PetKal wrote:
Even if I needed another 1 series camera, I wouldn't touch the 1DMkIII now or ever.
The reasons are: user reports on its performance have been divided, moreover, should one get a bum copy, Canon's support would be questionable. Lastly, the new camera price is too high in my opinion.
Unless the Mk IV turns out to be a consistently well performing camera worth the money, I'd just get yet another MkIIN. Fortunately, my camera needs are relatively modest: even 8 Mp, half-decent ISO 1600 and 8 FPS make do. However, I happen to be picky when it comes to AF performance, overall camera reliability and value ($)....Show more →
jamesf99 wrote:
1 series digital cameras? Value($)
2010, maybe, but not yet my friend...
I get your point, James.
However, 2010, or never.......that has an infinitesimal impact on my enjoyment of photography.
Take a look at those two images of the hunting knife above. One could have added a third one shot with a $900 40D and it would appear at least as good. Yet, all three would require some sort of NR in order to look clean and presentable.
My teenage grandson had to get a $400 iPhone the other day as an imperative of his social and business (McDonald's) life. On the other hand, I was all too happy when I could effectively trash the cell phone upon my retirement. The two worlds shall never meet, in fact the gap keeps widening.
Thankfully each of us can still spend our camera gear money the way we see fit.
I just can't see why 16MP are needed for what amounts to PJ/Sports camera. I shot T&I today with a 1D2N and a 5D. The N was used for the individual shots and there was simply no need for more than 8MP. The 5D did the team photo but 8, 10 or 12 MPs would have been fine.
It seems to me that folks are getting too megapixel freaky lately. Give me IQ and high ISO purity. Save the excessive megapixels for the fanboys and techies.
Don't forget the 1D is an excellent all around camera too. At 10mp I have enogh but a few more wouldn't hurt anything.
PetKal wrote:
I get your point, James.
However, 2010, or never.......that has an infinitesimal impact on my enjoyment of photography.
And rightly so..
Take a look at those two images of the hunting knife above. One could have added a third one shot with a $900 40D and it would appear at least as good. Yet, all three would require some sort of NR in order to look clean and presentable.
My teenage grandson had to get a $400 iPhone the other day as an imperative of his social and business (McDonald's) life. On the other hand, I was all too happy when I could effectively trash the cell phone upon my retirement. The two worlds shall never meet, in fact the gap keeps widening.
Thankfully each of us can still spend our camera gear money the way we see fit....Show more →
We have reached the point where I no longer care too much about ISO. Give me a good 3200 image, acceptable 6400 ala the 1 series, and I'm done... the quest for 256 billion levels of ISO performance pales next to the features I want to see on every camera (all series), which are simply common, inexpensive, and useful features.
Regarding cell phones - I use'em, but can't stand'em..
Yakim Peled wrote:
As I understand it, the opposite argument is very simple. If you need to compare a vast number of cameras with different sensor sizes and MP count then you need to have a baseline in which all will be judged. That baseline is 100% crops.
And as these are internet sites, printing is not relevant.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I don't believe the baseline is 100% crop. It's a same size print. 100% crop is just convenient online.
Sometimes I think Brianinc contradicts himself with his examples of downrezing crops.
dcmiller wrote:
I don't believe the baseline is 100% crop. It's a same size print. 100% crop is just convenient online.
Sometimes I think Brianinc contradicts himself with his examples of downrezing crops.
Damn right: for comparisons, crops should be _uprezzed_ to equal magnification. But at very high iso's like 12800 there isn't very much extra detail over a 12 megapixel file, so downrezzing sacrifices little, if any, pictorial information. At 3200 iso a well-taken 1Ds3 file can indeed show a little more detail than a 12 or 10 megapixel one.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Richard and Vandit,
I wish you the best trying to convince all the major internet sites. I'll be watching this with great interest.
I agree Yakim - some hope!
Luckily there are enough unconfused people who rightly believe that the number of megapixels is one of the most important factors when buying a new camera that I don't think ignorant/incompetent/dishonest reviewers at the major internet sites will be able to stifle progress completely.
Brainiac, I have been fol owing your posts with great interest.
I have lost count at the number of times you have posted the same information and the same pics as examples over and over again...
You are indeed one patient man...
Just out of curiosity, have you tried emailing the major gear reviewing websites about this issue?
To those of you who have used both the older 1-series bodies and the 1D(s)3 cameras, do you prefer the older AF system or the newer AF system?
Assuming that the 1D3 AF is reliable, of course. I mean your preferences from a usability standpoint, AF point selection ability, button placement, custom functions, and so on. Basically the whole package.
I was wondering if Canon would consider going back to the older AF system for the 1D4, given that it's tried and tested and the newer system has its quirks, but they seem to have worked out the majority of the issues.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
I was wondering if Canon would consider going back to the older AF system for the 1D4, given that it's tried and tested and the newer system has its quirks, but they seem to have worked out the majority of the issues.
fraga wrote:
Brainiac, I have been fol owing your posts with great interest.
I have lost count at the number of times you have posted the same information and the same pics as examples over and over again...
You are indeed one patient man...
Just out of curiosity, have you tried emailing the major gear reviewing websites about this issue?
Thanks fraga, yes I have emailed DPR twice about this, but had no response. DPR is reputed to be pro-Nikon, so even though the error is probably due to ignorance, I can't see them publishing redress. In my view DPR should publish an article about the mistake, for the benefit of its readership, and should make a new page that shows noise patterns of all the cameras tested in the last couple of years, AT EQUAL MAGNIFICATION, both with and without appropriate noise reduction. They want hits. That surely would bring them.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
To those of you who have used both the older 1-series bodies and the 1D(s)3 cameras, do you prefer the older AF system or the newer AF system?
Assuming that the 1D3 AF is reliable, of course. I mean your preferences from a usability standpoint, AF point selection ability, button placement, custom functions, and so on. Basically the whole package.
I was wondering if Canon would consider going back to the older AF system for the 1D4, given that it's tried and tested and the newer system has its quirks, but they seem to have worked out the majority of the issues....Show more →
For me, the most crucial difference is joystick focussing. We managed to bully Canon into providing that in a firmware update, and from that point onwards I am as happy with mark 3 focussing as I could be with any of the other available systems. However, I really look forward to a contrast detection and face recognition system, especially one that works through the prism viewfinder, and one which provides focus points nearer the edges and especially corners of the frame. That is some way into the future, I suppose.
* Also available for Canon, Olympus, Sony and Sigma mount.
Why would we want any other mount than EOS, considering it allows use of lenses from Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Sigma, Nikkor, Leica, Zeiss and all the rest?
Also, I will never buy a camera that runs the Microsoft virus kindergarten. Ever.
brianiac must have been an evangisist in his other life! I own and have compared both Mk IIIs (and the D3 too). and brainiac is right! Doesn't it make sens that you can't throw part of the picture away with one camera keep all of it with the other and then make meaningful comparisons because-that's not how we process and output the images.
