DavidP wrote:
I had one dealer quote me $4299 (which is $300 over MSRP).
I ordered my 1D-II's from them, and they were actually about $300 UNDER the MAP. And this was when they first came out.
I don't know if Canon gave them the wrong price, or if they misunderstood, or if I misunderstood, or if they're out to get a premium now. I guess I'll know more in the future. I've also put myself on another 2 lists, just in case. One said he expected the price to be at MAP or perhaps a bit less.
I'm on the flexible plan. $4K unless it gets real crazy. Then my choice is to pay a 'discounted premium' or wait. Anyone else have quoted prices?
Alistair101 wrote:
It does look clean indeed, much better than the 1D2N is at 1600 in my opinion!
It also looks good compared to 5D at 1600. My comparison files at ISO 1600 are accidental ones in good daylight, and the 1D3 image is probably a bit cleaner. I don't really have any such flashed files though.
Yes, it looks like slight OOF at 100%. But speaking of noise here, the worst looking noise in the shot is under the Pixma girl's right arm. I wonder whether it is that bad because it is surrounded by black, which may have got some special treatment by new "shadow noise reduction" feature, which I have understood exists in 1D3.
Does this new model address the dedicated Mirror lock up everyone has been asking for. that's what i'm hoping will be an add on when they update the 5D.
Edited by khurram1 on Feb 23, 2007 at 10:14 PM GMT
Not to be a troll or a hater, but I feel sorry for D2HS users. I can see why nobody shoots Nikon for Sports, the lack of as many IS lenses and bodies like this, make the choice very simple. It is a quantum leap forward in progress for lots of shooters not just an incremental upgrade like the 1dm2n was.
That ISO3200 image does look soft. It's hard to believe it's just OOF because of the relatively wide angle and F5.6 aperture. If it is OOF, that doesn't say much for the AF system, although it could be user error.
The beautiful thing about it though is the extremely low luminance noise. Having to reduce chroma noise in NR gives much better results than high luminance (wipes less detail). I ran that image through Noise Ninja at a low luminance setting, and default chroma, and the result was remarkable. The amount of detail lost was almost 0, and the chroma noise was basically gone.
sleepwalker33 wrote:
Not to be a troll or a hater, but I feel sorry for D2HS users. I can see why nobody shoots Nikon for Sports, the lack of as many IS lenses and bodies like this, make the choice very simple. It is a quantum leap forward in progress for lots of shooters not just an incremental upgrade like the 1dm2n was.
as much as i hate nikon (only bcoz i got a lemon and the lousy treatment i received from Nikon Canada 15 years ago), I would be VERY surprised if they don't have something to challeng the 1DIII in the works. I think with the exception of the 5D, their newer offerings (D2X, D200, D80, D40) have had a much more WOW factor then Canon, mainly becasue they have come in at a much better price point then Canon.
The new 1DIII looks great, seems to have improved ergonomics. I really liked the new improved AF, the 3"LCD, dust cleaner, and supposed better/cleaner higher ISO performance.
but I would have liked to have seen more then just a 25% increase in MP. I would also have perferred to have seen a new 14-16mp Full frame camera that has a 1.3 crop mode at 10.2mp.
MOST OF ALL, i would have liked to have seen a DEDICATED MLU!!!! I'm hoping, that this will be in the 5D replacement.
Someone further back also mentioned you could set the 'SET' button to perform as MLU under on of the custom functions... not sure if that is right or not...
drdrew wrote:
...canon should have made the new 16-35 a 12-24 instead....
hehe. One problem at a time! I think the 16-35 (which I don't own) needed fixing first.
I agree that the lack of a complete 12mm covering front filter of the Sigma 12-24 is a little annoying the 82mm/cap mount is a little lame...but at least it's the reason that I have a 82mm CPL for it that I can use when I get the 16-35II.
dcmiller wrote:
The blue ice shot runs out of dof on the left. But if they think the shot is a good one to demonstrate capabilities, why does that matter? I don't know why they posted the eagle, however. That shot close framed and 'nailed' with the 1DII would show a lot more detail. Are they demonstrating that the new camera has less resolution?
That was rather my point on the eagle shot. It's the only high ISO shot of the set too, so it was badly chosen IMO.
As for the ice shot - initially I thought it was out of DOF too, until I looked at the mountains in the background, and noticed they aren't razor sharp either. The shot IMO definitely gains sharpness as you move left to right regardless of the distance to the subject...
Jeff wrote:
I'd say the Live Preview activated by a single button is about as close to answering everyone's prodding in regard to MLU as one might reasonably expect. As an added bonus, you can actually see what the heck is going on! Isn't that close enough to the mark?
I would predict much bellyaching about the "heated up sensor" introducing noise and "ruining" the shot if that were the case
