I sometimes wonder if Canon cuts deals with large retailers to run these very early ads. It would be a good way to conduct market research without spending any money and the retailer gets to "offer" something before anyone else.
So I hope this puts Nikon's panties in one basket and they release something to compete with this. Sooner than later. This will definitely shift consumers to Canon with no new apparent upgrades in the future to their product line besides the lower end cameras (d40).
If this new camera has the same AF system as the Mark III, then I don't want to buy this camera. The whole internet is screaming about the serious AF problems with this earlier released camera. My friend has one, and went nearly crazy right now, especially because Canon Belgium is denying this problem !!!
I think I go for the Phase One P20+ on a Hasselblad.
Edited by jwstudios on Aug 19, 2007 at 08:17 PM GMT
Edited by jwstudios on Aug 19, 2007 at 08:18 PM GMT
Angus MacGyver wrote:
I noticed that in the 1DsMk3 specs page that it can only do ISO3200 I hope that's just a wrong entry, seeing as the smaller APS-H sensor on the 1DMk3 can get to ISO6400.
That doesn't seem right. But they did get the sensor size wrong, so maybe this is a mistake too. Adding one stop in three years doesn't seem like too much to expect.
But I have no idea why they would give amazon a preliminary marketing document.
I expect the first cameras at the end of Sept. That is how I remember fall releases in the past.
dcmiller wrote:
That doesn't seem right. But they did get the sensor size wrong, so maybe this is a mistake too. Adding one stop in three years doesn't seem like too much to expect.
But does this 1DsmkIII seem to have smaller pixels than the 1DmkIII ? If the later is a 1.25x crop, with 10 MP, then a FF sensor with the same density would be around 15.6 MP... less than the 1DmkII, which could explain why the former would haver harder time to go to high ISO. Furthermore, if the 1DsmkIII is supposed to be more like a studio/landscape camera, then maybe high ISO would be less critical to the targeted users.
If that Amazon spec turns out to be accurate, then the 1Ds3 would have one disadvantage over the upcoming 5DMk2: the latter could most probably have ISO6400 like the 1D3 since it would have the same pixel pitch (7.2um), assuming it would have all the other sensor improvements made for the 1D3.
Duncan_Staples wrote:
Owning a 1DSM2 I can say with confidence that if they don't release a new line of much higher resolution lenses the additional resolution is meaningless as none of the current line of lenses can fully resolve 16.7MP.
well, the pixel sensor size is no different from that one the 20D so....
many of the better lenses can certainly handle it find anywhere near the center. maybe a 17-40L will be getting nasty at the edges and corners, but i think the 300 2.8 IS will be pretty good even there.
jwstudios wrote:
If this new camera has the same AF system as the Mark III, then I don't want to buy this camera. The whole internet is screaming about the serious AF problems with this earlier released camera. My friend has one, and went nearly crazy right now, especially because Canon Belgium is denying this problem !!!
I think I go for the Phase One P20+ on a Hasselblad.
Edited by jwstudios on Aug 19, 2007 at 08:17 PM GMT
Edited by jwstudios on Aug 19, 2007 at 08:18 PM GMT
you are going to go run around and shoot the types of things that the 1DMkIII might have issues with with P20+ on a Hasselblad??
i too was curious about whether Canon would manage to increase the 1DsIII 's ISO range to 6400.
The 1DIII has a huge benefit in terms of pixel-size. It's well known and often-repeated that making pixels smaller just drives up the noise levels. So Canon might have just determined that offering 6400 on the 1DsIII was unacceptable from an image quality perspective.
But however - really.. its MUCH less a bigger deal than most would think. Because we're talking 21 million pixels as compared to the 1DIII's 10.1 million.
So most likely you could just set that bad boy to 3200, and underexpose by 1 stop, boost it +1EV in postprocessing then resize to 10.1MP - and when comparing images from the two cameras at identical sizes, those 11 million extra pixels is going to kill a lot more noise than a simple stop would.
So its looking quite likely that the 1DsIII is going to do very well..
skibum5 wrote:
you are going to go run around and shoot the types of things that the 1DMkIII might have issues with with P20+ on a Hasselblad??
Exactly. A huge advantage of the Canon IDsIII over the medium format backs is portability. Moreover, although they look like "pro" cameras, they are nowhere near as exotic as the medium format gear. I'd never feel comfortable taking a Hasselblad and a Phase One back either on my travels or to many out of the ordinary locations. Too expensive, too prone to getting damages, attracks too much attention from thieves. Also, the lens choices on the medium format cameras is much more restricted; the lenses are a lot heavier (try twice as heavy); and typically cost in the range of three times as much. Also, what about the poor autofocus and absence of high ISO performance from the medium format backs? I find high ISO performance great even for landscape photography under dim light and heavy wind, or when I otherwise want to freeze movement when the light is not high key.
It is somewhat underwhelming for a 3-year upgrade cycle. No HSC, tiny 19-zone selectable AF, no AF accuracy focus adjustment, only ISO 1600, the list goes on...
Is there no AF adjustability? That's a bit of an oversight is it not?
So where's the 5D mkII then? I would kill for the 14 bit and the 9 cross sensors of the 40D on my 5D's, not that I can afford to upgrade either of them more's the pity.
EB-1 wrote:
It is somewhat underwhelming for a 3-year upgrade cycle. No HSC, tiny 19-zone selectable AF, no AF accuracy focus adjustment, only ISO 1600, the list goes on...
EB
I believe the specs do list AF micro focus adjustment...
Quote from Jeff's initial post: "At the request of sports and wildlife photographers, a new micro-adjustment feature allows for very fine changes in the AF point of focus for each lens type in use, along with the addition of adjustable focus-tracking sensitivity as another sophisticated new AF feature."
As for the upgrade cycle... like there is much competition in this category!
Anyway, having used the 1DIII for a couple months now, there are differences over the Mark II series that can really only be best appreciated by using the new camera...
Xavier Rival wrote:
But does this 1DsmkIII seem to have smaller pixels than the 1DmkIII ? If the later is a 1.25x crop, with 10 MP, then a FF sensor with the same density would be around 15.6 MP... less than the 1DmkII, which could explain why the former would haver harder time to go to high ISO. Furthermore, if the 1DsmkIII is supposed to be more like a studio/landscape camera, then maybe high ISO would be less critical to the targeted users.
Yes, the 1Ds III should have smaller pixels than the 1D III (just as the 1DsII was to the 1DII). It is my guess that when the next rendition of the 5D comes out (whenever that is), it will have a full-frame sensor of the same pixel size/density as the 1D III, and will be the one with about 15.6 MPX.
No dynamic range specs? Improved or not? No mention! (Doubtful)
Only 4 megapixel increase (4.4 to be exact).
Iso 100-1600 are you kidding me? My 4 year old 1ds2 has that??
Only 5FPS? Why not add another digic3 processor and make it 8?
I doubt I will upgrade for "Liveview" and dust cleaning.
Im looking at a P45 back now. This new canon camera is really sad. To top it off it has the MK3 focus system and we all know how well thats working out.
OH and all this for the LOW price of how much? -------------------> 8,000 dollars. What a deal!
Edited by madmax200 on Aug 19, 2007 at 04:34 PM GMT
Duncan_Staples wrote:
Owning a 1DSM2 I can say with confidence that if they don't release a new line of much higher resolution lenses the additional resolution is meaningless as none of the current line of lenses can fully resolve 16.7MP.
Why do people keep saying this?
I can put a high-resolution, thin-emulsion B&W film with the same lens in my Elan and resolve circles around the 1Ds Mk II, proving conclusively that an increase of resolution at the sensor will still pull more detail through the lens.
The lens and sensor are complimentary limiters to the entire system. There is still a lot of "headspace" to increase sensor resolution and get more out of the system.
I hope that's just a wrong entry, seeing as the smaller APS-H sensor on the 1DMk3 can get to ISO6400.