I echo this sentiments. I felt the same for my 1D3
Numfar wrote:
Andi - I used to feel the same way - and posted about it here. I still would like to see a 3D or chopped body 1 series - however, after shooting my new 1DIII beside the 5D, I will say that my opinion has shifted dramatically. The talk of better balance, great feel, ergonomics - all that stuff that 1 series owners have been talking about for ages - well, I know concede that it's all true. And I just spent the better part of a month carrying the 1DIII across Alaska, and the weight difference was never an issue for me, nor was the size-in-hand, even though I have relative small hands. The only size issue I have is size-in-bag. A pair of 5Ds is just easier to stow in a bag than a pair of 1 series bodies. Factor in the charger size, and it's quite significant in a travel set up. Still, I'd not trade the absolutlely excellent body build and functionality of the 1DIII for the packed-size benefits of the 5D, so I am quite happy that the 1DsIII will, for the most part, be identical to the 1DIII, operationally. It will make switching from one body to the other much easier.
RDKirk wrote:
Color film can't do that without manipulation.
Clearly it seems that you have never used film or else you'd know that film is versatile enough to accomplish anything without unnecessary post processing. Please do yourself a favor and check out the work of Ansel Adams since he has already shown how to shoot a shadowed valley with a sunrise or sunset among other things as well.
Jeff wrote:
And with an unbelievable amount of highly-skilled technical work on the part of the master photographer both developing the negative and printing the print, no less...
And AA's pictures are not that good by todays standards.
If you put me in the same locations with the same weather I could surpass his work.
brad_s wrote:
That's tough news to hear. ...But in terms of what they said, early 08 and the street date - say 10-07 for the new camera, they are not that far off. The truth is is that the reps basically told you that the 1DS MkIII is as close as 6 months away!!! ...and knowing that the obsolete date was emminent and inside a close period of time, you still bought the MkII. Sorry, but in my book you have no one to be upset with.
I concur. A new 1Ds was obviously imminent. I don't really have any sympathy for anyone that bought into the product this late into it's life-cycle and then cry foul when a replacement is announced.
The writing has been on the wall for much longer than 50 days.
The folks who just bought a 14/2.8 on the other hand: ouch!
M Henriques wrote:
Clearly it seems that you have never used film or else you'd know that film is versatile enough to accomplish anything without unnecessary post processing. Please do yourself a favor and check out the work of Ansel Adams since he has already shown how to shoot a shadowed valley with a sunrise or sunset among other things as well.
cheers
err he was the king of post-processing! he did extensive and very careful dark room work, dodging this, burning that, adjusting his negatives and paper formulations to have just this contrast and tonal curve, etc.
cwphoto wrote:
I concur. A new 1Ds was obviously imminent. I don't really have any sympathy for anyone that bought into the product this late into it's life-cycle and then cry foul when a replacement is announced.
The writing has been on the wall for much longer than 50 days.
The folks who just bought a 14/2.8 on the other hand: ouch!
I left a few things out of my explanation. I got my first pro job 2 days before I bought the 1Ds Mark II. I tried renting, but at $1900 a week or $700 a day, I could not justify that cost. I am talking a very small job here, but it is going to lead to many others, so it was either rent and go in debt, or buy and go in debt! I started my side photography business not thinking I would have gigs for a while and a month laster, I land one, so I had to jump. Financially, I would have like to jump in December, but was kinda pushed. I should also say that I am completely happy I got the 1Ds Mark II, it is absolutely one of the finest pieces of equipment I have ever used in any or my jobs (my real paying job is I.T.). It is an absolute pleasure using it. But dang if it had a bigger screen!
M Henriques wrote:
Clearly it seems that you have never used film or else you'd know that film is versatile enough to accomplish anything without unnecessary post processing. Please do yourself a favor and check out the work of Ansel Adams since he has already shown how to shoot a shadowed valley with a sunrise or sunset among other things as well.
cheers
Adams manipulate the hell out his negatives in the printing process and often went back to a negative and reworked the print from it as his skill grew.
You need to look at John Szarkowsk's "Ansel Adams at 100" where Szarkowski show one negative printed thirty years apart and you can clearly see where he dodged and burned to get more out of it for the later print.
Xavier Rival wrote:
Furthermore, if the 1DsmkIII is supposed to be more like a studio/landscape camera, then maybe high ISO would be less critical to the targeted users.
Exactly what I was thinking. The sport shooters need all the speed they can get, and the 1DmkIII delivers it. For the Portrait and landscapers that the 1Ds is geared toward, speed isn't nearly as critical. You're almost always either firing off strobes or on a tripod, or both.
M Henriques wrote:
Clearly it seems that you have never used film or else you'd know that film is versatile enough to accomplish anything without unnecessary post processing. Please do yourself a favor and check out the work of Ansel Adams since he has already shown how to shoot a shadowed valley with a sunrise or sunset among other things as well.
cheers
If you want to throw Adams name into your arguement, then you must also concede that he did plenty of manipulation to his photos. In which case, your adams arguement is moot. Time in the traditional dark room is as much post processing as is time in the digital darkroom
M Henriques wrote:
Clearly it seems that you have never used film or else you'd know that film is versatile enough to accomplish anything without unnecessary post processing.
cheers
If you will excuse me I'm going to go take a minute to go yell at my film archives. Apparently they've never really lived up to their full potential...
Damn all those years doing doing contrast reduction masking and extended development.
bryPT wrote:
I left a few things out of my explanation. I got my first pro job 2 days before I bought the 1Ds Mark II. I tried renting, but at $1900 a week or $700 a day, I could not justify that cost. I am talking a very small job here, but it is going to lead to many others, so it was either rent and go in debt, or buy and go in debt! I started my side photography business not thinking I would have gigs for a while and a month laster, I land one, so I had to jump. Financially, I would have like to jump in December, but was kinda pushed. I should also say that I am completely happy I got the 1Ds Mark II, it is absolutely one of the finest pieces of equipment I have ever used in any or my jobs (my real paying job is I.T.). It is an absolute pleasure using it. But dang if it had a bigger screen! ...Show more →
As a Biz owner I say congratulation's on your first "Executive Decision".
You had to choose between two decisions neither of which was going to "Net" you money. You made your choice now move on. Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war. I cant see that the 1ds3 will be much better then what you have now so I think youll be fine. You could make another decision to sell it and lose more money. I do understand the wanting a bigger screen statement. I have made a few mistakes that I could not see with the smaller screen like shooting the flash in manual and zooming it by accident. The zoomed flash left the bodies lit up and the heads dark. DOH!
Does anyone have any technical explanation why Canon doesn't offer a cropped higher speed mode on these 1Ds series cameras? I woulda thought now would have been a good time to introduce such a feature.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Does anyone have any technical explanation why Canon doesn't offer a cropped higher speed mode on these 1Ds series cameras? I woulda thought now would have been a good time to introduce such a feature.
Because if you need a high speed crop, you can buy 1D MKIII...
1Ds MkIII is a high resolution studio/landscape camera, not a hybrid.
snowboarder wrote:
Because if you need a high speed crop, you can buy 1D MKIII...
1Ds MkIII is a high resolution studio/landscape camera, not a hybrid.
Well that's the obvious answer. I was looking for an answer other than marketing, directly related to their sensor technology.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Well that's the obvious answer. I was looking for an answer other than marketing, directly related to their sensor technology.
Well, they can make the mirror flip up and down at least 10 times per second. The EOS 1n RS / 1V / 1VHs did (still do) just that. (Apparently they are also known as "film burners" )
We know that dual DIGIC III can process over 100 Mpixels per second, so that's no bottleneck either.
That leaves the sensor output itself, and the front-end processing circuit that gathers the raw sensor data so it can be send to one of the DIGIC chips. Could that processing unit read a limited range of pixel rows? I don't see why not. If variable starting row and end row is actually implemented in hardware or not is another question. And then you're probably limited to whole-row read-out. I doubt if it could do partial row read-out. If that's the case, it would mean that some of the read-out has to be discarded, so the crop mode would not reach the 100+ Mpixel/second output.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Does anyone have any technical explanation why Canon doesn't offer a cropped higher speed mode on these 1Ds series cameras? I woulda thought now would have been a good time to introduce such a feature.
They do have a crop feature, it's called the crop tool in photoshop.
My understanding is that the crop feature of Nikon is seldom used. So it really is just marketing.
dcmiller wrote:
Getting back to the 1DsIII, I would say this to the "non-upgraders"
If the IQ of the new 1Ds is the equivalent of splicing two 1DMKIII shots, the new camera will produce a significantly improved file over the 1DsII.
[...]
But, given that the 1D Mk III pixel density is not the same as the 1Ds Mk III pixel density (and so the photo diodes and micro lenses are not the same size) you can ditch that place-holder assumption.
(APS-H crop squared, times 1D3 res is (1,25)˛ * 10.1 = 15.8 Mpixel )
)