The new Canon looks badass, and after seeing the live-view and big LCD in video, im pretty stoked about those features.
Of course Canon would announce this when ive sold off all my personal gear in favor of using paper-provided gear. But then again, I don't have 6k to buy this and the lenses to go with it, so switching to Canon probably isn't in the cards (espescially when I prefer Nikon strongly in the lower models). Hopefully Nikon announces some reasons to stay with them (one body, and hopefully some sweet lenses).
Ray C. wrote:
I think there is a collective, "Oh sh!t...," being heard from Tokyo to Melville today...
Once again, Canon has raised the bar and I'm hoping that Nikon has some magic up their sleeves for the D3...
Like I said somewhere on this thread, it's not Nikon saying "Oh shit", it's Canon ~ that's why when their spies returned with the prized stolen info from Nikon, Canon rushed to make this 1D mk III camera and rushed to release it earlier before the killer Nikon FF/DX dslr camera comes out in a few weeks/months(worse, in a year )...
ReyGay wrote:
Like I said somewhere on this thread, it's not Nikon saying "Oh shit", it's Canon ~ that's why when their spies returned with the prized stolen info from Nikon, Canon rushed to make this 1D mk III camera and rushed to release it earlier before the killer Nikon FF/DX dslr camera comes out in a few weeks/months(worse, in a year )...
Heh. I'll believe it when I see it. I will say this; Nikon has a tendency to innovate in ways that I really appreciate; something more than megapixels, framerate, or full frame for the slightly poorer pro.
The new 1D Mark III is the first Canon product to excite me since the 1D Mark II because it solves a lot of problems (dust, interface, overall weight) while adding features I really like (live preview). None of the stuff that came between the 1D Mark II and III really moved me; by contrast, I found Nikon's D2X and D200 to be fantastic products in their own right. If what you say has an ounce of truth to it, I'll be interested to see what develops.
nikt wrote:
Yep, its called advancement. Just like the D40 and D80 have great noise characteristics, as does the 400D and 30D. You would expect a manufacturers lastest offering to be an improvement over technology that is a few years old.
i have shot with a 400D @ iso400 and i'm not at all pleased with the noise characteristics. I just noticed a lot of color noise. To be honest i was rather dissapointed since everybody is shouting how clean the canon images are at high iso. The noise in the iso400 file was very hard to manage in pp. I also worked with a 30D and it delivers great results. I'm just not convinced about the 400D.
Oh hm i'm a nikon shooter. You might wonder what i'm doing with all those canons . A lot of family members have a canon, so i can try their gear often. It's nice i'm just stuborn to stick to nikon . i like the noise characteristics of the D40. really cool how it stands up. I really have to work hard to get the same results with my D2x. maybe even impossible. The D70 is miles behind, but with some tweaks i manage to get great result too, just learn you hammer Well i can allways reduce the d2x filesize, that works like a charm too
ok sorry for this interuption just want to have this said
Raymond, that doesn't suit my argument, you'll have to retract your statement.
I liked the 30D, but it only offered one thing over the D200 in the end, and that was slightly cleaner high ISO. I personally like the overall image however from the D200. The 5D was tempting , very tempting, solely again for the extra res and high ISO performance. Way too small of a deal for me, there's so much more to a camera. The 5fps was something else I wanted.
Speaking of which, I notice the 1D MKIII has a an AF-ON button! Geez, it will look like a full blown Nikon in 10 years.
I've said it before, the 400D is the camera we'll sell the most of, yet the last camera I'd probably want to talk about the least. Consider the competition, D80, Pentax K10D, Olympus E-330. I use the E-330 for its live view in macro mode. Its brilliant. Until you see it , you don't get the full impact of it. You can zoom in 10x ,which I bet Canon has also implemented also.Canon obviously recognised the advantage here.
The new 1DmkIII looks like a very nice camera. However, what I find amusing (as always when a new camera comes out) is how many people are already selling their "old" cameras in anticipation. It's amazing how many 1DmkII's are already for sale over in the Buy and Sell forum. Probably will be available for bargain basement prices if the buyers are a little patient.
Must be those 1DmkII's stopped taking good pictures now that they announced the new one. Must be planned obsolescence!
chemprof wrote:
........
Must be those 1DmkII's stopped taking good pictures now that they announced the new one. Must be planned obsolescence!
Gerald
I think it's a disease a lot of us are suffering from. I remember well how my D100 turned into a pumpkin when I ordered my D2x, I couldn't bear to even pick it up anymore
Seriously though, kudo's to Canon, this new 1D looks to be a great camera. Technology marches on.....
jacko wrote:
I think it's a disease a lot of us are suffering from. I remember well how my D100 turned into a pumpkin when I ordered my D2x, I couldn't bear to even pick it up anymore
Seriously though, kudo's to Canon, this new 1D looks to be a great camera. Technology marches on.....
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
I find the focus fine tuning feature a cheap (cheesy) solution to a rather common problem with Canon gear.
Instead of reducing the amount of "slop" in their lenses and camera, they are leaving it to the owner to compensate for front/back focus issues. It reminds me of carburetor mixture adjustment levers that were mounted on the steering columns of early cars.
Thats not progress, its a cop-out method for addressing poor manufacturing tolerances. As some engineers like to say when covering up mistakes; "Thats not a flaw, it's a feature."
GPS via the wireless adapter. Why not interface directly through the camera like Nikon?
49 focus points. I'm still having trouble finding a viable rational for that many focus points other than it's just a numbers game.
i have to admit that I found this thread much more enjoyable here than similar threads on the Canon forums. And, I just happen to shoot a Canon. Go figure.
What do you guys think about this camera being the ultimate demise of the 'Ds-Series' bodies? [there is a reason I post this here, so bear with me...] It was the 1DsMkII that was really due for the update, yet we get a brand new, from-the-gound-up remake of the 1D instead. With all the talk I've been hearing over the last two years about some completely new system at the top end, it makes me wonder if Canon is going to settle for EPS-H as the new standard for the '35mm' market, and let full-frame go to some other high-end system. Whether it's MF is anybody's guess.
Either way, my gut feeling is that if this new EF16-35/2.8 II is as good as they are suggesting it could be, that lens and this body could/would completely obviate the 'need' for a full-frame flagship '35mm' dSLR in the Canon line. Kind of like... well, Nikon's lineup, I guess.
Jeff wrote:
Certainly less labor to wade through, to be sure.
What do you guys think about this camera being the ultimate demise of the 'Ds-Series' bodies? [there is a reason I post this here, so bear with me...] It was the 1DsMkII that was really due for the update, yet we get a brand new, from-the-gound-up remake of the 1D instead. With all the talk I've been hearing over the last two years about some completely new system at the top end, it makes me wonder if Canon is going to settle for EPS-H as the new standard for the '35mm' market, and let full-frame go to some other high-end system. Whether it's MF is anybody's guess....Show more →
Donno if you're just trying to spur up discussion, but IMHO the answer is a definite NO.
Canon and their fans have totally embraced full-frame as some sort of pantheon of DSLRs. I doubt there is any way Canon would abandon FF.
It's hard to tell in these images, but I doubt the average client could detect a significant difference between 100 and 1600, print or otherwise.
Noise ninja does some sort of wavelet transforms on the image to analyze it. I was just thinking that because they have two ASICs in there, if they are doing something similar in-camera for the NR. Either way, those ISO100->1600 shots look pretty indistinguishable.
but it could be FFX. Full frame done right within the perspective of correcting the weakness of FF - the corners with wides on digital. A whole new mount it could be argued would be necessary. The mount would be larger to allow a whole new line of FFx lenses. Perhaps this time they would have learned and in this electronic world there would be converters to plug in for the old mount which would have all the electronic conduits. So the new standard could be 45x45 mm square for example and use the new mount. Portrait and landscape would be at the push of a button and you could have square aspect,8x10, 5x7 4x6,all the way to panoramic by going to the menu. When an old lens is mounted it would allow the old 36x24 format of 35mm. What a dream that would be.
poisonpill wrote:
Canon and their fans have totally embraced full-frame as some sort of pantheon of DSLRs. I doubt there is any way Canon would abandon FF.
I think you're missing the point here; what Canon does has nothing to do with its 'fans' on the low end (read: forums like this). So few people actually own full-frame cameras, your statement is based upon marketing spin, which I tend to take with a very large dose of salt, resulting in my rather high BP...
They're not going to abandon full-frame, but they could most certainly redefine it, to their own advantage.
Jeff wrote:
Either way, my gut feeling is that if this new EF16-35/2.8 II is as good as they are suggesting it could be, that lens and this body could/would completely obviate the 'need' for a full-frame flagship '35mm' dSLR in the Canon line. Kind of like... well, Nikon's lineup, I guess.
I think to really answer that, we would need to talk to the Canon engineering team...
One of the issues you start to run into with high MP cameras is that they are starting to out resolve the glass... Although the MP race has slowed considerably, there is still a desire for larger MP, pro-quality cameras. At these levels, FF becomes an advantage, not because of its lens perspective, but because of its ability to resolve using existing glass...
If Canon has hit its MP limit, then I don't think FF is really required (other than the "perspective" situation).... if, on the other hand, they plan on pushing past their current MP limit, then a cropped sensor could be a liability...
Jeff wrote:
I think you're missing the point here; what Canon does has nothing to do with its 'fans' on the low end (read: forums like this). So few people actually own full-frame cameras, your statement is based upon marketing spin, which I tend to take with a very large dose of salt, resulting in my rather high BP...
They're not going to abandon full-frame, but they could most certainly redefine it, to their own advantage.
How true Jeff !! You really nailed it. I wonder how many Canon "fans" actually have a FF body. Do you think Canon has finally caught on to what Nikon has known all along ? Do people really think that Nikon doesn't do FF because they can't ?
)...
Well i can allways reduce the d2x filesize, that works like a charm too 