I think because you forget that some take the cost into consideration.
But you can get away with buying 2 bodies instead of 3 as a previous poster suggested. If you priced the hybrid between the current N and S it might even work out cheaper for the photographer while still providing Canon with profit by appealing to a wider market. I am not saying they could have done that, but I understand the cost of sensor fabrication runs is significant. Surely there are major economies of scale to be had by building twice as many.
By the way, adding CPUs may not solve the problem. There is still maximum bus speed.
2 busses? Can't you always parallelise the problem? I shudder to think how they get two DiG!C III's to agree on a single frame's AWB settings, but clearly it can be done.
Anyway, like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. The truth is that all the 1D bodies are great, and so is the 5D. It's because they are all so good that it's a hard decision and we are forced to make difficult choices. My choice would be 5D size, weight and price, full frame 17MP and everything else like the 1D3. Give it 5 years... :)
ctrl-alt-grant wrote:
If you're shooting MF and you don't check the diopter is on center you've just wasted shots.
--Grant
Correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
Diopter mis-adjustment will only interefere with your SEEING clearly what is on the viewfinder focus screen.
Adjusting the lens focus setting using MF will or will not place a focused image on that screen. When focus is correct, that is the only time the image will be maximally sharp ON THE SCREEN (and thus, on the sensor, if if things are right with camera optics).
The diopter mis-adjustment will not change this state of affairs,...but only whether or not you are able to clearly see what is happening.
If your vision is blurred by this situation (wrong diopter setting), you will see the properly focused screen image as blurry,...but it will still be the "best" you can get. You will not be able to see a sharper image by mis-focusing the camera lens. Things will simply get even worse.
So,...if the diopter adjustment is off, the best-looking image you can see on the screen will STILL accurately represent the best focus adjustment of the camera lens.
It willl just not be as sharp TO YOUR EYE as it would be if the diopter setting was correct.
If you are content to operate in the blurry-but-best mode, the camera sensor will be perfectly happy, the captured image will be in proper focus, and no shots will be wasted.
What will be wasted will be your opportunity to have a sharper viewing experience yourself.
The diopter adjustment is for YOU,...not for the camera. ;-)
brainiac wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate, what I really don't understand is the existence of the 1.3 crop cameras at all. Can someone explain it to me?
I'm with you, man. And also, I don't understand why car makers put 4 Cyl and 6 cyl engine options into the same body ?!?!
2 things are interesting in this debate now the mark 3 has arrived, IMO...
1. The gap between semi-pro line has been reinstated in my view. Better operation, 14-bit malarkey, Improved AF, new battery technology, on-the-fly focus adjustment, improved IQ etc.
2. It raises specualation - no more than that - on what might appear on any revisions to the 5D. I would expect digic 3, and dust removal. But for me the 3 killer things for me would be more dispersed AF points, higher flash synch, and the on-the-fly focus adjustment.
If the 5D is revised, and it included those killer specs I would be happy (ecstatic) for my studio portrait work with a revised 5D.
If not, I may well get the 1d mark 3 this year, and waste all those things I will never need eg 10fps, weather proofing, clever predictive focussing, etc
(and before you all point it out, I realise the 1ds mark 2 or 3 would be the solution, but I will not drop £3k on a camera unless it is to enter a digital 'medium format' solution).
brainiac wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate, what I really don't understand is the existence of the 1.3 crop cameras at all. Can someone explain it to me?
They can't use EF-S lenses, so they miss out on those size/weight/cost gains. They certainly can't compete with the FF cameras on image quality, since this very sensor technology could just as easily be used in a FF sensor.
Where is the economy in making 2 versions of the 1D series? I don't get it. If I was in charge at Canon I would make a single full frame 1D series camera with a half resolution sport mode and stack em high.
At the risk of answering my own question, perhaps someone knows if it is all about sensor fab yield. FF sensors have much worse yield and so cost considerably more....Show more →
You partially answered your question.
The economic consideration is very real in marketing. (and buying).
There is also the question of how much is enough?
Do you have/use "fisheye" lenses?
If not, you are apparently satisfied with a given amount of "wide-angle-ness".
Would you buy a billion megapixel camera?
If not, you apparently have some limits on the file sizes you are willing to work with,...and have some idea of the maximum print size you are contemplatrng, and a maximum-resolution requirement at that size.
There are a great number of photographers who find that THEIR desired requirements are met by a camera such as the 1DIII.
The economic factor is decided by this size sensor being the largest (per Canon) that can be manufactured "single pass",...cost goes up disproportionally if larger sensors are needed.
The current resolution which can be achieved with adequate IQ on the '1.3' (1.28X) 1DIII sensor is such that 8X10 inch prints can be made with a resolution above 300 pixels/inch,...the commonly accepted maximum detail resolution for viewing with healthy young eyes, from about 10 inches distance. Prints such as 16X20, etc. can be made at reduced-but-still-satisfying on-print resolution, because these sizes are usually viewed from a greater distance.
It also happens that the "1.3" sensor accepts the "sweet spot" of current 35mm-format lenses. The relatively rapid drop-off of image quality at the edges(corners) of the image projected on the larger I(FF)sensor (as shown by the curves beyond about 17mm on MTF graphs) is not captured by the smaller sensor.
SO,... you get a "large enough", high enough resolution, high enough IQ, small enough file-size, image, AT A VERY HIGH FRAME RATE, at a relatively attractive cost.
"ENOUGH", that is for some (very many it seems) people.
That's "Why the 1.3X sensor". :-)
It may simply suit your needs best. (or not ;-)
It does mine! (If I HAVE to have a higher-res shot of this fantastic scene,...I'll panoram-it!)
DaveMart wrote:
Dunno if they have grids, I seem to remember that they did, but they have the aspect ratio lies available, so you should be able to use that as a sort of informal grid
White paper! White paper!
The live-view LCD grid is shown (no mention of "grids"(plural).
It is not a grid-of-squares, but instead consists of 4 lines(IIRC), 2 vertical/2 horizontal, spaced so that they may serve reasonably well to align with verticals or horizontals in the image,...i.e.to keep the image 'level".
Don't know whether or not the aspect-ratio frames can be shown at the same time as the grid.
Edited by Jeff on Mar 02, 2007 at 12:39 PM GMT (Reason: reason fixed)
Of course Canon doesn't gamble on 5D owners to switch (I don't even use the term "upgrade" here) to the 1DMkIII but people that are on the fence deciding between a great landscape/portrait camera and a sport/wildlife/photojournalist camera would probably now go for the new camera that can do both albeit stressing more the later over the former. It is more feasible to get great landscape shots using a fast camera than a series of fast actions using a slower camera.
rudiphoto wrote:
I already have a 5D, and was waiting to see if the Canon announcement would be about another full frame camera. The 1DIII announcement is of no interest to me, despite the great new technologies inside the 1DIII, because it is not full frame. It really is that simple! (For some of us. )
P.S. This is not a "cost" decision. I can afford the 1DIII, it is just no good to me for what I do.
Yeah, what Rudi said! My decision is going to be whether to buy a 1Ds II or III, and it will depend on the price and features of the III. I haven't heard much complaining about the IQ from the II so that may be the way to go when the III shows up and prices on the II take a hit.
Be interesting to see what the new 5D offers, too.
I'd guess that the 5D could benefit from a 14 bit pixel depth now. ISO 3200 on the 5D is better than 1600 on the 300D. A lot better. I'd like Canon to keep the 12 MP size and give us options above 6400, even if they are noisier. After all, Noise Ninja does a great job.
But I don't think that will happen, if Canon gave us a useable ISO 128000, they may impact sales of f/2.8 lenses ;-)
My take is that - on paper - the 1D3 will be the better wedding camera with its 14- bit rather than 12-bit tonal depth and the highlight preservation option and the vastly superior AF system (especially when used with f/2.8 lenses) and a whole host of other features including the high frame rate which you can use to catch those unexpected moments.
The 5D will do a better job of utilising my 24mm TS-E lens and certain other specialist and wide angle lenses but otherwise you wouldn't see anything better in the 5D than in the 1D3. Even the extra pixel count is minimal (11.8 v. 10.1 Mpx is only 8 percent more in each direction - it's not the advantage we got in going from 3 Mpx to 6Mpx or 4 Mpx to 8 Mpx)
If you're tossing up which one to give me for my birthday then I definitely want the 1D3. I've been very good. Honest.
2 busses? Can't you always parallelise the problem? I shudder to think how they get two DiG!C III's to agree on a single frame's AWB settings, but clearly it can be done.
I know just about as much on camera development as the next guy, but based on my software programming experience, i probably wouldnt even bother parallelising a single image.. splitting up the image just introduces too many variables for data mis-match and corruption, etc etc..
most likely the dual digics are fully utilized only in high-speed shooting.. a single digic may not be fast enough to sustain processing at 10fps, but if one could keep up at 5fps, then splitting up the tasks (sending every other image to a specific processor) would allow for 10fps.
this may make for somewhat amusing results if one digic processor developed a glitch and you'd be seeing funky pictures in every other exposure...
I was just at my Photoshop and went to give him a deposit on the 1dmkIII, which, btw he was the Canon Rep for 30 years out here and now has his own store.
I am what you would call a preferred customer of his, he then asked me, i thought you wanted the 1dsmkII replacement, i then said i do, he said well do you still want this, i asked why will it be released soon, he stated that they could release it now if the want to, but i have been told it will be released in the fall of "07". Well i gave him the $500.00 deposit for the 1dsmkIII rite then and there.
He would not go any further into it, and he was adamant about it too. For all you skeptics, he has been correct about every camera before, He knew about these two back in June of last year, when i purchased another (n). he just did not know if they were going to be released together or not. Do Not Kill me, i am just a messenger... Do with this what you seem fit. OH, btw, yes i put a deposit on the 1dmkIII as well..
Being a wedding photographer, and reading posts on a forum for digital wedding photographers, I am with most that I am staying with my 5D. The only thing that really appealed to me about the Mark III is the High Tone Priority, but I can get that with properly exposed images and shooting in RAW which I do anyway.
I am excited about the next 5D and the innovations it will get from the Mark III. I know it won't get the AF system, but the processing parameters and metering will probably filter down to some extent.
I would make a single full frame 1D series camera with a
) :-0
)