adrianb wrote:
cropping can be overcome by getting longer lenses (so instead of paying for a 1DX II, one can pay for a longer & faster lens). If we're refering to wildlife photography (which I ve seen you practice and master very well)...
This has allows been my philosophy and if you ever see my comments in threads where folks ask what to buy (400 or 600), I always say 600 because reach is king, at least for me, but there are those that like to have lighter gear and be "mobiler" (new word) and therefore want the short lens and rely on TC to get the reach. Me I want to rely on the lens itself to get the reach and TCs to get even more reach. People just see things differently for different reasons.
jcolwell wrote:
Resolution is determined by pixel density. Both the 1DIV (175 ppmm) and 1DsIII (156 ppmm) have higher pixel density than the 1DX (144 ppmm).
...OTOH, I still use the 1DX and 1DIV together, whenever I'm shooting action or shooting in really bad weather, and the 1DIV is my go-to camera for most focal length-limited situations (e.g. BIF with 1DIV + 4500/4L IS). The 1DIV and 1DsIII are still excellent cameras, but the 1DX is better.
I have to agree with you jcolwell that the 1Dx is the better camera, however, do tell about the 4500 f4 lens. Just teasing.
Dukens L.: Hi, my name is Dukens L.
Dukens L.: How can I help you today?
Frank: Does the new D5 have RED focus points like the D4S
Dukens L.: Yes it does.
Frank: They stay RED when looking through the viewfinder and highlight when the shutter is depressed half way?
Dukens L.: You will be able to see the focus point through the viewfinder when the shutter is half pressed.
Frank: And it is RED
Dukens L.: Yes
mgrayson3 wrote:
Mt. Palomar Observatory has a 4,500mm f/2.5 and a 17,000mm f/3.3, but they probably have donut bokeh, to say nothing of the necessary tripods!
Keck has a 17,500mm f/1.75! Two of them, actually.
adrianb wrote:
I never said 500 II or 600 II, please don't distort my statement
And even if I'd consider 500 II or 600 II, I'd be refering to used lens price, not brand new (obviously).
I was expecting you would say that. But let's be fair... compare brand new to brand new. You cannot buy brand new 500 or 600 mk I with warranty. You won't be able to buy an used 1DxII many months after its release.
As for used 1Dx's - you can buy them as cheap as 3000 USD. You CANNOT buy 500 or 600 mk I that cheap. Let alone 500 or 600 II.
let me rephrase my statements, for those who got it wrong...
If a person would be into wildlife, and they would own a 5d3 and a slower/cheaper tele (like 100-400 mark I or 400 5.6L), would you actually believe that it's worth getting a 1DX or even 1DX II to match with the existing lens?
Wouldn't it be great & rational & nice instead to keep the 5d3 and with the price to pay for a 1Dx used or brand new 1DX II, acquire a used 500/600 F4L IS ?
I know the 1Dx is a better camera, but for what I'm doing (and perhaps most of us), I bet the combo 5D3 + 500/600 F4L IS is far much better than 1Dx/1DxII and a 400 5.6 or 100-400 (mark 1, mark 2)...
I'm not saying that what I believe to be true should rule for everybody, but I've shot wildlife with 5Dc and a 300mm f4.5 manual lens (manual focus,etc) and I think I know now what it would be best for me.
Unfortunately I haven't shot the 400 2.8 and neither the 500 F4/600 f4 and I've always been curious about the difference between them (not in terms of IQ, because I'm certain all three lenses are stellar,but in terms of reach and usability).
After shooting with 5.6 lens, I'm craving for a fast 2.8 tele (because I shoot late or in forests where every stop counts)
Sorry for going offtopic with the lens discussion in a 1Dx II thread
Milan Hutera wrote:
I was expecting you would say that. But let's be fair... compare brand new to brand new. You cannot buy brand new 500 or 600 mk I with warranty. You won't be able to buy an used 1DxII many months after its release.
As for used 1Dx's - you can buy them as cheap as 3000 USD. You CANNOT buy 500 or 600 mk I that cheap. Let alone 500 or 600 II.
It's not about being fair,it's about buying what you feel fits your needs and your bill..
There are folks here on the forum who pay lots of $$$ to get a fast 70-200 2.8 II just to shoot their growing kids. Not many are that fortunate...
You're quite right on the used price for 1DX, but here in Europe prices are different and the parity between euro/dollar has gone mad...
We started the discussion from the idea whether is the 1DX II really worth it for somebody who already owns a 1DX, and also if it's worth the stretch for somebody who owns something below 1D series (5D3 for example). and in that case, upgrading from a 5D3 to a 1DX II, you have to consider what work you do in photography and if what you gain by adding the 1DX II can't be superseeded by getting better lenses instead....
adrianb wrote:
It's not about being fair,it's about buying what you feel fits your needs and your bill..
There are folks here on the forum who pay lots of $$$ to get a fast 70-200 2.8 II just to shoot their growing kids. Not many are that fortunate...
You're quite right on the used price for 1DX, but here in Europe prices are different and the parity between euro/dollar has gone mad...
We started the discussion from the idea whether is the 1DX II really worth it for somebody who already owns a 1DX, and also if it's worth the stretch for somebody who owns something below 1D series (5D3 for example). and in that case, upgrading from a 5D3 to a 1DX II, you have to consider what work you do in photography and if what you gain by adding the 1DX II can't be superseeded by getting better lenses instead.......Show more →
Last time I checked I lived in Europe as well. Although it's not the Europe it used to be. Still, your comparison is flawed. You're mixing and matching brand new/unreleased and overpriced equipment with equipment you can only buy used. Personally, after my last year's experience with buying an used 300 f2.8 L IS here in Europe, I will NEVER buy used again. NEVER!
There are lots of peole here who already have the best lenses available. Maybe they need another body, maybe they haven't updated in a while. Maybe their present 1Dx was damaged and the repair bill is beyond the point of feasibility. Maybe they're working pros and would prefer the same form factor/button layout for their next main body. Maybe they've just gotten a golden parachute or hearthy retirement bonus and want to enjoy themselves. There are lots of other reasons to value a body over a lens. Yet you're arguing they should buy a lens instead. A lens they already may have.
adrianb wrote:
If I currently shoot wildlife with a 5D3 and a 400 5.6L explain to me how would a 1Dx costing a couple thousand euro/dollars be a major upgrade for me? Wouldn't I be better off with the 5D3 and a 400 2.8L or 500/600 F4 lens instead? Would I get better results with the 1DX II and 400 5.6L?
I think most of the people will be interested instead to buy a used 1Dx, due to price drop,instead of a brand new 1Dx II
I'm sure that business model will ensure Canon stays viable, if people only buy second hand cameras. To think that the 1DXII won't sell up a storm is a bit naive, even if you don't want one. Also it's hilarious to dismiss a camera that hasn't even been revealed yet.
Milan Hutera wrote:
Last time I checked I lived in Europe as well. Although it's not the Europe it used to be. Still, your comparison is flawed. You're mixing and matching brand new/unreleased and overpriced equipment with equipment you can only buy used. Personally, after my last year's experience with buying an used 300 f2.8 L IS here in Europe, I will NEVER buy used again. NEVER!
There are lots of peole here who already have the best lenses available. Maybe they need another body, maybe they haven't updated in a while. Maybe their present 1Dx was damaged and the repair bill is beyond the point of feasibility. Maybe they're working pros and would prefer the same form factor/button layout for their next main body. Maybe they've just gotten a golden parachute or hearthy retirement bonus and want to enjoy themselves. There are lots of other reasons to value a body over a lens. Yet you're arguing they should buy a lens instead. A lens they already may have. ...Show more →
Sorry for your misfortune with the 300 2.8L IS, but I believe we got dragged with the discussion.
I initially responded to Pixel Perfect's comment:
Pixel Perfect wrote: You do realise Canon doesn't just try and sell cameras to people that already one, so while this is possibly of no interest to you, a lot of people out there may not have a 1DX and this would be a massive upgrade from anything else they own.
And I told him that it depends what you shoot, and it may prove that a 1DXII could not be a 'massive upgrade' from anything else, but instead they can keep a 5d3 and get new/better lenses.
That may or may not apply to some, of course.
Those who already have 300 2.8, 600 f4 II and 1Dx and can afford new stuff, obviously they're in the market for a new 1DX II, but this new body is not quite for everybody (due to many reasons)..
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm sure that business model will ensure Canon stays viable, if people only buy second hand cameras. To think that the 1DXII won't sell up a storm is a bit naive, even if you don't want one. Also it's hilarious to dismiss a camera that hasn't even been revealed yet.
I haven't dismissed a camera, but I can dismiss it because of the reasons I mentioned before (price: out of my league,and even If I had the money , I'd invest it in lenses (which I lack))
So yes, one CAN dismiss a camera, before it's officially announced, with very good reasons
I made a similar decision to what adrianb is talking about late last year. The 200/2 and 300/2.8 were on sale at the refurb store and I bought them as I felt it would be a better use of money then getting a 1DX2 this year. My 1DX is already giving me outstanding IQ at high ISO and I'm not sure the 1DX2 is really going to push high ISO much further to justify the cost. All the other stuff that a 1DX2 might have is really not that high on my priority list.
Considering al the noise about Canon's "poor" DR performance in the past three years, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the reported 15 stop DR spec. I'm certainly looking forward to 15 stop DR.
bernardl wrote:
The winner will IMHO be decided by the ability to focus the super tele lenses in lower light on moving subjects. The rest is pretty much irrelevant.
Cheers,
Bernard
What I believe has some real weight into the decision to 'switch' would be the current lens line-up one already owns
Who owns a 1Dx or at least 2 pro bodies, also owns at least 5-6 L (expensive) lenses, so I seriously doubt that somebody will be disappointed by 1DXII and jump ship to D5 or vice-versa
adrianb wrote:
Who owns a 1Dx or at least 2 pro bodies, also owns at least 5-6 L (expensive) lenses, so I seriously doubt that somebody will be disappointed by 1DXII and jump ship to D5 or vice-versa
Looking at the D5 it doesn't look like the specs are that much beyond the 4 year old 1DX so I doubt anyone is going to switch when the 1DX2 is announced. Canon may well have trouble enticing 1DX users to upgrade.
alundeb wrote:
The 1DX was supposed to merge the high resolution 1Ds line with the high speed 1D line. Because the 1D IV had higher pixel density, the 1DX was a downgrade from the 1D IV in terms of pixel density, and it was from the 1Ds III in terms of resolution. This strategy was controversial.
Pixel density and high resolution is not a negative thing itself, and the potential sacrifice in speed and high ISO read noise can be overcome and balanced with new developments.
The 1D IV had a resolution of 16 megapixels on an APS-H sensor. The 1D X had 18 megapixels on a full-frame sensor, which means larger pixels at a lower pixels/inch on the sensor - I presume that's what you mean by reduced pixel density. The advantages here were (slightly) increased resolution and improved high ISO from larger pixels.
The 1Ds III had a resolution of 21 megapixels on a full-frame sensor - the 1D X went backwards on that with no countervailing advantage.
I continue to maintain that the 1D X was never a replacement for the 1Ds III. Its frame rate makes it clear that it was only a replacement for the 1D IV.
Just teasing.
