tedrzz wrote:
TomRA: you could always over expose by a few stops and then bring it back to correct exposure in photoshop. that way the shutter speed will be faster.
Take a look out the window if you want a true indication of the noise.
It is horrible, how anyone can do a high iso test with flash is way beyond me.
It screams of amature with professional style camera.
I think the specs are fabulous on this camera and the live view is something I have wanted for a while, 10fps that's a damn luxury!
What was the raw buffer rate?
I think that is more important!
One thing that does concern me is that the sensor is from the point and shoot family which would suggest this was the only way to keep it under 4K. This really sounds more like a D2xs upgrade than a cannon one and I might suggest that's why many Nikon guys are wetting their pants over it.
It's not a 35mm sensor so Canon guys are going to hate it.
One last thing I think this shows the 5d to be the lemon it is!
Cheers,
Jasin.
First of all, no one will really know what this camera is like until they start using it. It might be great or it might suck. Specs mean almost nothing.
Anyone who thinks that a MP increase definitely means an increase in quality doesn't know anything about digital photography. I thought that myth had been laid to rest long ago. I don't understand what the dust issue is all about. I've had my current body for over a year and I've cleaned it once. I realize the front of the body is open when you switch lenses, but the sensor is covered when the front is open. I get the feeling that the massive list of features they've incorporated into the camera are marketing-driven features to appeal to gearheads, not pros.
The camera certainly seems to have some nice features. But I wonder, for example, how the battery life is if the rear live view is on all the time (and whether, in practice, any pro would actually use it - a live display only makes sense if you hold the camera away from your body or use a tripod. Who is going to hold the camera away from their body when using a long or heavy lens?)
I happened to run into a large group of Paparazzi the other day who were waiting for the actress Heather Graham. I saw her enter the same office building where my dentist resides. I didn't notice a single white lens. They all seemed to have relatively cheap bodies, low end lenses and no external flash.
The market for $3500 cameras is still relatively limited, even among so-called pros. Let's not make a bigger deal out of this camera than it is. If Nikon is long away from coming out with a new pro body, they might try to match some of its features. But if Nikon is close to releasing, than the new Canon will have no impact on the features of the new Nikon.
jasin wrote:
One thing that does concern me is that the sensor is from the point and shoot family which would suggest this was the only way to keep it under 4K.
Uh, what? By "point and shoot" do you mean "less than full frame"? This sensor is larger than any of the Nikon DSLRs and vastly more sophisticated than any compact non-DSLR camera, so I truly don't have any idea what you mean.
It's not a 35mm sensor so Canon guys are going to hate it.
Visit the Canon forum. Yes, some Canon users prefer full frame, but by far the most common reaction to this announcement is overwhelming approval. The 1D/1DII bodies are wildly popular.
One last thing I think this shows the 5d to be the lemon it is!
The 5D was never intended for sports/PJ/wildlife work, so yes, it would likely be a lemon for those purposes.
Marli wrote:
Is it just me or does the Mark 3 Canon shots look very soft??
I saw all photo samples coming from this 1D mk III a few days ago and yes I noticed it too and almost forgot 'till you mentioned it...thanks for reminding us
...it could be the lens...could be there to soften noise...the AA filter...who knows cuz yes, it's really soft and if it's compared against that new Sigma dslr, the 1D mk III sample images are not good enough(aka cr@p)
Jdaily here is a quote from a recent MK3 review!
And I quote: The camera also is the first Canon SLR to sport the new Digic III image processing chip that debuted in point-and-shoots last year.
Thats what I mean by point and shoot.
Not sensor size.
I am glad though that you agree with me on the 5d.
This camera certainly makes up for the disrespect canon showed it's consumers with that little fiasco.
I am also happy to see that the future does infact rest in less than 35mm sized sensors.
Cheers,
Jasin.
On the White Paper, and as mentioned previously, this looks like a really nice tool. Personally, I like the live preview feature and the ability to magnify areas of the image for manual focusing -- that's really nice. As much as I like the immersive feel of a viewfinder, I sometimes miss viewing the composed picture on a display, a bit out of intimacy.
A lot of these features are completely new. Only time will tell how well they have been implemented and how really usable they are.
It's going to be very interesting to see what Nikon has been preparing for its next generation of dSLR. It might not be not as ground breaking and "just" tweaks and refinement on already really nicely implemented features. Or we might be pleasantly surprised. Nikon usually goes with the former rather than the latter, and some people (like me) do appreciate it.
I'm not sure how well secrets are being kept between camera makers during the design process -- leaks always occur and makers usually invent the same things at the same time; both manufacturers have the R&D and marketting capabilities of thinking out and implementing these features (well, most of them: Canon control over the manufacturing process of sensors is obviously a big win for them, because they did it right -- it was quite of a gamble a few years back.) But they make final choices on what goes into a camera and that's what we buy from them: their best judgment on what's suitable or not to the tools they design.
tedrzz wrote:
TomRA: you could always over expose by a few stops and then bring it back to correct exposure in photoshop. that way the shutter speed will be faster.
That is one of the main issues i got with the D2Hs...once you are 1/3 stop underexposed at 1600iso the noise floods the image when trying to bring it up in post :-(
I am sure when jasin typed "sensor" it was a mistype and a matter of two threads flowing within his mind. To me it's clear he meant "chip" as in procssing unit rather than the sensor.
I haven't looked at the test images, to me you really don't know how a camera handles unless someone has had a good go with it. With every body there are subtle nuances that require some adjustment on the user side.
I shoot with a 1D MKIIn regularly enough to know it's a Canon I enjoy shooting and I am sure the III will continue in the same. The one thing that I keyed on was "lighter" which is nice, my D2Hs is noticeably lighter than the IIn.
I somehow think that maybe, just maybe Canon has decided to settle on the 1.3 crop as it's mainstay. I thought the 1Ds was the flagship but in the release of marketing material they call this their flagship no? I dunno, I just have a feeling this is where they will continue to develop and of course they may will not abandon the 35mm sensor for the many fans they have one over but it may not have the role that eveyone had been expecting to develop in future. Maybe, just maybe 25mm digital sensors might not be ready for primetime just yet.
Qranc wrote:
I somehow think that maybe, just maybe Canon has decided to settle on the 1.3 crop as it's mainstay. I thought the 1Ds was the flagship but in the release of marketing material they call this their flagship no?
I think the "flagship" denomination will last until the day that the 1Ds Mark II successor is introduced.
This new camera, like its predecessor, is certainly not a camera for landscape or architecture photography, and probably not for portrait photography either. The 1DsII and secondarily the 5D fill that role.
In fact the new 16-35 f/2.8L II will probably appeal much more to full frame shooters than to the 1D Mark III shooters.
Who knows what will happen with the 5D. It was sort of a hodgepodge of a pro-quality sensor in a camera with midrange features and a high price tag. But given the success of the 1Ds Mark II why would anyone believe that Canon will suddenly abandon its 17 megapixel full frame monster? Even if they don't change the pixel count, just adding the processor, focus, bit-depth, and ergonomic features of the 1D Mark III would be great.
After all discussions around high ISO and low light photography on this forum lately, I'm almost afraid to mention it, but: The ISO6400 sample is very, very impressive. I'm sure it is possible to come up with something like "lack of detail" or "Canon colours" or whatever, but it is ISO6400 after all, as in two stops faster than ISO1600, and the Canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses aren't all that bad either.
DrPablo wrote:
I think the "flagship" denomination will last until the day that the 1Ds Mark II successor is introduced.
This new camera, like its predecessor, is certainly not a camera for landscape or architecture photography, and probably not for portrait photography either. The 1DsII and secondarily the 5D fill that role.
In fact the new 16-35 f/2.8L II will probably appeal much more to full frame shooters than to the 1D Mark III shooters.
Who knows what will happen with the 5D. It was sort of a hodgepodge of a pro-quality sensor in a camera with midrange features and a high price tag. But given the success of the 1Ds Mark II why would anyone believe that Canon will suddenly abandon its 17 megapixel full frame monster? Even if they don't change the pixel count, just adding the processor, focus, bit-depth, and ergonomic features of the 1D Mark III would be great....Show more →
Well Paul I have yet to see anyone suggest the 1Ds would be abondoned so I'm not sure where that line of thinking comes from. I certainly didn't say it. However while we are on the subject, you could easily argue the gain in sensor size and raw MP could be marginalized with the new 1D III. 10 vs 17 ... 1.3 crop vs a 35mm.
The things the 1D MKIII can do the 1Ds cannot for some shooters make it a more rounded unit and my guess would be for most shooters once you factor in cost. We certainly use the 1D MKIIn in the studio effectively enough.
There are those that staunchly support the 35mm sensor size but I am not here to debate it's necessity, that's a deeply individual arguement so I won't even try. The fact remains (in my mind) for the majority of shooters, the 1D MKIII is a much more capable unit that offers a great deal more at what could be argued as a marginal disadvantage to what the 1Ds offers.
It wouldn't be a logical arguement to everyone, I know that and fair enough. Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Hm...i think i just might get my feet wet with Canon this summer. Not ttalking about any switch, more like a compliment to what i´m using. Either way it sure is a very nice camera.
Qranc wrote:
Well Paul I have yet to see anyone suggest the 1Ds would be abondoned so I'm not sure where that line of thinking comes from.
I didn't suggest that the 1Ds would be abandoned either, nor have I seen that mentioned elsewhere. I'm sure Canon will continue to upgrade it at least until the DSLR technology is more mature. I can't see it being replaced or discontinued until a new sensor technology enters the picture.
The 5D, as I mentioned, is a different story. And that is because it's in an awkward market position, and its price has been falling like a rock ever since it was released.
But full frame, I'm pretty sure, is here to stay. The manufacturing costs will only fall, and it allows for sensor resolution and noise tolerance that are impossible with APS-C. If Canon continues to upgrade its full frame cameras, especially the 1DsII, then other companies will be more or less forced into full frame themselves. After all, I just can't see any APS-C camera competing with a 22 megapixel full frame camera if the price points are in the same league.
