stanj
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.4 #1 · •Eos 1Ds MkIII Master Thread• | |
snowboarder wrote:
Stan, can you tell me what Canon realistically could have done better?
As a preamble, I know people at Canon in Japan because of my job. As such, I know for a fact that the 20D could have had the dust cleaning sensor, but it didn't. Technology held back, one example.
My biggest example of what one could do better and where only artificial reasons are holding it back is buffer size. There is absolutely no reason that with today's technology, the 1Ds3 could not have a 30 frame raw buffer. My 1Ds had a 10 frame raw+S buffer; the 1Ds2 has 9 frames in that configuration; the 1Ds3 I would expect to have 11 in that configuration. At the same time we went from 3fps to 5fps. Now tell me that my expectations are too high.
Second example, the LCD. Everyone is all excited about the 3" display - did you see the 1D3? Did you see the iPhone? I am not talking size, I am talking dpi. They sell a $8k camera and use a totally crappy display on it. At least the 1Ds had a better display than the 1D.
I have no doubt that they could bring 25MP into the sensor at the same noise level, if they wanted to. Frame rate would probably suffer, but I think most 1Ds class customers prefer resolution over frame rate. My standard print size is 24x36 and yes pixels do matter and yes there are lenses that can deliver it. And yes I have shot with the P45 
14 bit is a yawn because per se it doesn't mean more dynamic range. I'd rather get 2-3 more true f-stops of dynamic range at 12 bit than the other way around, which is what we got. More dynamic range doesn't mean more bit depth as a requirement.
Just look at what the engineers did between the 1D and 1D2, and the 1Ds and 1Ds2. I have used / owned all four cameras, as well as the 1D3. Of the above, the 1D3 is the biggest yawn because it simply has the least technological advance. It's not thinking outside the box (like the 400DO as an example, just to show something else innovative, creative, even if not for everyone). I have no doubt that out of the trio 1D / 1D2 / 1D3 the 1D3 is the best, but it's the least exciting one.
It feels to me that there was more innovation between the 1N and 1V, and that was film. Anyone who thinks that digital photography is "mature" now should look back in 10 years.
When Nikon announces the FF D3 this week at 10fps+ and who knows how many pixels, people will be able to look there for innovation. Relative innovation: maybe it still won't be absolutely better than the Canon, but it will be a much more marked improvement over the D2x than the Canon MK3 series is over the MK2, kinda like when Canon was playing catch-up with the MK2.
I am fortunate enough that I can simply buy the 1Ds3, but I think that doesn't deny me my right to point out that I am way less excited about it than I was about the two predecessors.
Edited on Oct 12, 2007 at 02:08 AM
|
