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..

-tim

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.

actually, after the hype... i'm not THAT impressed.

i'll just have to wait and see the examples.

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

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...

""actually, after the hype... i'm not THAT impressed.""

oh man this isn't even the first inning of hype.

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.

Lack Luster specs at best.

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.

Angus MacGyver wrote:
How so? 1Ds3 has a larger sensor than the 1D3, if anything, it should be easier to get ISO6400, assuming everything else is equal.

Nope, it makes perfect sense. If everything else is equal between the 1D MkIII and the 1Ds Mk III except that the 1Ds has a smaller photosites, then the 1Ds can't achieve a noise level as low as as the 1D at the same ISO.

That's where those dag-blamed laws of physics come in--TANSTAAFL. Smaller photo-sites equal a lower signal-to-noise ratio...everything else being equal. So they would have to limit the 1Ds to a lower maximum ISO than the 1D.

If these specs are true, then Canon offers a no-compromise PJ camera that gives the fastest frame rate and highest low-noise ISO (the PJ's top priority) and a no-compromise studio camera than gives the highest resolution (the studio photographer's top priority).

So quit your kvetchin' and buy a 1DmkIII and a 40D for backup, and spend the change from $8000 on some glass. Its really not that hard. Or alternately, get a couple of the 5D replacement bodies and put the change into glass.

madmax200 wrote:
Lack Luster specs at best.

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

Why do people keep saying this?

Because there are a bunch of people who seem to devote their lives to obsessing over pixel-peeping the corners of their FF cameras. (Not saying Duncan is one of them, but it does seem to be one of the prevailing "religions" around here.) --c

You dont read very well..........

My 4 year old 1ds2 has that

I doubt I will upgrade for "Liveview" and dust cleaning.



darknite wrote:
So quit your kvetchin' and buy a 1DmkIII and a 40D for backup, and spend the change from $8000 on some glass. Its really not that hard. Or alternately, get a couple of the 5D replacement bodies and put the change into glass.

madmax200 wrote:
Lack Luster specs at best.

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


Edited by madmax200 on Aug 19, 2007 at 05:47 PM GMT

madmax200 wrote:
Lack Luster specs at best.

Only 5FPS? Why not add another digic3 processor and make it 8?


Why not to make it ISO 12800 and 24 fps?
Why not to add a 12-1200 f1.2L lens?

You know what's sad? That no matter what there will be always some people like you...

snowboarder wrote:
madmax200 wrote:
Lack Luster specs at best.

Only 5FPS? Why not add another digic3 processor and make it 8?


Why not to make it ISO 12800 and 24 fps?
Why not to add a 12-1200 f1.2L lens?

You know what's sad? That no matter what there will be always some people like you...



If 24fps is your reality then so be it. 8 fps is reality. Canon squeezes us with the games of not increasing the fps.

Edited by madmax200 on Aug 19, 2007 at 10:19 PM GMT

The "s" camera was never intended to be a fast shooter. Most people don't need anything faster than 5 fps.. I can count on one hand the number of times in the last four years that I've held down the shutter button for a burst. If you need speed, you know what camera to get.

I can't really afford this sort of coin for a camera anyway, but have to say that these specs, as presented, are not particularly enticing. To reuse a well-worn phrase, "It's the dynamic range, stupid". I don't care about a few extra pixels or gimmicks -- I want more DR. Most people do. Where is it? --c

charlesk wrote:
The "s" camera was never intended to be a fast shooter. Most people don't need anything faster than 5 fps.. I can count on one hand the number of times in the last four years that I've held down the shutter button for a burst. If you need speed, you know what camera to get.

I can't really afford this sort of coin for a camera anyway, but have to say that these specs, as presented, are not particularly enticing. To reuse a well-worn phrase, "It's the dynamic range, stupid". I don't care about a few extra pixels or gimmicks -- I want more DR. Most people do. Where is it? --c

X2

Forget dust cleaning
Forget bits
Forget liveview
Forget widescreens

Give me 23 megs and a 15 stop dynamic range. Why is it the P45 has so much and the mighty canon doesnt?

As far as fps goes...... I have taken my 1ds2 to races and polo matches and air shows where I could have used the fps.

This new camera should be labled the 1DSMK2-N.

Of course, we all use our cameras differently.. but the "s" was always the "studio" camera and Canon believes strongly in market segmentation, for better or worse.

Anyway, I had a recent disaster with my 5D with respect to dust cleaning so I do consider that important... but the other features don't excite much. Comparing to a high-end MF back might be a bit much -- and even the P45 is only claimed to have 12 stops -- but in general, I want a camera that would allow me to do less of the following... --c

snowboarder wrote:
You know what's sad? That no matter what there will be always some people like you...

Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back because they have no competitor, which is why I hope that Nikon will come up with something nice, soon. Just like they did with the D200 - and look at the 40D.

stanj wrote:
snowboarder wrote:
You know what's sad? That no matter what there will be always some people like you...

Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back because they have no competitor, which is why I hope that Nikon will come up with something nice, soon. Just like they did with the D200 - and look at the 40D.

Finally some common sense. I thought for a second my expectations were to high. But would any of you that own a 1ds2 run out and sell it for barely 4,000 and buy a new one for 8,000 for the specs listed? Not me. I will keep my 1ds2 and rent a 39mp medium format for my trips. Calumet will give me a sweet deal on rentals.

stanj wrote:

Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back...

Stan, can you tell me what Canon realistically could have done better?
What kind of features/sensor technology/anything are Canon not using
just because they are holding back?
21Mp is not enough? Then if it's more, half of you will come up with
the noise, it's already mentioned here...
14-bit color was amazing 5 months ago when 1D MkIII was announced, now it's
a yawn... A completely redesign new body, lighter, a better battery, more weather
protection - you're bored. Live view - nothing new. A new AF - a problem.
5 fps of 21MP files seems pretty amazing to me, but it's not 8fps
(imagine those screaming 1D MkIII owners who would complain
about Canon giving 1Ds MkIII 8fps - so why is 1D MkIII only 10MP? )

Please tell me about those not used things you think they "should" do...

I agree. If the specs of this camera are not impressive at this point, it's only because we all got blown away by most of them already a few months ago when the 1DIII was announced.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

It's always this way. Specs come out, then we have to hear a lot of complainers crying in their beer. Why is it that the specs of a new camera are never up to "par" with most people out there on these forums? I gurantee that many of the complainers out there will end up buying this camera.

I don't think it's a let down at all. It's a completely new body --- engineered from the ground up different than the 1Ds II. There is a significant boost in megapixels, as well as many perks that come with a new body. The way I see it, I can likely sell off my 1D mkII and use this camera for some basic sports shooting as well. Sure 5 FPS is not fast, but it's good enough if you time it. I just wish that they put a high speed crop on it like the D2Xs. That would seal the deal and I'd have another 2k to put toward the camera with no looking back. :-)

Hmmm, coming home from a soccer match with 1500 22MP files to cull through? I dunno... I think we might have to put that $2k into more computer. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net