geniousc wrote:
Nothing new here, typical new camera rhetoric The 1ds3 was supposed to blow the 1Ds2 away, less noise blah blah blah. The 1D4 was supposed to blow the 1D3 away but only provided a better working focusing system and a few other do dads. Canon told us 21MP was supposed to blow 16MP away. Now they tell us 16MP blows 21MP away and again has an improved focusing system. However the 1DX can't focus at F8. I still have tack sharp 13X19 prints from older generation 1D2 and 2n bodies that are not blown away by my 1D4. So where is the beef is my question? A $6800 question!...Show more →
So why do you shoot with Canon if every new body is crap
geniousc wrote:
^^^ Didn't say that, I said it's the same old rhetoric.
I shot with a 1D III for a couple of years and moved to a Mark IV...In my humble opinion, the mark IV does blow the mark III out of the water in virtually every aspect. I shoot sports 90% of the time and of that, more than 50% is done above ISO 3200. The Mark IV is a spectacular camera. I think that Canon delivered as promised with that one.
My guess is that the 1Dx will do the same, as will whatever is coming at the end of this month.
pjbuehner wrote:
I shot with a 1D III for a couple of years and moved to a Mark IV...In my humble opinion, the mark IV does blow the mark III out of the water in virtually every aspect. I shoot sports 90% of the time and of that, more than 50% is done above ISO 3200. The Mark IV is a spectacular camera. I think that Canon delivered as promised with that one.
My guess is that the 1Dx will do the same, as will whatever is coming at the end of this month.
All the best,
Yes, I would agree with you for the most part. I have and do shoot both bodies and do like the 1D4 better. However it's not better everywhere such as low ISO focusing and first shot focus accuracy. IME the 1D4 focuses slower than the 1D3, others have noticed this too. It depends on the application, my primary application is BIF.
I could care less about jpg improvements. When are we going to see RAW images?
As for 1D IV vs 1D III; yes 1D IV is a better camera, but saying it blows the 1D III out of the water is farcical. 1D III is still an amazingly good camera, and if I could justify keeping it I would.
geniousc wrote:
Nothing new here, typical new camera rhetoric The 1ds3 was supposed to blow the 1Ds2 away, less noise blah blah blah. The 1D4 was supposed to blow the 1D3 away but only provided a better working focusing system and a few other do dads. Canon told us 21MP was supposed to blow 16MP away. Now they tell us 16MP blows 21MP away and again has an improved focusing system. However the 1DX can't focus at F8. I still have tack sharp 13X19 prints from older generation 1D2 and 2n bodies that are not blown away by my 1D4. So where is the beef is my question? A $6800 question!...Show more →
As far I see they just tell us 18 (not 16) MP are far enough for 90% of pro photographers (what hits me 100%) and they sayd resulting images do not look worse than at 21 MP.
My favorite dealer in Germany offers 1D X preorders now. He priced it at € 6.299 (about 8.280 $).
That is exactly the same price, we have to pay for a new (but 5 year old now) 1Ds MK III, offering less in anywhere except 3 more MP. I think this is a big step forward. And the promised features of 1D X in deed blew away the 1Ds III for me.
Of course I myself did not know how to finance a 1Ds MK III in the past. I guess, that was and still is my problem and not caused in Canons offer.
I think it's a photographers insight, creative capabilities and personal photographic style that decide wether someone is 'blown away' by the features and performance of a new camera. I find the 1Dx one of those gradual improvements that is without a doubt better than it's predecessors: the 1DmkIV and 1DsmkIII. But to me even a predecessor of those are more than acceptable. I am still shooting the 1DsmkII every now and then, and I would be happy to shoot a sport event with the 1DmkIII if necessary. Heck, even the 1DmkII would be good enough for me. The 1Dx is a nice next step in evoluation of the 1D series and is most probably the best leap forward for 1DmkIII and mkIV shooters, rather than the 1DsmkIII photographers. Going full frame is the most important difference for 1D photographers. Video features are the most important extra features for 1DsmkIII shooters. Extra ISO is welcome to some, just like a few other features. But in general I must say the 1Dx is one of the least attractive upgrades to (real) photographers (in as not interested in video) since the start of Canon's 1D series. It suffers from the philosphy Canon put in the 1Dx as the next photojournalist camera being the successor of the 1DmkIV and being the upgrade for the 1DsmkIII as well. This convergence of both lines D and Ds into one is a rational decision for lowering production cost. But the pace of innovation the market demands has not been met. Just too few photographers will be blown away with the 1Dx. It's just a great allround camera that for the very first time gives full frame to the photojournalist and sportsphotographer. Canon obviously wanted to stay in relatively low resolution domain since high res means greater stress on AF systems and lenses for a critical group of professional end users. Also the desire to sell more long glass has been a marketing driver for Canon. The sportsphotographer working with a 300/2.8 on a 1DmkIV will have to upgrade to a 400/2.8 to fill the full frame like he was used to. The 1DsmkIII photographer however will only go for the upgrade if video is important or better high ISO performance is a need. Professional EOSfun has become less of an exciting business. More like: business as usual.
I guess, that is true. But we should not forget, cameras break. And that there are many people outside, who did not but/and/or dream about shooting a "1", too.
Concerning me: I shoot with a 5D II now. I prefered compared to 1Ds MK III because of its price, weight, and IQ at much higher ISO (I use ISO 3200 very often for events and if there is no other way in cases ISO 6.400 too).
I am sure 1D MK IV would do fine for me, too, regardless cropp and 5MP less. I think I would learn to use the better AF, too.
But when I purchased 5D MK II three years ago I was new in commercial photography and I could have bought 2 5D IIs for one 1D IV. I did not do sports, 10 FPS where without of need to me.
Till today I came in a couple of situations where a faster camera with more accurate AF might have helped me to get more keepers. And I got up to a point too, where spending money in gear next to that it helps me to earn money more comfortable is as realistic like the point to safe money, too (in taxes).
I personally do not like the idea of having 2 cameras for different purposes. I would prefere 1 body and 1 lens for all my needs. Before purchasing a 1D MK III, I would prefere to sell my 5D MK II and purchaseing a 1D X. Not to forget: If ISO 25k is as good as now shooters discribe, it would be a huge advantage for my photography, too.
But of course I am interested in seeing, what 5D MK III will bring first, too. If it offers ISO 25k at an usable levell and 1D MK IVs AF (another new rumor) and some of the other mentioned goodies, I guess I would prefere to stay with the "5" series and be very happy.
There's no way the 1Dx outresolves the 1DS3. John at http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Start.html has done comparisons between the Leica M9 18MP sensor vs. 1DS3. The Leica has no AA filter and the 1Ds3 still outresolves it.
We'll see with the 5DX announcements if Canon cares about defections to Nikon because bodywise, Canon is not doing anything compelling. The 1DX is possibly the most disappointing "upgrade" for a 1Ds series user since all of its improvements are not related to why most people buy into the 1Ds line. The 1Ds3 will be almost 5 years old and still no real replacement. Irritation would be an understatement. Canon has a much larger budget than Nikon and yet is somehow falling behind the ball.
Ralph Conway wrote:
As far I see they just tell us 18 (not 16) MP are far enough for 90% of pro photographers (what hits me 100%) and they sayd resulting images do not look worse than at 21 MP.
My favorite dealer in Germany offers 1D X preorders now. He priced it at € 6.299 (about 8.280 $).
That is exactly the same price, we have to pay for a new (but 5 year old now) 1Ds MK III, offering less in anywhere except 3 more MP. I think this is a big step forward. And the promised features of 1D X in deed blew away the 1Ds III for me.
Of course I myself did not know how to finance a 1Ds MK III in the past. I guess, that was and still is my problem and not caused in Canons offer. ...Show more →
I chose the words "blows away" only as a follow up to another post which used those words.
I agree on your belief that the 1D MIII was faster at initial AF acquisition. I don't think that it has cost me many images though. In comparison, the Mark IV has given me many more images than my III would have in the same venues.
I also agree about extreme low light AF performance not being great. The thing is, I haven't found anything significantly better that also has the feature set of the IV.
As to the comment that the comparison is farcical...perhaps you were lucky enough to be one of those that had a properly functioning Mark III in terms of AF. As a sports shooter, my Mark IV absolutely blows my old Mark III away in terms of High ISO, challenging AF venues. Of course you are welcome to disagree.
I loved my Mark III except for the AF. If you could give me the orientation sensitive AF points, the great back display, the increase in High ISO performance, and the overall better AF performance, I would love to have another III as my backup..
All the best,
Peter
pookipichu wrote:
There's no way the 1Dx outresolves the 1DS3. John at http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Start.html has done comparisons between the Leica M9 18MP sensor vs. 1DS3. The Leica has no AA filter and the 1Ds3 still outresolves it.
We'll see with the 5DX announcements if Canon cares about defections to Nikon because bodywise, Canon is not doing anything compelling. The 1DX is possibly the most disappointing "upgrade" for a 1Ds series user since all of its improvements are not related to why most people buy into the 1Ds line. The 1Ds3 will be almost 5 years old and still no real replacement. Irritation would be an understatement. Canon has a much larger budget than Nikon and yet is somehow falling behind the ball. ...Show more →
I thought Nikon subcontracted most of the critical digital imaging to Sony, which does or did have more money invested in digital imaging than Canon. Is that incorrect or does someone else do that now?
pookipichu wrote:
There's no way the 1Dx outresolves the 1DS3. John at http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Start.html has done comparisons between the Leica M9 18MP sensor vs. 1DS3. The Leica has no AA filter and the 1Ds3 still outresolves it.
We'll see with the 5DX announcements if Canon cares about defections to Nikon because bodywise, Canon is not doing anything compelling. The 1DX is possibly the most disappointing "upgrade" for a 1Ds series user since all of its improvements are not related to why most people buy into the 1Ds line. The 1Ds3 will be almost 5 years old and still no real replacement. Irritation would be an understatement. Canon has a much larger budget than Nikon and yet is somehow falling behind the ball.
Why so angry? I just said it would hit MY needs about 100%. And that 1Ds MK III for actual the same price would not. I choosed 5D II over 1Ds MK III because of the IQ advantadge at ISO higher then 1600 what I use very often. Next to that I was happy I had to pay only one 3rd.
If 1D X offers ISO 25.600 in usable IQ of course I would be happy and I would choose it instead of any other camera wich does not.
Not angry not with you at least, maybe a little bit with Canon
Ralph Conway wrote:
Why so angry? I just said it would hit MY needs about 100%. And that 1Ds MK III for actual the same price would not. I choosed 5D II over 1Ds MK III because of the IQ advantadge at ISO higher then 1600 what I use very often. Next to that I was happy I had to pay only one 3rd.
If 1D X offers ISO 25.600 in usable IQ of course I would be happy and I would choose it instead of any other camera wich does not.
S Dilworth wrote:
Yeah. "I like your new camera, Canon, but just like 99% of photographers I don't need any of the new features and capabilities you've put in it."
+1
From the perspective of a sports/PJ/event photographer, I don't really see the 1DX as a significant step forward. Maybe the AF will be better? If high ISO is better in RAW, then maybe f/4 will be a realistic option for indoor sports events (thinking of the 200-400), but even here the 1DIV is good enough. In some applications the 1.3x wider field of view will not be an added benefit. If it was at the same pixel density as the 1DIV, then it would be a wash, and one could crop, but it's not... On paper it's a spectacular camera, but IMO the intended price point is unrealistic for the target sports and PJ market, where other good enough cameras are available for less $$$. The 1DX seems more like a 'halo' camera to showcase Canon's technology, but a camera that fewer will find the need to purchase because in the end it doesn't really provide a significant competitive advantage (for those where this is a work related consideration, since after all, this is a 'pro' camera).
I am not sure. We could ask a sports photographer, if he needs/wishes two stops (or even more) higher ISO, better IQ, 2MP (or more) further crop freedom, additional FPS, noticable better AF in lower light then he already has, 100k (or more) further actuations, two CF card slots etc, etc ...
Next to that 1D MK III runs out sooner or later. And there are many people out there who do not shoot a "1", but wish to. For those who can efford a new body instead of a used one, it is no question, what to decide for. Why missing all those benefits, for getting crop, 8.0 AF or 3MP more. As far it concerns me, I do not need any of this.
But I appreciate all the benefits. I would not sell my 5D MK II when buying a 1D MK III used. But I would do it to get all benefits in that one body at the price of my 5D MK II, a used 1D III (and some additional cash) instead of thinking about a used 1D MK III.
Interesting point here in germany: two trustable dealers offer 1D X preorders at (fixed) € 6.229 - 6.299. I did not saw an official price announcment yet. But if this turns out to be the price, 1D X is at same price 1Ds MK III is actually sold (by same dealers).
And the price gap to Nikons D4 melted already down to € 300-350 ($ 400-460 - taxes already encluded here), instead of the $ 800 difference in the States.
The 1D X would have to be a large improvement over the 1D IV to interest me and I talking everything from AF in servo and low light, to IQ at pixel level at all ISO's. However, it'll still be let down by it's no f/8 AF, and low pixel density. One or the other you could cope with, but both together is galling.
Even if performance is really good, it'd be two years before I considered an update and who knows what else would come along that would render the 1D X of little interest at all. I'm still hoping for a true APS-H 1D IV replacement, massively improved 7D II or 5D III that offers D800 level AF.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The 1D X would have to be a large improvement over the 1D IV to interest me and I talking everything from AF in servo and low light, to IQ at pixel level at all ISO's. However, it'll still be let down by it's no f/8 AF, and low pixel density. One or the other you could cope with, but both together is galling.
Even if performance is really good, it'd be two years before I considered an update and who knows what else would come along that would render the 1D X of little interest at all. I'm still hoping for a true APS-H 1D IV replacement, massively improved 7D II or 5D III that offers D800 level AF....Show more →
. I still have tack sharp 13X19 prints from older generation 1D2 and 2n bodies that are not blown away by my 1D4. So where
