johnastovall wrote:
The two key test for me will be how it compares to the Leica M8 file and the Mamiya ZD.
Does the M8 image quality really differ that much from the DMR? I'd think that'd be a more fair comparison.
I too am looking to compare it to the ZD, but also the low end Leaf and Phase one backs. For me though it's more complex than pure image quality (where I'd guess the medium format backs will edge it out). Speed of use and system capabilities like IS play into the equation, that's always been one of 35mm's advantages over medium format. It'd be a different story though if I was a tripod bound landscaper.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Does the M8 image quality really differ that much from the DMR? I'd think that'd be a more fair comparison.
I too am looking to compare it to the ZD, but also the low end Leaf and Phase one backs. For me though it's more complex than pure image quality (where I'd guess the medium format backs will edge it out). Speed of use and system capabilities like IS play into the equation, that's always been one of 35mm's advantages over medium format. It'd be a different story though if I was a tripod bound landscaper.
On LUF several DMR users went to the M8 for the image quality.
I generally try to just be a troll on threads like this and not get in the middle of the opinion slinging since after all, like photography overall, there is a lot of subjectivity in these camera discussions.
However, as a 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II owner as well, I wanted to throw my two cents in the fray.
I would agree with many of the comments about the step change in overall features/performance from a strictly technical standpoint of the M2 to M3 versions being significantly less “wow'ing” than what was seen from the M1 to M2. I would suppose that the new M3 body will be functionally as pleasing as the M2 with some technology tweaks here and there as we've read about, but there are, in my very humble opinion, two reasons to upgrade: you either are currently limited by something in your camera that is inhibiting your ability to create the frames you need to create (regardless of whether it is artistic expression or your bread and butter) -or- you, whether wanting to admit it or not, just have to have the latest and greatest fancy schmancy camera. There is nothing wrong with either camp, especially if money is a non-issue for you more fortunate ones, but I doubt product plan of records and development dollars for any large company are solidified by anything but revenue opportunity and the bottom line. To us it may be a passion or a matter of common sense... that one small feature that just makes so much sense is just intuitively obvious as an add in the next release... but to them, it's a machine – a business that is about how making that change will effect everything from overall gross margins across their product lines to competitive outlook to how they can leverage technology in future releases to extend the life cycle of R&D already written off the books. It's certainly not how I would want things to play out in a perfect world, but as they say, “it is what it is”.
My upgrade story was simple. It was ISO performance. The 1Ds was and is a fabulous tool and artfully one of the best 35mm bodies I've ever used... right up until ISO400. I upgraded from the Mark I (so to speak) to the Mark II for that reason and that reason only. I needed better noise performance at higher “film” speeds. There are many appealing things about the 1Ds Mark III, but my upgrade position this time around is less of the former “functional requirement” and more of the latter “want the new gizmo” camp.
It is hard for me to embrace the “right tool for the job” mindset when I take my bag out in the field or have people in the studio, but the reality is that there are purpose built cameras that will shine in a given application and perhaps have less twinkle in another. People buying a 1Ds, imho, can certainly ask Canon to deliver 8fps and ISO6400, but certainly should not expect it. If you look at it from a business perspective, one body that does everything for everyone (given a set price) doesn't drive the top line like a body for studio/print work, a body for sports/photojournalism, a body for the pro-sumer enthusiast, a body for using a long lived family of EOS system glass at your kids birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese, etc.
All the positive comments and feedback to Canon on how to deliver the tools that will meet your needs is awesome and I hope that stuff never stops... but all the complaining and threatening to ditch your system for another because you didn't get your way is completely unrealistic and probably lessens the likelihood that those requests (demands?) are heard by the folks that we really count on for change.
I know... long winded... just offering my opinion. The 1Ds Mark III might not have hit everyone's mark, but when we start seeing some real world results and feedback from accomplished professionals that know how to put the camera through it's paces, I am speculating that it won't disappoint. Canon did not get to be the market leader in DSLR sales by releasing a poor product. Time lines can always be argued, but proven performance over those time lines is factual.
stanj wrote:
As a preamble, I know people at Canon in Japan because of my job. As such, I know for a fact that the 20D could have had the dust cleaning sensor, but it didn't. Technology held back, one example.
My biggest example of what one could do better and where only artificial reasons are holding it back is buffer size. There is absolutely no reason that with today's technology, the 1Ds3 could not have a 30 frame raw buffer. My 1Ds had a 10 frame raw+S buffer; the 1Ds2 has 9 frames in that configuration; the 1Ds3 I would expect to have 11 in that configuration. At the same time we went from 3fps to 5fps. Now tell me that my expectations are too high.
Second example, the LCD. Everyone is all excited about the 3" display - did you see the 1D3? Did you see the iPhone? I am not talking size, I am talking dpi. They sell a $8k camera and use a totally crappy display on it. At least the 1Ds had a better display than the 1D.
I have no doubt that they could bring 25MP into the sensor at the same noise level, if they wanted to. Frame rate would probably suffer, but I think most 1Ds class customers prefer resolution over frame rate. My standard print size is 24x36 and yes pixels do matter and yes there are lenses that can deliver it. And yes I have shot with the P45
14 bit is a yawn because per se it doesn't mean more dynamic range. I'd rather get 2-3 more true f-stops of dynamic range at 12 bit than the other way around, which is what we got. More dynamic range doesn't mean more bit depth as a requirement.
Just look at what the engineers did between the 1D and 1D2, and the 1Ds and 1Ds2. I have used / owned all four cameras, as well as the 1D3. Of the above, the 1D3 is the biggest yawn because it simply has the least technological advance. It's not thinking outside the box (like the 400DO as an example, just to show something else innovative, creative, even if not for everyone). I have no doubt that out of the trio 1D / 1D2 / 1D3 the 1D3 is the best, but it's the least exciting one.
It feels to me that there was more innovation between the 1N and 1V, and that was film. Anyone who thinks that digital photography is "mature" now should look back in 10 years.
When Nikon announces the FF D3 this week at 10fps+ and who knows how many pixels, people will be able to look there for innovation. Relative innovation: maybe it still won't be absolutely better than the Canon, but it will be a much more marked improvement over the D2x than the Canon MK3 series is over the MK2, kinda like when Canon was playing catch-up with the MK2.
I am fortunate enough that I can simply buy the 1Ds3, but I think that doesn't deny me my right to point out that I am way less excited about it than I was about the two predecessors. ...Show more →
iphone? bad example. Cingular makes money from a tos contract. Or you can have it for a few thousand.
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.
Wow... I'm amazed that nobody jumped on this little gem of a comment.
"By todays standards"... excuse me?? What's so great about today's standards? What do you even mean? Many people's definition of photographic standards these days refer to sharpness, noise, resolution, etc. All completely worthless criteria in defining a quality photograph. Never-mind the fact that a 60 year old 8x10 can produce images that blow anything Canon has ever manufactured out of the water.
Ansel once said "It is amazing how much photography has advanced without actually improving".
There's another quote, somebody can probably fill me in on who said it: "there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept".
And another: "It is a blessing that in time most photographs fade".
foghorn wrote:
iphone? bad example. Cingular makes money from a tos contract. Or you can have it for a few thousand.
Well, I work on the iPhone and happen to know how much the display costs. Rest assured, it could easily be installed in a $8000 camera from a price perspective. Remove touch sensitivity and you could save a penny or two, too.
cdTzabcan wrote:
Wow... I'm amazed that nobody jumped on this little gem of a comment.
"By todays standards"... excuse me?? What's so great about today's standards? What do you even mean? Many people's definition of photographic standards these days refer to sharpness, noise, resolution, etc. All completely worthless criteria in defining a quality photograph. Never-mind the fact that a 60 year old 8x10 can produce images that blow anything Canon has ever manufactured out of the water.
Ansel once said "It is amazing how much photography has advanced without actually improving".
There's another quote, somebody can probably fill me in on who said it: "there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept".
And another: "It is a blessing that in time most photographs fade".
...Show more →
I believe that second quote was also from Ansel.
cdTzabcan wrote:
Wow... I'm amazed that nobody jumped on this little gem of a comment.
"By todays standards"... excuse me?? What's so great about today's standards? What do you even mean? Many people's definition of photographic standards these days refer to sharpness, noise, resolution, etc. All completely worthless criteria in defining a quality photograph. Never-mind the fact that a 60 year old 8x10 can produce images that blow anything Canon has ever manufactured out of the water.
Ansel once said "It is amazing how much photography has advanced without actually improving".
There's another quote, somebody can probably fill me in on who said it: "there is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept".
And another: "It is a blessing that in time most photographs fade".
stanj wrote:
... and apparently they CAN put a real LCD with good rez into it... go figure.
I LOVE the fact that finally we have competition again! Go Nikon!
Yes, Go Nikon! Competition is good, one problem might be that just about everybody I know sold all their Nikkors and bought L glass and full frame Canons...how much of the market do they have left?
Wow, the LCD screen in the 1Ds Mk III went from looking like an upgrade to junk in 3 days.
It's true that the D3 is aimed more at the 1D MkIII. I wonder though, how many of us really need 21 megs, wont 12 do in most situations? Also there is the nagging problem that only a few of Canon's lenses can sufficiently resolve that sensor.
Im a loyal Canon shooter, not saying that I'll switch or anything.. It's just nice to see somebody else release something that actually makes the word "switch" enter my vocabulary.
And to the guy who thinks he is better than Ansel: I don't really need to say anything else, you've convinced me.
madmax200 wrote:
He was good for his day but I see many many photographers that blow his work away. I know without a doubt I can surpass his work.
Baaaaa Haaaaa! glad to see someone else thinks the same way. to me a good photograph is only as good as the time you put into it, and when Ansel was around, he was the only guy going to the places he was going to. it would be like saying that James Naismith was the best basketball player ever just because he was the first one to do it. Ansel was no doubt a pioneer, but aside from 2 or 3 shots with some good clouds and lighting, a lot of his stuff is pretty average.
roberto1979 wrote:
To me a good photograph is only as good as the time you put into it.
Digital photographers put only a fraction as much time into their photographs as Adams did. (Still want to stick with that measure of "a good photograph"?)
The pathetic direction this thread has taken suggests there's not a lot more to say about the 1DS MkIII until someone actually uses one....
