Angus MacGyver wrote:
How so? 1Ds3 has a larger sensor than the 1D3, if anything, it should be easier to get ISO6400, assuming everything else is equal.
Nope, it makes perfect sense. If everything else is equal between the 1D MkIII and the 1Ds Mk III except that the 1Ds has a smaller photosites, then the 1Ds can't achieve a noise level as low as as the 1D at the same ISO.
That's where those dag-blamed laws of physics come in--TANSTAAFL. Smaller photo-sites equal a lower signal-to-noise ratio...everything else being equal. So they would have to limit the 1Ds to a lower maximum ISO than the 1D.
If these specs are true, then Canon offers a no-compromise PJ camera that gives the fastest frame rate and highest low-noise ISO (the PJ's top priority) and a no-compromise studio camera than gives the highest resolution (the studio photographer's top priority).
So quit your kvetchin' and buy a 1DmkIII and a 40D for backup, and spend the change from $8000 on some glass. Its really not that hard. Or alternately, get a couple of the 5D replacement bodies and put the change into glass.
madmax200 wrote:
Lack Luster specs at best.
No dynamic range specs? Improved or not? No mention! (Doubtful)
Only 4 megapixel increase (4.4 to be exact).
Iso 100-1600 are you kidding me? My 4 year old 1ds2 has that??
Only 5FPS? Why not add another digic3 processor and make it 8?
I doubt I will upgrade for "Liveview" and dust cleaning.
Im looking at a P45 back now. This new canon camera is really sad. To top it off it has the MK3 focus system and we all know how well thats working out.
OH and all this for the LOW price of how much? -------------------> 8,000 dollars. What a deal!
Edited by madmax200 on Aug 19, 2007 at 04:34 PM GMT...Show more →
Because there are a bunch of people who seem to devote their lives to obsessing over pixel-peeping the corners of their FF cameras. (Not saying Duncan is one of them, but it does seem to be one of the prevailing "religions" around here.) --c
I doubt I will upgrade for "Liveview" and dust cleaning.
darknite wrote:
So quit your kvetchin' and buy a 1DmkIII and a 40D for backup, and spend the change from $8000 on some glass. Its really not that hard. Or alternately, get a couple of the 5D replacement bodies and put the change into glass.
Edited by madmax200 on Aug 19, 2007 at 05:47 PM GMT
The "s" camera was never intended to be a fast shooter. Most people don't need anything faster than 5 fps.. I can count on one hand the number of times in the last four years that I've held down the shutter button for a burst. If you need speed, you know what camera to get.
I can't really afford this sort of coin for a camera anyway, but have to say that these specs, as presented, are not particularly enticing. To reuse a well-worn phrase, "It's the dynamic range, stupid". I don't care about a few extra pixels or gimmicks -- I want more DR. Most people do. Where is it? --c
charlesk wrote:
The "s" camera was never intended to be a fast shooter. Most people don't need anything faster than 5 fps.. I can count on one hand the number of times in the last four years that I've held down the shutter button for a burst. If you need speed, you know what camera to get.
I can't really afford this sort of coin for a camera anyway, but have to say that these specs, as presented, are not particularly enticing. To reuse a well-worn phrase, "It's the dynamic range, stupid". I don't care about a few extra pixels or gimmicks -- I want more DR. Most people do. Where is it? --c...Show more →
Of course, we all use our cameras differently.. but the "s" was always the "studio" camera and Canon believes strongly in market segmentation, for better or worse.
Anyway, I had a recent disaster with my 5D with respect to dust cleaning so I do consider that important... but the other features don't excite much. Comparing to a high-end MF back might be a bit much -- and even the P45 is only claimed to have 12 stops -- but in general, I want a camera that would allow me to do less of the following... --c
snowboarder wrote:
You know what's sad? That no matter what there will be always some people like you...
Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back because they have no competitor, which is why I hope that Nikon will come up with something nice, soon. Just like they did with the D200 - and look at the 40D.
stanj wrote:
Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back because they have no competitor, which is why I hope that Nikon will come up with something nice, soon. Just like they did with the D200 - and look at the 40D.
Finally some common sense. I thought for a second my expectations were to high. But would any of you that own a 1ds2 run out and sell it for barely 4,000 and buy a new one for 8,000 for the specs listed? Not me. I will keep my 1ds2 and rent a 39mp medium format for my trips. Calumet will give me a sweet deal on rentals.
stanj wrote:
Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back...
Stan, can you tell me what Canon realistically could have done better?
What kind of features/sensor technology/anything are Canon not using
just because they are holding back?
21Mp is not enough? Then if it's more, half of you will come up with
the noise, it's already mentioned here...
14-bit color was amazing 5 months ago when 1D MkIII was announced, now it's
a yawn... A completely redesign new body, lighter, a better battery, more weather
protection - you're bored. Live view - nothing new. A new AF - a problem.
5 fps of 21MP files seems pretty amazing to me, but it's not 8fps
(imagine those screaming 1D MkIII owners who would complain
about Canon giving 1Ds MkIII 8fps - so why is 1D MkIII only 10MP? )
Please tell me about those not used things you think they "should" do...
I agree. If the specs of this camera are not impressive at this point, it's only because we all got blown away by most of them already a few months ago when the 1DIII was announced.
It's always this way. Specs come out, then we have to hear a lot of complainers crying in their beer. Why is it that the specs of a new camera are never up to "par" with most people out there on these forums? I gurantee that many of the complainers out there will end up buying this camera.
I don't think it's a let down at all. It's a completely new body --- engineered from the ground up different than the 1Ds II. There is a significant boost in megapixels, as well as many perks that come with a new body. The way I see it, I can likely sell off my 1D mkII and use this camera for some basic sports shooting as well. Sure 5 FPS is not fast, but it's good enough if you time it. I just wish that they put a high speed crop on it like the D2Xs. That would seal the deal and I'd have another 2k to put toward the camera with no looking back. :-)
snowboarder wrote:
Stan, can you tell me what Canon realistically could have done better?
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.
stanj wrote:
My biggest example of what one could do better and where only artificial reasons are holding it back is buffer size.
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.
Stan, thanks for such a complete answer. I have to agree with you, partially
on the first two. The RAM buffer probably could have been bigger, but you can't
be sure if there are not any additional factors here, like a physical size and
space available/assigned for RAM modules inside the very compact (for what it is)
body. The LCD quality could have been better for sure, I just think they chose
to produce 1Ds MkIII on the same line as 1D MkIII - the cameras are identical outside,
so they didn't want to include a different kind of LCD screen for such a low volume
product. Why is this LCD used in 1D MkIII? Not sure....
I have no doubt that they could bring 25MP into the sensor at the same noise level...
Maybe yes, maybe no. Remember the sensor in 1Ds MkIII is more than half of its price,
any larger size could have increased the total price. Also at this levels, a "small"
jump from 21 to 25MP means a big jump in production, used elements etc...
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.
I'm not sure... I love 14-bit color and I think it's a DR improvement...
Don't know enough about available technology to increase the dynamic range,
but I doubt they wouldn't use something available in a camera which will stay
their flagship for at least 4 years...
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.
I think you are judging 1Ds MkIII from an upgrader's point of view, for me it's here
finally and I don't feel I,m buying something 3 years old anymore...
It's my first 1Ds camera and I feel quite excited about it
I am not sure how anyone can be making a comparison and comment on the differences between the 1DsmkII and mkIII before the camera has even been released and we see some real testing. The other point is that the list price is the same as the 1DsmkII. That camera has been discounted to some extent now but new they are still close to 7K and I know that if the list price of the new camera is 8K other places will sell it for less right off the bat.
Edited by mark1958 on Aug 19, 2007 at 08:08 PM GMT
Edited by mark1958 on Aug 19, 2007 at 08:09 PM GMT
??
)