and for some will be a viable alternative or a more versatile alternative. At $7999, it is still substantially less than buying a 22+ mp digital back.
The best news imo with respect to the Nikons is that we buyers at several market segments have more options.
Aug 24, 2007 at 09:16 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Alistair Watson wrote:
Huh? £6,000 = $12,000 you mean.
But then again it has always been like this. The 1Ds2 is not even being discounted yet either. I agree with the sentiment though.
Those expensive prices in UK are very strange. Sweden has always been more expensive than you, because the VAT are higher here. But the camera cost £ 5200 in Sweden. And that includes 25% VAT.
Dont know where you are getting your prices from Lars, Here in Norway which has the same 25% vat as sweden the price is being advertised at 74,000 kroner subject to change when the camera becomes available. Thats 12,600 dollars, or 6,300 british pounds.
When I bought my 1DsmkII it was 65,000 kroner including vat. (5500 uk pounds) Norwegian prices are often very similar to swedish prices for cameras etc.
regards, Nathan
Aug 24, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Since NONE of you here make cameras, you definately have no idea what it acutally costs to make one of these cameras, therefore I suggest that if you find the price too high at the moment don't whine about it just don't buy it until you can afford it. Learn to make do with what you have since I am almost sure that you were making do before the new cameras hit the market.
Remember that the camera is only a part of the photographic equation. For all those who are having problems with ISO 1600 & 3200 on their digital cameras, might I suggest that you revert back to film, you might just find your complaints at a minimum if you do so. If you do not know how to shoot film, I suggest going back to the drawing board.
People it is simple and easy - stop complaining about the prices of the cameras and buy what you can afford. BTW, I know most of you will not agree and will want to respond quite nastily to my blurb but just know that this is my story and I'm stickin' to it no matter what.
M Henriques wrote:
Remember that the camera is only a part of the photographic equation. For all those who are having problems with ISO 1600 & 3200 on their digital cameras, might I suggest that you revert back to film, you might just find your complaints at a minimum if you do so. If you do not know how to shoot film, I suggest going back to the drawing board.
Using this logic Im about to graduate from crayons to etch-a-sketch
One theme I have used throughout my adult life: You get what you pay for.
james snow wrote:
Exactly what I was thinking. The sport shooters need all the speed they can get, and the 1DmkIII delivers it. For the Portrait and landscapers that the 1Ds is geared toward, speed isn't nearly as critical. You're almost always either firing off strobes or on a tripod, or both.
If you want to throw Adams name into your arguement, then you must also concede that he did plenty of manipulation to his photos. In which case, your adams arguement is moot. Time in the traditional dark room is as much post processing as is time in the digital darkroom...Show more →
Please note that I NEVER said that Adams did not manipulate his photos. However, there is a huge difference between photoshopping and film manipulation. Time in the digital dark room at times produces unnatural looking photos and you all cannot tell me that you haven't witnessed such disasters. Please read the op's original post before you write your reply to my reply.
I wasnt whining about the price, I gladly stumped up the 65,0000nok for the 1DsmkII which has paid for itself several times over since I got it 2 and a half years ago, the camera that I use daily to earn my bread and I will be most likely moving to the mkIII once I am convinced all teething troubles are gone, It is however interesting to see the different pricing policies from country to country.
Regards, Nathan
Oh and it tax deductable and as I am VAT registered I get a nice 25% rebate at the end of the year I buy it in
