So what's your take now, after Nikon have revealed their toys?
Is there a chance for Canon to improve 1Ds MkIII's specs? Add this
great hirez LCD Nikon is using in a sub-$2K D300? Really deeply check and fix AF?
Or is it too late? So maybe they are considering lowering the price?
It would suck to get one of the first cameras and then discover the price
got cut by a grand or more within a couple of months...
Or maybe just wait to see what 5D MkII brings... Maybe it will have
enough weather protection and resolution improvement? I guess PMA 08 in Feb
is when this camera should be introduced.
bka20d wrote:
While the specs look quite amazing for the Nikon D3, I haven't heard many people suggest that $5000 for a 12mp cmos sensor might be a little steep, especially when many of its features are also inclded in the sub $2000 offering. Face it every company is out here trying to make a profit.
Do you really think that's true though? IQ might be similar, but in other areas the Nikon is much better; faster frame-rate, weather sealing, live view, larger LCD, better AF... seems like those upgrades more than justify the cost increase. Nikon's selling a full-frame 1D3 with slightly better specs for about the same price. 5D doesn't even seem to be in the same league when you look at the two cameras beyond their similar sensor specs.
One thing that has always impressed me about Nikon's products is that they try to avoid segmenting the market. I like all-rounders; it means I have less stuff to carry around. The D3 is a great all rounder that may give us 5D image quality with 1D III performance. That's a fantastic combination, and could easily be the last camera I'd ever need, if I was inclined to either switch to Nikon, or was already vested in the system. Given the mileage I get out of my 1D Mark II, I imagine a camera like the D3 would last me just about forever.
That said, if Canon were to release the 5D with enhanced AF and weather sealing, that might just be the camera for me, particularly if the vertical grip came as an optional component.
How are you btw? I've just signed a lease for an apartment in South Harlem in preparation for school, which starts after labor day. Would love to meet up for coffee some time after the 5th of September, if you're game.
lordarka wrote:
Do you really think that's true though? IQ might be similar, but in other areas the Nikon is much better; faster frame-rate, weather sealing, live view, larger LCD, better AF... seems like those upgrades more than justify the cost increase. Nikon's selling a full-frame 1D3 with slightly better specs for about the same price. 5D doesn't even seem to be in the same league when you look at the two cameras beyond their similar sensor specs.
One thing that has always impressed me about Nikon's products is that they try to avoid segmenting the market. I like all-rounders; it means I have less stuff to carry around. The D3 is a great all rounder that may give us 5D image quality with 1D III performance. That's a fantastic combination, and could easily be the last camera I'd ever need, if I was inclined to either switch to Nikon, or was already vested in the system. Given the mileage I get out of my 1D Mark II, I imagine a camera like the D3 would last me just about forever.
That said, if Canon were to release the 5D with enhanced AF and weather sealing, that might just be the camera for me, particularly if the vertical grip came as an optional component.
How are you btw? I've just signed a lease for an apartment in South Harlem in preparation for school, which starts after labor day. Would love to meet up for coffee some time after the 5th of September, if you're game.
lordarka wrote:
Do you really think that's true though? IQ might be similar, but in other areas the Nikon is much better; faster frame-rate, weather sealing, live view, larger LCD, better AF... seems like those upgrades more than justify the cost increase. Nikon's selling a full-frame 1D3 with slightly better specs for about the same price. 5D doesn't even seem to be in the same league when you look at the two cameras beyond their similar sensor specs.
One thing that has always impressed me about Nikon's products is that they try to avoid segmenting the market. I like all-rounders; it means I have less stuff to carry around. The D3 is a great all rounder that may give us 5D image quality with 1D III performance. That's a fantastic combination, and could easily be the last camera I'd ever need, if I was inclined to either switch to Nikon, or was already vested in the system. Given the mileage I get out of my 1D Mark II, I imagine a camera like the D3 would last me just about forever.
That said, if Canon were to release the 5D with enhanced AF and weather sealing, that might just be the camera for me, particularly if the vertical grip came as an optional component.
How are you btw? I've just signed a lease for an apartment in South Harlem in preparation for school, which starts after labor day. Would love to meet up for coffee some time after the 5th of September, if you're game.
Arka C. ...Show more →
Arka,
the interesting thing is that some people are asking for or anticipating a price reduction on a 21mp full frame camera, based in part on the price of a $5000, 12 mp camera and without recognition of the fact that Canon has demonstrated that a 12 mp ff camera can be delivered to the market at the $3000 level: this is the context in which i made my initial comment. it was not intended to be a statement about the 5d being as good, or which is better, only an observation on the basis that the canon 1ds3 pricing was being questioned and the acceptance of the nikon pricing of its' ff offering.
The d300 is an $1800 camera which shares some of the features of the $5000 body like af and metering--is the full frame chip plus some of the other bells and whistles worth the extra 3 grand over the d300 or a $2500 premium over the 5d? for some it will be, for others it will not. as a recent convert to medium format digital, the price of the 1ds3 given its resolution and versatility (or perhaps i should say the limitations of mfd) does not seem so steep.
i am also not suggesting that the nikon offerings are not impressive because they are. canon has been making incremental improvements in their product line as opposed to taking bold steps....which is a mixed blessing. And while the 5d has excelled in image quality, i do believe and agree that canon needs to address feature set to the same extent they focus on IQ when the camera is updated. But we also need to remember that the 5d is two years old. At the time it came to market, there was nothing else but the 1 series if you wanted ff. with the nikon offering and what is rumored to be coming from sony, the landscape has changed: canon really needs to re-evaluate how it segments its product.
as you know this has been a challenging summer for me, but things get better daily. i would be up for catching up with you ...lets talk.
regards,
byron
Nathan67 wrote:
Dont know where you are getting your prices from Lars, Here in Norway which has the same 25% vat as sweden the price is being advertised at 74,000 kroner subject to change when the camera becomes available. Thats 12,600 dollars, or 6,300 british pounds.
When I bought my 1DsmkII it was 65,000 kroner including vat. (5500 uk pounds) Norwegian prices are often very similar to swedish prices for cameras etc.
regards, Nathan
Nathan, the price is just over 71,000 kronor in Sweden (including VAT)
It's your price that is strange. Both in Sweden and the USA this new camera has about the same price as the old 1Dsmk2 when it was introduced. But your price in Norway is 65k for the old and 74k for the new model. In US prices that's $ 1500 more for the 1DS3 than the 1Ds2 when it came
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
Nathan, the price is just over 71,000 kronor in Sweden (including VAT)
It's your price that is strange. Both in Sweden and the USA this new camera has about the same price as the old 1Dsmk2 when it was introduced. But your price in Norway is 65k for the old and 74k for the new model. In US prices that's $ 1500 more for the 1DS3 than the 1Ds2 when it came
Yes I know, I was surpised to see this price as Canon advertise that it will be sold at the same price as th "old" 1DsmkII when it was launched. The prices are subject to change though so I am hoping that the price is wrong, but it seems to be the price on the two big players webpages.
snowboarder wrote:
So what's your take now, after Nikon have revealed their toys?
Is there a chance for Canon to improve 1Ds MkIII's specs? Add this
great hirez LCD Nikon is using in a sub-$2K D300? Really deeply check and fix AF?
Or is it too late? So maybe they are considering lowering the price?
It would suck to get one of the first cameras and then discover the price
got cut by a grand or more within a couple of months...
Or maybe just wait to see what 5D MkII brings... Maybe it will have
enough weather protection and resolution improvement? I guess PMA 08 in Feb
is when this camera should be introduced.
Canon has released the 1Ds Mk3 already, which means it is too late to expect them changing the specifications. Fixing the known 1D Mk3 AF issues is exactly the opposite - the product is not meeting its specifications; thus the default is that AF will be fixed 100%, as soon as Canon has found out how.
The D3's LCD is a full-color (e.g 3 dots per pixel) VGA with 640x480 pixels. It might have other fine qualities which make it much better than Canon's LCDs, but resolution wise Canon's approx. 230.000 pixels are about 580x390, which is not terribly much less.
The prices for the new cameras from both companies provide room for interesting speculation. For D3, Nikon wants $3000 extra for the FF sensor + other goodies above D300. The 1D's sensor as 1.3 crop is not equally much more expensive than 40D's sensor, and it has more goodies (e.g. AF) vs. 40D than D3 has vs. D300, but Canon wants about $3000 extra for 1D. It is as if Canon would say a 1.3 vs. 1.6 crop sensor + better AF are equally expensive as a FF vs. 1.6 sensor.
It looks like Canon is really thinking (like I remember them saying at launch time) that photojournalists don't need and don't want a FF camera, but Nikon is offering FF with practically the same money. OTOH, Nikon seems to want to shake the marketplace by offering more than 1D for practically the same price.
I don't expect D3 pricing to at all affect 1Ds Mk3 pricing - they are for different users having different existing lenses.
But what about this: D3 is probably equally expensive to produce than 1Ds Mk3, unless the amount of non-functional sensors in chip production would be much lower with D3’s larger pixel size - which doesn't sound very probable. If so, why didn’t Nikon make their D3 with higher resolution? Possible reasons:
- photojournalists (+ other all-round users) form the majority of pro-DSLR customers (well, that is what we hear told in this forum), and they prefer high ISO + reasonable file sizes + high burst rates
- high volume production (in pro-DSLR terms) enabled by large target market = photojournalists + other all-round users
- playing safe with the 1st FF sensor, regarding noise & manufacturing defects
- lens resolution issues (or fear of them); I don’t myself buy this claim
Will Nikon launch their direct 1Ds Mk3 competitor within a few months? Possibly, for prestige/flagship reasons. If they do, will it have the same price a D3, if the production costs are indeed the same? Very unlikely, because the sales volume expectation is lower.
Is someone (= Canon, Nikon, Sony) already designing a dual mode 1D/1Ds body enabling high ISO + high burst rates + reasonable file sizes in PJ mode and highest feasible resolution in studio/landscape mode? Not likely as a true dual mode design. I would instead expect a dual purpose design, i.e. a higher burst rate 1Ds successor in 2010, with more sensor readout channels and double speed digital electronics, as usual. It could sell at a similar price than the current D3, or somewhat cheaper, if there is true competition between the big names.
A true dual mode 1D/1Ds body is problematic, if also the PJ mode now needs FF to match the D3.
- problem 1: Only matching an existing product is not a good starting point for a future product design
- problem 2: You would need to implement pixel binning in the sensor, i.e. 12 MP in PJ mode and 48 MP in studio mode! To achieve it, you would need to
- squeeze pixel binning (with high ISO compatible noise reduction based on summing the pixel signals) within a 4 pixels area in the sensor without essential sensor surface loss, and to
- cope with 48 MP in studio mode, with file size, ¼ burst rate and lens resolution issues
A fully digital alternative solution for a dual mode body would require breakthrough improvements in sensor readout speed & digital computing speed (e.g. with massively parallel processors), i.e. very high speed readout of all pixels from sensor + off-sensor digital processing of them to gain high-ISO-and-reasonable-file-size of a PJ camera. The pro-DSLR market doesn’t probably have enough sales volume to justify that kind of R&D investment.
Koivulehto wrote:
The D3's LCD is a full-color (e.g 3 dots per pixel) VGA with 640x480 pixels. It might have other fine qualities which make it much better than Canon's LCDs, but resolution wise Canon's approx. 230.000 pixels are about 580x390, which is not terribly much less.
The Nikon D3 and D300 have a 920.000-dot display, which form a 640x480 full R+G+B pixel array.
The Canon 1D series have a 230.000-dot display, which form a 320x240 full R+G+B pixel array.
H. Ludens wrote:
The Nikon D3 and D300 have a 920.000-dot display, which form a 640x480 full R+G+B pixel array.
The Canon 1D series have a 230.000-dot display, which form a 320x240 full R+G+B pixel array.
I see. So it is not only Nikon who is bloating the actual pixel count in LCD display, it is the whole industry. The fact that Nikon is providing actual VGA resolution in the back of their new cameras is very impressive indeed. Nikon would now have a good chance of using that in their advertising, instead of the bloated dot counts.
I wouldn't at all mind someone to comment my other, perhaps a bit less erratic thoughts of Canon & pricing & possible consequencies in my two posts above.
All the LCD is good for is checking the histogram at the start of a shot.
I like the way the R-D1 does it. the thing is folded out of the way and you only get it when you need it. If you are shooting a 1DsMkIII and chimping every shot you might need to thanks if you really know what you want to do and how to do it.
The histogram we see may be of the preview generated for the LCD. Bigger image, better histogram (maybe).
Small blown highlights are easy to miss on current cameras. A much higher res LCD might show the "sparklies".
I find the 1DIII LCD is better than older displays for checking critical focus. The new Nikon screen should be even better, with more than 10x magnification. I don't care how experienced a photographer is - any help focus the TSE lenses is useful.
If the is a price drop on 1 Series, I expect it will come via promotions after initial demand is met. This seems to be the way Canon does it. The street price drops.
Even with the Nikon news, I doubt Canon can supply enough 1DsIII until late winter. Even at $8K.
But I agree that by next year Canon will not be able to ignore the price pressure. Assuming the new Nikon offering actually deliver close to what is promised.
Canon had better do whatever it takes to fix the AF and satisfy us MKIII owners. It's likely the 1Ds will have the same issues. I'm still willing to buy the new 1Ds, but after paying $13K for one of each of bothl mkIII models, I had better not feel screwed.
Canon, doing whatever it takes to make this right is by far the least expensive way to handle this problem.
Koivulehto wrote:
I don't expect D3 pricing to at all affect 1Ds Mk3 pricing - they are for different users having different existing lenses.
But what about this: D3 is probably equally expensive to produce than 1Ds Mk3, unless the amount of non-functional sensors in chip production would be much lower with D3’s larger pixel size - which doesn't sound very probable. If so, why didn’t Nikon make their D3 with higher resolution? Possible reasons:
- photojournalists (+ other all-round users) form the majority of pro-DSLR customers (well, that is what we hear told in this forum), and they prefer high ISO + reasonable file sizes + high burst rates
- high volume production (in pro-DSLR terms) enabled by large target market = photojournalists + other all-round users
- playing safe with the 1st FF sensor, regarding noise & manufacturing defects
- lens resolution issues (or fear of them); I don’t myself buy this claim
Will Nikon launch their direct 1Ds Mk3 competitor within a few months? Possibly, for prestige/flagship reasons. If they do, will it have the same price a D3, if the production costs are indeed the same? Very unlikely, because the sales volume expectation is lower.
Is someone (= Canon, Nikon, Sony) already designing a dual mode 1D/1Ds body enabling high ISO + high burst rates + reasonable file sizes in PJ mode and highest feasible resolution in studio/landscape mode? Not likely as a true dual mode design. I would instead expect a dual purpose design, i.e. a higher burst rate 1Ds successor in 2010, with more sensor readout channels and double speed digital electronics, as usual. It could sell at a similar price than the current D3, or somewhat cheaper, if there is true competition between the big names.
A true dual mode 1D/1Ds body is problematic, if also the PJ mode now needs FF to match the D3.
- problem 1: Only matching an existing product is not a good starting point for a future product design
- problem 2: You would need to implement pixel binning in the sensor, i.e. 12 MP in PJ mode and 48 MP in studio mode! To achieve it, you would need to
- squeeze pixel binning (with high ISO compatible noise reduction based on summing the pixel signals) within a 4 pixels area in the sensor without essential sensor surface loss, and to
- cope with 48 MP in studio mode, with file size, ¼ burst rate and lens resolution issues
A fully digital alternative solution for a dual mode body would require breakthrough improvements in sensor readout speed & digital computing speed (e.g. with massively parallel processors), i.e. very high speed readout of all pixels from sensor + off-sensor digital processing of them to gain high-ISO-and-reasonable-file-size of a PJ camera. The pro-DSLR market doesn’t probably have enough sales volume to justify that kind of R&D investment. ...Show more →
These are very good points. I believe within a year or so Nikon will have a higher res version of the D3. But I believe they felt high ISO was more important than highest pixel count.
As far as product design, I believe much of the creeping disappointment with Canon can perhaps be summarized as "lack of imagination". From the outside it appears that Canon pro camera development people squandered the time and money they had after finishing the mkII series. I do believe with proper AF the mkIII are still competitive with Nikon. But with Canon's start from 2002 they should have "owned" this decade. Clearly now they do not.
As far as product design, I believe much of the creeping disappointment with Canon can perhaps be summarized as "lack of imagination". From the outside it appears that Canon pro camera development people squandered the time and money they had after finishing the mkII series. I do believe with proper AF the mkIII are still competitive with Nikon. But with Canon's start from 2002 they should have "owned" this decade. Clearly now they do not.
I totally agree, except i feel on canons part it wasnt lack of imagination, i feel it was because they had no competition not long ago and they used that to drag there feet and slowly feed use features with mild upgrades which enabled them to make more money, Thank goodness for nikon now giving them a run, i feel in response to nikons release of the D3/D300 that canons next pro camera is going to be incredible.
Being a retired computer hardware engineer, I'm willing to bet that disregarding the sensor cost there is less than $500.00 worth of parts in any of these cameras. The rest is excessive profits and corporate letherghy. Look where computers have come in less than 20 years. The competition is fierce and the demand originaly was minimal. The computer industry created the demand by increaseing the usefulness by leaps and bounds while cutting the cost. Bill Gates came along and gave us operating systems for a hundred dollars instead of having to lease an IBM system for $10,000 a month. IBM played the same game that Canon is playing and some day Canon will pay the same price IBM has paid. Jobs tried to play the Canon game also, he now has less then approx 4% of market. Mamiya seems to be trying to bring the cost down but not whole heartly. The whole camera industry seems to be staying with I suspect older 6 and 8 inch wafers instead of modernizing to the 12 inch wafers.
A/D converters cost less than $1.00 each in quanity so what else is there to suspect of Canon dragging their feet on 16 bits other than milking us. The list can go on and on, so forget the auguments about cost and price. The prices are determined by the marketing department not engineering or manufacturing cost. If you want it, buy it, but reliase you are playing a fools game.
Edited by Paul Gardner on Aug 27, 2007 at 12:51 AM GMT (Reason: spelling)
Paul, lots of people make the mistake about Jobs, but the fact is he was kicked out of Apple by John Scully, and was away at NeXT during the years that Apple screwed up the advantages they had. He returned to Apple in 1997, and during his time back has made Apple relevant again. And don't try to sell Gates as a sainted sacred savior of computing either. MS has long been a practitioner of promise big, kill and dump features, and promise them back in the next release or 3.
Your point is taken though, hopefully Canon will learn from the mistakes of others and kick out some awesome equipment at better prices. With competition, the end user wins.
. So sad!!
