That sounds ridiculous to me. Why can't Canon improve their quality control? It's kind of saying, "BE WARNED. Canon's lenses are subject to front/back focus."
Well I'm pretty well floored. I really didn't want to buy a new camera this year (other than maybe a used 1DsMkII after the prices tank on the 1DsMkIII announcement...), but sheesh this is going to be hard to resist.
You can't say they haven't been listening to the users. There's something there for everybody and almost every issue (other than perhaps physical size) seems to have been addressed. Did they leave anything out? Auto ISO?
1. Possibly most underated 1dmIII feature so far: "The Best thing is the new metering ..... works very well and is more dare I say it "Nikon" like in that its well ...accurate."--Paul Pope
2. Biggest surprise:
No 40D at 2007 PMA... D200 remains the leader at that price point. Look for xxD replacement in the early summer(?) That's pretty much implicit from the sources whose prediction were accurate.
3. 16-35mm II...no change in mount?:
What does this lense tell us about the chance there is a "new mount" on the 1DsIII?
Nill Toulme wrote:
Well I'm pretty well floored. I really didn't want to buy a new camera this year (other than maybe a used 1DsMkII after the prices tank on the 1DsMkIII announcement...), but sheesh this is going to be hard to resist.
You can't say they haven't been listening to the users. There's something there for everybody and almost every issue (other than perhaps physical size) seems to have been addressed. Did they leave anything out? Auto ISO?
Nill Toulme wrote:
Well I'm pretty well floored. I really didn't want to buy a new camera this year (other than maybe a used 1DsMkII after the prices tank on the 1DsMkIII announcement...), but sheesh this is going to be hard to resist.
You can't say they haven't been listening to the users. There's something there for everybody and almost every issue (other than perhaps physical size) seems to have been addressed. Did they leave anything out? Auto ISO?
DavidP wrote:
Or just somebody who routinely shoots in very low-light . . even if there's not that much "action".
Yep. This is now the camera to have in my opinion unless you need higher resolution. If it is even better than the 5D at high ISOs, the fairly minor resolution difference, stacked against the AF performance, makes the new 1D almost a no-brainer for anyone considering the two cameras, barring a huge price difference. It will be interesting to see the full specs of the 1Ds Mk III.
FretNoMore wrote:
Some people, especially a large contingent of desktop jockeys at dpreview, would not be satisfied no matter what Canon releases. There's always room for some whining about cameras they'll never own anyway.
For once, it appears that Canon has actually LISTENED to the photographers for which this camera is designed . . . and actually gone back to square one and designed what they WANTED.
That sounds ridiculous to me. Why can't Canon improve their quality control? It's kind of saying, "BE WARNED. Canon's lenses are subject to front/back focus."
I've been TRYING to tell people that this is an issue. And it seems that Canon has finally agreed.
Surely they didn't just listen to ME when they put in this feature.
Great camera. Would add it to my 5D if it wasn't for the weight. That's a factor for me unfortunately. If some of the specs make it to a 5D like form factor, I'll be a buyer...
jvarszegi wrote:
Yep. This is now the camera to have in my opinion unless you need higher resolution. If it is even better than the 5D at high ISOs, the fairly minor resolution difference, stacked against the AF performance, makes the new 1D almost a no-brainer for anyone considering the two cameras, barring a huge price difference. It will be interesting to see the full specs of the 1Ds Mk III.
I'm assuming that the new ISO3200 will be like the old ISO1600. Hope to see some confirmation of that soon.
And while I'd love even more resolution, I'd rather have the extra stop.
I also love the 1.3x crop, for what it does to the placement of the AF sensors . . they're in much more usable position this way . . and now that there are so many (and spread out) that are the high-precision, cross-sensor type . . . man, this is just GREAT!
Hrow wrote:
I don't think the 2MPs are going to make much of a difference but the changes to the sensor design and the move to 14 bit very well may. The samples from DPR are very impressive. There is a different quality to them that is hard to describe other than to say they are about the most 3 dimensional images that I have seen. Obviously one could respond by saying that of course the Canon supplied samples are good, but remember, this is the same company that provided the crap samples for the 5D including that horrendous shot of the Swiss chalet taken with the 17-40 that caused such a stir. ...Show more →
I agree. They're harping about 'noise' on the sample images on the dpreview forum. What I see is increased tonality in areas the would have been more solid color on older cameras. I don't see noise. The few minutes I spent looking at the pics make the think the files are improved. Prints will tell more.
The 1DII was closer to the 1DsII/5D than expected, considering the difference in mp. I would expect this camera will equal or better the 5D in large print.
BlueJaya wrote:
Great camera. Would add it to my 5D if it wasn't for the weight. That's a factor for me unfortunately. If some of the specs make it to a 5D like form factor, I'll be a buyer...
Massimo
www.pbase.com/bluejaya
I'm hoping they can still get a 1 series electronic package into a small form factor. This cameras target market may have told them they wanted an integrated grip and larger battery capacity.
The Live view seems like something of a luxury. Most useful in studio, but this isn't the studio camera. I guess this will be a 1 series feature from now on.
Holy Crap
