I will be very tempted if I can get one from the States for around £2000.
My 5D is great and my 1d2n is phenomenal. I've always wanted a 'combination' of them both. The 1D III appears to be the closest thing to that.
If I can get about £1600 - £1700 for my 1d2N (AS NEW condition) and pay an extra few hundred pounds for the new mk III body, that would be great.
Don't mean to hijack the thread but does anyone know of any canon demo days where one can handle the new body? I hear Jacobs in London has one on the 15th of March. I rang them and the chap doesn't know much about it. I'll try Canon...
If the mk III is as great as folks are making it out to be, I may even sell the 5D.
For a non-pro shooter, one body should be more than enough.
Sonny wrote:
I will be very tempted if I can get one from the States for around £2000.
My 5D is great and my 1d2n is phenomenal. I've always wanted a 'combination' of them both. The 1D III appears to be the closest thing to that.
If I can get about £1600 - £1700 for my 1d2N (AS NEW condition) and pay an extra few hundred pounds for the new mk III body, that would be great.
Don't mean to hijack the thread but does anyone know of any canon demo days where one can handle the new body? I hear Jacobs in London has one on the 15th of March. I rang them and the chap doesn't know much about it. I'll try Canon...
If the mk III is as great as folks are making it out to be, I may even sell the 5D.
For a non-pro shooter, one body should be more than enough. ...Show more →
I bought my previous 1DII in Florida, *beware* first if you don't declare it you will be smuggling (big fines) and second you will have *NO* UK warranty
I too am glad then finally released this camera. I am especially interested in two features. Obviously being a sportshooter, the 6400ISO is a godsend (well, maybe not so much the 6400ISO), but a useable 3200ISO.
I am also VERY glad they listened to Canon users and released a lower level of RAW for times when you just don't need the HIGH resolution files.
The ISO3200 on the MKII(N) is already more than "useable".
In fact, I use it all the time and print quite large and nobody has ever complained to me about the noise. Heck people shoot ISO3200 film and it's way, way noisier than any Canon Digital SLR.
Having said that, the only thing I have wanted more from the MKIIN is in fact cleaner ISO1600+, mainly to give some latitude when not nailing the exposure, and for the ability to use a little more post processing without increasing the noise. Also, pixel peeping in PS at 100% magnification is nicer on the eyes.
drisley wrote:
The ISO3200 on the MKII(N) is already more than "useable".
In fact, I use it all the time and print quite large and nobody has ever complained to me about the noise.
...
Having said that, the only thing I have wanted more from the MKIIN is in fact cleaner ISO1600+, mainly to give some latitude when not nailing the exposure
I agree, and I am a suprised people aren't saying so. I currently shoot high school football in poorly lit stadiums with a 20D and a 70-200 f/2.8L. I shoot JPG for burst/buffer capability and workflow. Some stadiums are brighter than others, but I almost always need ISO 1600 (for 1/250) to get a usable image that can be worked over later. These out of camera JPGs are usually too dark, and need some post-processing. ISO 3200 is a bit harsh on the 20D, in my experience.
The 1D Mark II N has much better low light ISO performance, in my personal tests, when compared to my 20D. I had actually planned to buy a 1DIIN from my local Calumet store on the Friday of the week the 1D Mark III was announced.
The specs for the Mark III made me happy. I can't wait to try the new autofocus. I'm may be complete jackass, but sometimes I end up with more sharp shots of the stands/parking lot than I do of the running back sprinting off tackle. I also can't wait to try the ISO's of the mark III.
Ultimately, those for whom I take the photos don't care how it happens, nor what equipment I use. I capture moments and emotions, and the amount of noise has never been a problem. Higher and cleaner ISO's are great. Double fps is awesome too. I have shorties (aka KIDS), and the subtle change in expressions you can catch is priceless.
I repeatedly smash my face into the turf, struggling with ISO settings, during HS football action sequences in changing light. I am super exciteded about auto ISO, which Nikon has had forever. This rarely commented on feature will kick ass for me.
Mike1 wrote:
Oh no.... ANOTHER CFn. added No thanks I prefer my * & registered AF button. Having a joystick controlling the AF point on a 45 point AF system is not my idea of getting things done quickly. Keep in mind that on a 5D/30D it's easy. On a 1 series, it will be nightmare & a lot of missd shots.....
1. It is just a CF. You can activate it or deactivate it at will.
2. It's only 19 AF points, not 45.
DavidP wrote:
I really did NOT think that I'd be upgrading . . at least until I saw all the specs.
Same here.
I was thinking to myself "It's great that the Mk III will be released. Then the prices of the Mk II and Mk II N will get lower and I'll get one of them".
But then came the Mk III and it's as if all my dreams came true (well, 98% of them). The temptation was too big and I broke down. I hope that by summer time I'll be replacing my Mk I for the Mk III.
Can somene explain the thinking behind sRAW to me?
Is 2.5 megapixels really usable for anything but the web and small prints? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one by the way. Whilst I happily go along with the whole megapixels don't matter that much argument, I've never shot on a digital camera with less than 4.
The white paper suggests that it would appeal to wedding photographers. Why? The only benefits I can see to sRAW are more shots to disk, longer bursts and faster post-processing due to smaller file sizes. Would anyone who has ready access to memory choose to shoot at 2.5 megapixels when they had 10 available.
I've been in a situation in Costa Rica where, as a result of the theft of my camera bag, I only had the card that was in the camera, no access to new cards and many more dream shots than space available. In those circumstances the ability to move to a smaller RAW file would have been nice.
However, I'm not sure that, even in those circumstances, I would want to go as low as 2.5.
Also, how does it actually work? The same sensor is producing a file a quarter the size. Are only 1 in 4 pixels used? Does each pixel produce a quarter of the information or is it more complex than that? In any event, is there likely to be any impact on image quality?
sigh, now i'm wondering about selling my MkI and MkII just for this baby. That or wait another year for the prices to go down and my booked gigs go up up ><
I agree with Sean about the sRAW setting. If the smaller files had been 6MP, it would be a great feature. It would be great if a firmware update could bring us a new Custom Function where the resolution of the sRAW files can be set.
May be we have to change our summer holidays travel destination !!
Taking account that if B&H is going to be $3.999 --->> 3.052 - We are at 100 difference now
I'd suspect sRAW uses a technique called pixel binning, essentially what PhaseOne did with their newest generation of digital backs. It takes four 14bit pixels and turns it into a single 3 colour, 42bit (or possibly 48bit), 14-16bit/color channel pixel.
With pixel binning, you should be able to further reduce the amount of noise in images, especially chrominance noise since all 4 pixels (3 colours) in the bayer matrix is processed as a weighted sum to get the colour of the binned pixel and no interpolation is required.
I can see myself using sRAW quite a bit. I do a lot of food photography that is intended for 1.website 2. video (broadcasted). Looking at my Aperture library, it's filled with 50 repeat shots at full raw.. its wasted hard disk since I know these will never be printed. Don't get me wrong, I do wish sRAW was somewhere between 2.5MP - 5MP. 2.5MP leave little to no room for cropping.
Well, the website toppreise.ch is really interesting to follow price development, also because they have this nice chart Now it's going downwards at a daily basis, sometime at 1 CHF steps, which is quite silly, just to be on the top of the list. I guess it's kind of a pre-ordering fight.
I'm pretty sure it will fall under 5000 CHF soon, might it be just for the psychological effect. However it's difficult to say how long it will stay low. I've noticed that with the 5D. Prices were going down and down and suddenly, from one day to another it went back up 10-20%.
Oh, and by the way, it's Switzerland
May be we have to change our summer holidays travel destination !!
Taking account that if B&H is going to be $3.999 --->> 3.052 - We are at 100 difference now
beewee wrote:
I'd suspect sRAW uses a technique called pixel binning, essentially what PhaseOne did with their newest generation of digital backs. It takes four 14bit pixels and turns it into a single 3 colour, 42bit (or possibly 48bit), 14-16bit/color channel pixel.
With pixel binning, you should be able to further reduce the amount of noise in images, especially chrominance noise since all 4 pixels (3 colours) in the bayer matrix is processed as a weighted sum to get the colour of the binned pixel and no interpolation is required.
Quite a lot of that went right over my head but I get the gist. Thanks beewee.
Presumably it would be feasible to convert a RAW image to sRAW in post-processing by 'binning' the pixels in the same way that the camera does? If so there could never be an actual IQ benefit to shooting in sRAW could there?
Theoretically, if a 1DS Mark III were to incorporate such technology might the likelihood be that the size of its sRAW files were a quarter of the size of its full size RAW files?
I think that sRAW would always have to be something like 1/4 RAW, 1/9 RAW, 1/16 RAW, etc, because the only way you could stay in RAW format would be to bin 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, etc.
If you were to save the full RAW file, theoretically you could create an sRAW after the fact on the computer with the right software. But I think the sRAW was really done for those who know that the smaller file will be sufficient.
Suppose you have 4 pixels in a bayer matrix corresponding to R/G/G/B with each pixel being 14bit (2^14 integer values from 0 to 16383):
R4834 | G1038
G1250 | B0943
When you bin the 4 pixels into a single 3 colour channel pixel you get RGB values of:
R: 4834 of 16383
G: (1038+1250)/2 = 1144 of 16383
B: 0943 of 16383
If you want pure gray values of the 4 binned pixels 14bit image, you get:
1/4 * 4838 + 1/4 * 1038 + 1/4 * 1250 + 1/4 * 0943 = 2017 of 16383
If you were to get R/G/B values for every pixel (except for the ones in the parimeter) in a bayer matrix this is what would happen:
The RGB value for the center pixel will be:
R = (4834 + 3823 + 4409 + 4722) / 4 = 4447 of 16383
G = (1038 + 1250 + 1038 + 1183) / 4 = 1127 of 16383
B = 0943 of 16383
There are more sophisticated ways using weighted sums of getting values from a Bayer matrix but I'll leave that up to the experts.
No thanks I prefer my * & registered AF button. Having a joystick controlling the AF point on a 45 point AF system is not my idea of getting things done quickly. Keep in mind that on a 5D/30D it's easy. On a 1 series, it will be nightmare & a lot of missd shots.....
