There's a difference between being compatible in the sense of transferring data successfully, and compatible in the sense of transferring the data at full UDMA speeds. I don't know which applies to the 1D3.
Mike raises some good points around the control differences of the 1D3 over the N however I don't believe it will take us long to become fully comfortable with the new layout and I will reserve judgement on how easy it will be to flip between custom functions until I have the camera in my hands, but like Mike I flip between multiple settings and I am sure Canon will make this fairly simple. Personally if the reasoning for changing the button layout was the 3" lcd screen then I would have preffered the N's 2.5" as the extra half inch makes little difference to me.
Mike1 wrote:
This is my 1st impressions of the 1D MKIII based on the given specs at their Japanese site. I am sold on the fact that it can do ISO 6400, 10 FPS, Li-on battery pack, lighter weight, longer battery life, higher dynamic range, live view, bigger buffer, and the dust shaker. My only gripe is that I will have to relearn the ENTIRE menu & button system again. I have been using the 1 series camera since the 3 and the 1N, where we don't have the labels and had to remember them by heart. I was so used to the original menu & button layout of the 1D (original, MKII, MKII N) that I can change settings without even taking my eyes off the viewfinder, and I also see that they FINALLY have a dedicated MLU button. Looks like the menu to get to the custom functions will be a real pain. as I switch between CFn. 4, 12, & 15 a lot. Now that they have it changed by integrating the personal functions (pretty much useless after it's set IMO) into CFn. and integrating it into the CFn.menus, it will cause more confusion since I have the original 21 CFn. remembered by heart. I think Canon should have left those alone instead of burying them into the new & useless 4 submenus. The mic button has been moved in place of the WB button, and looks like the WB settings is also buried in the menus now. With this new button layout, have a feeling that some people will have a lot of "accidental" ISO & drive settings due to the new button layout. I think a lot of other pros who uses the mic/protect button will be annoyed when they are using a MKII N & MKIII as their main & backup cameras. I hope that Canon remedies this problem by allowing us to swap the functions of the buttons..... Also the 3" screen is an added bonus but it also made the back a lot more weaker & more vulnerable to breakage from impact. As a long time user of the 1 series, I've never find the need to "chimp" since the 1 series' AF is dead-on. I've rarely use the screen except for changing certain settings like custom WB or a CFn. IMO 2.5" is more than enough, and the button layout could have been kept the same. The transition from the 1V to the 1D was seamless, I was up & running within minutes. With this change, I have a feeling that I'll be cursing & swearing at the new changes on this camera for about a week or two before I'll be comfortable and get used to the controls. Well that's my two cents, I hope that I don't get flamed for this........
Edited by Mike1 on Mar 01, 2007 at 12:32 AM GMT...Show more →
I'd rather a few weeks of unfamiliarity than a camera that was another minor update.
I agree there are so many new features it will take a good few weeks/months to fully appreciate this camera and utilise it's abilities efficiently.
I will confess to not having read the whole of this thread, so feel free to flame me for my laziness. And I did not want to mess up the board by starting a new 1DIII related thread (maybe I should)...but:
What do people think the 1DIII specs and timing imply for the possible 1DSIII ?
IgorCU wrote:
PJs usually shoot moving subjects. You need high shutter speeds, not IS. So, good high ISO is good, 16-35 IS would not help.
Igor.
You've obviously never tried to take a picture after running a good distance, or shot from a running vehicle. There are plenty of situations where the old 1/focal length rule does not always apply.
A 16-35IS would give you both the ability to prevent situations where you can't handhold, normally reasonable speeds, it would let you slow-sync flash at ridiculous speeds, and it would let you shoot static scenes at much slower shutter speeds.
If they're worried about cannibalizing sales of their (almost non-existent) IS telephotos to non-stabilized lenses, Canon could even disable in-body IS over 200mm cause, you know, in-body IS just "isn't effective" for long focal lengths (don't tell Pentax or Minolta/Sony!).
Alistair101 wrote:
Mike raises some good points around the control differences of the 1D3 over the N however I don't believe it will take us long to become fully comfortable with the new layout and I will reserve judgement on how easy it will be to flip between custom functions until I have the camera in my hands, but like Mike I flip between multiple settings and I am sure Canon will make this fairly simple. Personally if the reasoning for changing the button layout was the 3" lcd screen then I would have preffered the N's 2.5" as the extra half inch makes little difference to me. ...Show more →
I can see where switching from the 1DMIII to the "N" may be troublesome since the interface will be different. I had intended to use the "N" as a second shooter.
I believe the 3" LCD was changed to help with viewing the "Live View" function. Even the 2.5 is hard to view for anything other than the Histogram.
JCPA wrote:
I will confess to not having read the whole of this thread, so feel free to flame me for my laziness. And I did not want to mess up the board by starting a new 1DIII related thread (maybe I should)...but:
What do people think the 1DIII specs and timing imply for the possible 1DSIII ?
Summary: Specs are great, features are great, more MP would be appreciated, but people are excited to see about IQ with 14 bit.
My local dealer (Glazer's) says 1Ds3 in the fall. I think that aligns with everyone's expectations.
The interface and battery change were due. This will certainly push some photogs to replace two cameras, where without the change they might have purchased one. The impact of these changes on sales patterns and used prices should be interesting.
I wonder how dealer orders compare to Canon's forecast? Perhaps the 1DsIII timing is affected by initial 1DIII demand. Assembly must be done by the same people.
CKrueger wrote:
You've obviously never tried to take a picture after running a good distance, or shot from a running vehicle. There are plenty of situations where the old 1/focal length rule does not always apply.
You're right, I was not thinking about such exotic situations :-).
A 16-35IS would give you both the ability to prevent situations where you can't handhold, normally reasonable speeds, it would let you slow-sync flash at ridiculous speeds, and it would let you shoot static scenes at much slower shutter speeds.
I see your point. Although we'd then have to live with a heavier and more expensive lens. And I don't know what happens to IQ since it's a very wide zoom.
If they're worried about cannibalizing sales of their (almost non-existent) IS telephotos to non-stabilized lenses, Canon could even disable in-body IS over 200mm cause, you know, in-body IS just "isn't effective" for long focal lengths (don't tell Pentax or Minolta/Sony!).
I thought you were talking about 16-35 IS, not in-body IS. But I still didn't get your last point about non-existant telephoto sales and Minolta/Sony knowing it better.
Best,
Igor.
Looking at the pictures from imaging resource, the Mk3's viewfinder looks noticeably smaller (shorter especially) than on the Mk2.
The mirror definitely looks smaller too.
drisley wrote:
Looking at the pictures from imaging resource, the Mk3's viewfinder looks noticeably smaller (shorter especially) than on the Mk2.
The mirror definitely looks smaller too.
Not sure about the mirror, but the viewfinder is bigger in lII than II or N.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'd rather a few weeks of unfamiliarity than a camera that was another minor update.
I agree there are so many new features it will take a good few weeks/months to fully appreciate this camera and utilise it's abilities efficiently.
I'm looking forward to the learning curve.
Not weeks. My guess is that it will take an hour or less to figure out that the changes have made things simpler. For instance, with the MarkII, to view an image you had to push "display," then push "select" to scroll through images, and then push the magnify button to zoom in or out. Now you just push play and the left hand can relax. Sounds good to me.
JohnGwillim wrote:
The file looks great, but I really am waiting for a real world test. They shot the image at f8 1/800 iso 6400--thats quite a bit of light (could have shot at 1/800 f2.8 at iso 800, better than almost any stadium lighting I have ever expierienced) so I am a little skeptical of set up shots like these. I remember when the 20d came out there were a lot of shots of people raving about high iso performance that were out shooting in broad daylight at iso 1600. The 20d has great noise performance, don't get me wrong, but that is not a siuation where you really need iso 1600 often. I want to see a 3200/6400 shot out of a crappy high school gym or from a poorly lit concert and see how the shadows hold up then. Looks impressive, but just not a situation I would set up (with that much light) to really see how the camera handles. ...Show more →
I had the same thoughts.
Seems intuitive that the best way to test low-light performance would be to take some photographs in low-light.
Is there something wrong with this reasoning?
These test shots sound more like fairly high-light/high shutter-speed images, than low-light images.
Be interesting to see what difference a change in the real light conditions might make.
Another potential use of the live-view screen would be to overlay a piece of acetate with lines positioned for pano-"overlap", ... minimizing pixel-waste when composing.
[ Put that leaf/tree/rock which was at the edge of the previous frame right "here!" on this line.
There's your 25% (or whatever) overlap.]
L. H. Smith wrote:
Another potential use of the live-view screen would be to overlay a piece of acetate with lines positioned for pano-"overlap", ... minimizing pixel-waste when composing.
[ Put that leaf/tree/rock which was at the edge of the previous frame right "here!" on this line.
There's your 25% (or whatever) overlap.]
