I know it's probably not a welcome comment, but don't people in the UK earn more? For example, if you take the average income and convert it to USD it is more than the average US income?
Plus obviously VAT.
Not saying it's ok, I'm just as screwed in Australia, just asking the question
brainiac wrote:
No - most people here already believe that "more pixels are bad", as do the large numbers of people who have been switching to Nikon. It's not an uphill battle, it's easy. Just rely on people's stupidity: take a shot with each camera, and then view at 100% on screen. The lower megapixel camera always looks better. It works every time - that's how Luminous Landscape and DPReview skew their comparisons massively towards lower megapixel cameras like the Nikons. Cluful photographers will do their own comparisons by uprezzing the lower megapixel file so that the crops are viewed at the same magnification, and find that the 1Ds3 is about as good as the D700 at iso 12800, but those looking for basic fairness in tests are few and far between, as the popularity of LL and DPR shows. http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/
So in many ways Nikon has already won the "more pixels are bad" fight. Look at the reaction to the 21 megapixel 5D. Does Nikon produce a camera, any camera, with comparable detail and cropability? And what is the overall tone of this thread? "Disappointing compared to the D700"....Show more →
even canon engineers too apparently since they couldnt get gapless and other things working at 21mp yet apparently.
Chrono1081 wrote:
A co-worker recently bought a 1Ds Mark III purely for the megapixels and just smashed it on the floor after reading about the 5D Mark II in the email I sent the "camera people"...wtf! AND I HAVE NO WAY TO TAKE A PICTURE CAUSE MY CAMERA IS BACK IN THE STATES *CRY*
Not to mention it looks like he has the 85 1.2 attached that suffered most of the damage but hes yelling and throwing stuff so I'm not going into that office. I think I just witnessed a mental breakdown....
Hey, look at the bright side. Judging by the rumors thread, there would have been a lot more of the mental breakdown thing if canon had not released the 5DII.
Jeff wrote:
I thought that sRAW was practically useless on a 10MP camera, but on a 20+ MP camera it starts to make sense, especially if binning those pixels are actually used to make a higher-quality file.
That's right - as the pixel count rises, sraw/mraw becomes really useful. That's one of the reasons why I switched to 1Ds3 from 1D3. 21 and 5 megapixels made a lot more sense than 10 and 2.5.
>Considering that many of us photographers are after increased DR and higher per-pixel quality in general, it starts to become idiosyncratic that Canon is increasing megapixels at a rapid rate in order to create fewer, higher-quality pixels. es, I know that line of thinking is a bit of a stretch, but I'd prefer they go at it from the other end of the spectrum.
But is there another end of the spectrum? Leica seems to have tried to concentrate on file quality rather than pixel density, but which of us wants to use an M8 today? By attacking noise and pixel density Canon still seems to be producing the best image quality sensors on the market. I think that's eosfun's point. The reason we're all here is that we love what the 1Ds2, 5D, and 1Ds3 do in image quality, regardless of the trials and tribulations of using some of the less reliable aspects of Canon's engineering.
eosfun wrote:
People asking for less but better pixels maybe right in THEORY but in reality (on the CMOS sensors) more megapixels proved to be better megapixels too. Even though you would vote against me: I wish you all the best of EOSfun
This is two different things. The number of MP will not impact image quality directly. By downscaling a many-MP image, you get "better quality" (sharper/less noisy) pixels - but, of course the result has less pixels than in the original image.
DR - and associated algorithms - are the key part of the image rendering: a high DR per pixel allows complex processing using more decimals to render the image better (ie for the human eye) while avoiding posterization.
Doesn't it seem odd that the Canon fan-boys here (of which I'm a member, so I'm not slamming Canon) heap praise upon each of the new Nikon models while deriding every Canon offering? Perhaps because they have more at stake with Canon, perhaps because they know the product line better, I don't know. But time and time again they issue ultimatums (Canon better do X or I'll switch!) about new models, then no matter what is part of the new model, they are mad that some feature they feel should have been added was missed.
Simultaneously, they (seem to anyway) lust for what has been issued by Nikon. I'm left scratching my head a bit. If you like the Nikon product - go buy it. Don't give me some crap about investment in lenses - the b/s forum here limits losses very well.
I don't believe these folks would be happy with the new models regardless of what Canon puts into them. If the AF system had 11 cross-type points, they'd say the Nikon has more than 50. If it had 60, they'd say it only bested Nikon by 9. It doesn't matter, they'll find something to complain about and say that whatever is missing is proof that Canon is losing the 'race'.
I wonder, do they do the same with their car makers? "Toyota failed to bring (list feature) to the new (list model), yet Nissan..." then stick with Toyota?? The internet has brought the level of whining to a new degree. I doubt these folks find satisfaction in anything.
I think that article puts the fanboys defence into perspective. Even the engineers who built the thing say it's marketing bullsh*t rather than the camera it should have been.
Given that it took 3 years for this marketing driven upgrade I think Canon have lost the plot for good. Nikon can kill this camera at PMA with a 16 megapixel pro body at $3000 and then what will the fanboys say? That the extra megapixels are worth a 3 year old and hugely crippled AF sensor?
Nowhere Man wrote:
Probably posted already but:
Canon Engineer admits being held back by Marketing Team
If it's at all true, then it's interesting that the engineer thinks there is room in the market for an affordable consumer 5D and a lightweight pro camera. But the story didn't really make sense.
Chrono1081 wrote:
Im not trying to start a flamewar I want an honest opinion....
What more do people want from this camera that they aren't seeing? The only thing I see people wanting are features the 1 series has. Come on folks something has to be missing for there to be a reason to buy the 1 series over the 5 series.
A fair question. I agree, there is not enough separation between the 5d2 and the 1dsm3.
I think folks would like (ok I would like) something akin to the EOS-3 - the smaller body, the pro-af - those are the big things.
The 1-series could have the dual memory cards, the built-in grip, the dual digic 4 processors, the higher frame rate.
And while we're separating the product line, for eight-grand, I'd like to see the 1ds series get the built-in WiFi, and a built-in ST-E2 in addition to all the goodies already there. 5d2 now has IR release - Radio release for the 1ds anyone?
Wow, interesting! You, the loyal reader, can also help, by looking beyond the headline specs. Educate yourself on what WB Bracketing is, and buy the best camera - not the one with the biggest numbers next to it.
How true
Looks like my Co-workers 1Ds III is fairly ok body damage wise minus the memory card door (I think its for the memory card, others are playing with it at the moment and I cant see that far) The 85mm 1.2 on the front however is gone. From here though the lens mount looks like its bent. Noone has tried shooting with it yet.
I can't say that I'm surprised about this reaction here. This is the EXACT same thing that happened when the original 5D was announced. Complain, complain, complain. The camera isn't good enough, it's not the same as the 1 series, etc, etc, etc.
We'll see the tide change, and eventually the 5DII will be the camera for which all other cameras are judged.
The reason I got the 1Ds3 was mostly for the megapixels, as well as some of the build quality differences. I really wouldn't have a problem selling my minty 1Ds3 for a 5D replacement if the IQ is as good --- then pocket about 3k in cash that I could invest.
However, the 1Ds3 represents an 8k writeoff, which is likely more important for me this year.
I really didn't have a problem with the focus on the 5D, but the CF door was VERY annoying. It gets loose after a while, and creaks around in your hand. Plus, it's a major weakness in the weather sealing.
For those who are asking why the 1DsIII is worth the extra money, here is my take. Let's say that I want to sell my 1DsIII, and pick up a 5DII as a replacement. At that point, I lose the ability to shoot sports on a professional level. I would need to buy a second body for sports to give me back that ability. Although there is a lot of benefit to having dual bodies, I really don't have a profound need for that with the work I've been doing.
The 1DsIII is essentially two cameras in one. It's a high res body that can also be used to shoot a sporting event. I don't need a machine gun to shoot sports, just a camera that has good solid AF, and enough speed to get the job done.
I'll keep the 1DsIII, and wait for the 1DsIV.
The 5DII looks like a great camera. It would make a good backup for the 1 series.
