apdieb wrote:
From a marketing standpoint, I have no idea why you'd create 2 1D Full-Frame series cameras that are priced significantly different. The luxury of a 21mpix sensor 1DsMark III is nice, but not thousand upon thousands nicer than a 1DMark III (IF it was full frame too). I am very happy with the design/specs overall...Now if I can just get all my dang lenses calibrated. So far, my 70-200 and 85 have been calibrated and tested...They are looking pretty good (finally).
Edited by apdieb on Feb 09, 2008 at 07:50 PM GMT
The FF issue I mentioned in my post isn't, for me, a huge problem(or not a problem at all) but it would be great to have a 12mp FF on the 1D MK III and keep the burst speed of it. On the other side, keep the 1Ds MK III with its 21mp FF + the 5 fps.
As far as the rumours are getting out, and by the comments of Chuck Westfall (technical adviser for Canon USA's professional products marketing division) (read article here), it seems that Canon is starting to think about discontinuing the APS-H sensor on 1D bodies. They have to compete with Nikon D3.
Probably having three options on the 1D series would work:
1Ds MK III - 21mp FF
1D MK IV - 12mp FF
1D MK III - 10mp APS-H
MarioPro wrote:
I've listened and read, so far, of so many complaints on the 1DMK III, from focusing to incorrect shutter speeds, that I'm glad I'm still holding my 1D MK II's. On the other hand it seems also that there are a very few lucky people who haven't noticed issues on the 1D MK III.
I'm planning to get a couple of MK IIIs the days to come but... not sure if it might be a smart decision with rumors of a 1D MK IIIN.
Nevertheless, and after reading so many white papers issued by Canon, regarding new settings, new customization functions and so on, I think it's time for Canon to attend a workshop at Silicon Valley and learn something with Apple people - doing the things the right way, making it work 99% perfectly and easily out of the box, like any Mac.
Instead, the 1D MK III seems to be the Vista OS of photo gear - it's almost nice, almost works but in fact it's predecessors seem to be more reliable. ...Show more →
I'm not sure Apple is such a great example. Think back to the rough start Aperture had. Anytime they release new product there is an inevitable list of problems. Like the first MacBook with the processor whine, the palmrest discoloration and eventually even cracks in the palmrest...
It's hard to understand how Canon risks their reputation amongst pros just to have a new model on the shelves a couple months earlier than Nikon. It's like taking a shortcut to get there first but then a series of flats puts you on the back of the race.
Only Canon knows but there is the saying that without risk there is no reward. If Canon risks nothing on future product development, they will be overtaken by someone else. You could say that may be happening now with some of the product coming from other manufacturers. Unfortunately they really got bitten by the Mark III this time.
One of the cons I find in the MK III is its 10.3 mp non FF. Why? Why does the 5D has it and the 1D MK III don't? Is this camera really made for photographers and by photographers as Canon proudly announces? I doubt. It's made by Canon marketeers for a bunch of geeks, in which I still include myself, that keep believing in "Santa Canon".
I kind of agree with you here. I was secretly hoping that the III would be full frame, like around 14 MP because I would really prefer to have one camera that can do pretty much everything I will need. Currently at 10 MP, it already is pretty good, but for some work more resolution would be desired. I just don't want to have to spend $7-8K for yet another camera.
That said, the current design does have merit, as already shown by a few here who prefer the 1.3x crop. I think it's a byproduct of the original 1D specs and that the APS-H sensor is the largest size that can be produced in "one shot". There is likely a cost/profit factor. If it would have been FF, I'm sure Canon would have tried to price it in the $6K range... but for Nikon to release the D3 at $5K gives me the impression that Canon is really trying to milk as much profit out of APS-H as possible.
apdieb wrote:
From a marketing standpoint, I have no idea why you'd create 2 1D Full-Frame series cameras that are priced significantly different. The luxury of a 21mpix sensor 1DsMark III is nice, but not thousand upon thousands nicer than a 1DMark III (IF it was full frame too). I am very happy with the design/specs overall...Now if I can just get all my dang lenses calibrated. So far, my 70-200 and 85 have been calibrated and tested...They are looking pretty good (finally).
I think there could be a market for two different full frame cameras. I've seen some side by side tests comparing the D3 against the 1DsIII and you can see that there is a significant difference in image resolution (in favor of the Canon). But the D3 benefits at higher ISOs due to larger pixel sites. There are those who need 21 MP. Give me a 14 MP full frame 10 fps excellent high ISO camera and I would be happy to have only one camera model... but right now I'm contemplating the 1DsIII (also hoping for a D3x to knock it down $1-2K).
MarioPro wrote:
As far as the rumours are getting out, and by the comments of Chuck Westfall (technical adviser for Canon USA's professional products marketing division) (read article here), it seems that Canon is starting to think about discontinuing the APS-H sensor on 1D bodies. They have to compete with Nikon D3.
Chuck's words can be interpreted in two ways. They may discontinue it or they may lower it's price.
MarioPro wrote:
The FF issue I mentioned in my post isn't, for me, a huge problem(or not a problem at all) but it would be great to have a 12mp FF on the 1D MK III and keep the burst speed of it. On the other side, keep the 1Ds MK III with its 21mp FF + the 5 fps.
As far as the rumours are getting out, and by the comments of Chuck Westfall (technical adviser for Canon USA's professional products marketing division) (read article here), it seems that Canon is starting to think about discontinuing the APS-H sensor on 1D bodies. They have to compete with Nikon D3.
Probably having three options on the 1D series would work:
1Ds MK III - 21mp FF
1D MK IV - 12mp FF
1D MK III - 10mp APS-H...Show more →
I sure hope that we see no decrease in pixel density in the Mk3's replacement. Either 10+ in APS-H or 16+ FF, perhaps with a crop mode.
Pondria wrote:
I don't 100% trust that they have found the "Root cause". For my whole career, I have been dealing with "Engineers". They tend to be genuinly optimistic to put it politically correct
If you think ENGINEERS are optimistic, you don't want to ever meet geologists or geophysicists.
As time goes by, I'm guessing that Canon might just not mention anything further, do a silent improvement in the newly released bodies, swap cameras out for the major organizations with large orders that complain, and let the rest of the world pound sand for awhile and only offer replacements to the most persistent and problematic customers. Blue dot can just be their gold standard, even if it's more like bronze or whatever.
Two recalls would seem pretty extraordinary (unless, as others mentioned, it was firmware, which a lot of people, including me, doubt).
DavidP wrote:
If you think ENGINEERS are optimistic, you don't want to ever meet geologists or geophysicists.
Hehe...
I knew those guys when i worked in the petroleum industry, when they doing research work on exploration even with the best technology and equipment they still look like having fun in Vegas
lidesun wrote:
I knew those guys when i worked in the petroleum industry, when they doing research work on exploration even with the best technology and equipment they still look like having fun in Vegas
I still know them, since I'm in the business. And, oh yeah, I'm an engineer. But I consider myself a REALIST (which makes me a pessimist to the G&G folks ).
What's always fun is to explain to people why you'd ever drill a well when you believe there's only a 10% chance of it finding oil and gas . . . yet we do it (on occasion, under the right circumstances).
DavidP wrote:
I still know them, since I'm in the business. And, oh yeah, I'm an engineer. But I consider myself a REALIST (which makes me a pessimist to the G&G folks ).
What's always fun is to explain to people why you'd ever drill a well when you believe there's only a 10% chance of it finding oil and gas . . . yet we do it (on occasion, under the right circumstances).
In the old days, the G&G guy just throwing their hat in the air, and drilling well at wherever the hat fallen on the ground joking...
matsuib wrote:
As time goes by, I'm guessing that Canon might just not mention anything further, do a silent improvement in the newly released bodies, swap cameras out for the major organizations with large orders that complain, and let the rest of the world pound sand for awhile and only offer replacements to the most persistent and problematic customers. Blue dot can just be their gold standard, even if it's more like bronze or whatever.
Two recalls would seem pretty extraordinary (unless, as others mentioned, it was firmware, which a lot of people, including me, doubt).
I absolutely agree with your assessment of Canon letting most of us pound sand and I highly doubt another recall. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to use the capital resources (human & fabrication/mfg) that way.
Unless it really is a firmware update, another required "fix" should mean the writing is on the wall for the 1D3. Nikon's release (which trumps the 1D3 IMO) and Sony's forthcoming release, will change the landscape (assuming the Sony is any good). Canon's best bet would be to simply fix the problem internally (from an engineering/understanding perspective) and then replace the camera while incorporating the new technology in the next model (I'm hopeful it would be FF). This strategy eliminates more recalls, wasting engineering effort on a "failed" camera, and moves them forward. It might be their cheapest alternative.
The "1D Mark V" * press would/could be positive - assuming they can satisfactorily demonstrate a problem free AF. The 1D3 'problems" would be a thing of the past with no fix/repair required from an engineering point, effectively sweeping the whole thing under the rug. At some points, all companies have to bury their dead and move forward. It's time for canon to do the same.
* Mark IV is highly unlikely as Asian cultures don't like the number 4.
I just had a thought after reading the comments above about the "real world" micro adjustment settings:
I too have experienced the exact same thing, calibrating with the online focus charts does not work effectivily for real world shooting. I have probably adjusted my lens correction 20-25 times in the last 6 months. Trying all different techniques. Printed charts, online moire' effect, $20 dollar bills being lit with spotlights, etc,etc,etc. I have come to the conclusion that the micro adjustment is not really a totally effective feature. It works for a specific situation. Its more like a "Holy crap if we don't give each of our users a way to try and calibrate each of their body, NONE of these cameras will work!, feature. I believe Canon would not have been able to sell one of these camera if they did not include this in their firmware. Well a lot more would have been returned! I think Canon has blinded us all with this option. For the heck of it...how do think all the users of this body would feel if they most or all of their lenses didn't work out of the box? I guess that has already happend even with this so called "feature"! Canon has already told some users to send in their lenses even though they work fine on other bodies. Which is crap. They again are just tring to cover up the fact this system has issues. I have settled on the best setting for the how each of my lenses work in a given situation, but if I deviate from this, like use my portrait lens, which I have calibrated at about 10ft, at more than 100ft I have to re-adjust to get the best results. Like I don't have enough to think about when I am using this camera. I believe this to be a cover up for the fact that this focusing system is truly flawed. Hope they fix it because everything else on this body really is fantastic. I still use it though, its just very disappointing, as MANY have already said. We have all been duped I think....us MK III owners anyway.
Z
Pondria wrote:
I don't 100% trust that they have found the "Root cause". For my whole career, I have been dealing with "Engineers". They tend to be genuinly optimistic to put it politically correct
Bottom line is that this ( MK3 AF ) is a new technology. Like any other new technology, it simply needs time to mature. I would wait for MK4 to get the working incarnation of the new AF.
I'm kind of skeptical also and your point about new technologies sometimes having issues is exactly why I didn't buy the MkIII in the first place (I'm definitely not an "early adopter." ) But don't you mean wait for the MkIIIn rather than Mk4? Usually there's some significant technology change with the new numbering. And, not to be a cynic, but there's at least some (reasonable/likely?) chance that whatever new thing they do with the Mk4 will lead to 6-12 months of issues that need to get resolved, and will only be fully resolved when they "update" the Mk4 with the Mk4n. (Of course, this assumes they don't completely pull the plug on the MkIII and go to a Mk4/5. I would think Canon's engineers could actually make the thing work as advertised, eventually, but what do I know?)
Paul B wrote:
I'm kind of skeptical also and your point about new technologies sometimes having issues is exactly why I didn't buy the MkIII in the first place (I'm definitely not an "early adopter." ) But don't you mean wait for the MkIIIn rather than Mk4? Usually there's some significant technology change with the new numbering. And, not to be a cynic, but there's at least some (reasonable/likely?) chance that whatever new thing they do with the Mk4 will lead to 6-12 months of issues that need to get resolved, and will only be fully resolved when they "update" the Mk4 with the Mk4n. (Of course, this assumes they don't completely pull the plug on the MkIII and go to a Mk4/5. I would think Canon's engineers could actually make the thing work as advertised, eventually, but what do I know?)...Show more →
Paul,
You make it sound like the "n" designation is the fixed version of the base camera. The only "n" I am aware of is the MKIIN, which I own. When that camera was released, many people believed it was not a significant step up from the MKII to justify it's release. The LCD screen, pictures styles, and minor firmware tweaks were not enough according to some. It is rare that you find someone who believes the IIN is improved in image quality or AF. I have run across a few "grassy knoll" folks who believe there were silent fixes to the 'N", but not many. And MkII vs MKIIN images....you can not tell the difference.
As for the MKIII, I own one of those as well, I don't believe you will see an "N" version though. It would be Canon placing the official "kiss of death" on the MKIII. In my opinion, Canon will fix the MKIII and continue to sell it for the 18 month to 36 month cycle of their 1 Series bodies. Then, I believe they will introduce a MKIV or V that will target the D3 Nikon.
Today Canon seems to have stumble into the "Kubiashi Maru" scenario. People are mad at them for announcing another fix, but were mad prior to that for not fixing the camera. I believe Canon will fix it, maybe not to everyones liking, but they will sort it out.
As for new technology.....I would consider the Nikon D3 light years ahead of the D2, and people are lining-up to buy it. Which brings me to this question; What should be in a new camera....old technology?
