Garylv wrote:
I jumped right away at the 1D Mark III when I read those specifications, and then had to go through the sub-mirror recall work, two trips for Error 99 problems, focus issues and multiple firmware updates before it started working as advertised.
I'm going to wait for some formal reviews and user field reports before I give Canon that much money again.
But I'll be anxious to see the early reports!
Who else is jumping in with Adam right away? Anyone?
That's completely fair and understandable. If I'd been burnt by the MK issues, I too would probably hold back. But I'm not going to stop myself based on other's reports, when I've never used the camera and run into any problems.
But I'll let you all know of any issues, if there are any
I'm hoping the introduction and release comes off well. There are a few things I'd like to upgrade for, which I assume it will have. Higher resolution LCD with a large Histogram display mode, the little histogram is useable but I'd sure like to have a bigger one. And more MP's for producing larger prints with a little more room to crop. I'm perfectly happy with the current FPS, buffer size, color and image quality. Battery life is fantastic.
Wow guys I had you idea I was going to cause such an up roar when I started this thread, but hey all in good spirits. Whatever comes out of the announcement I hope all potential buyers are happy.
brainiac wrote:
Thankyou Steve - that's the first coherent argument in favour of APS-H I've heard in months. I actually liked the solution that Nikon came up with for shooting DX at a higher rate. That way you have both cameras in one. I genuinely think the reason that Canon doesn't follow that route is that it is scared of the reaction from the APS-H faithful.
I know this thread has probably moved on from this (haven't got to the end yet), but another argument for APS-H is that this is the largest size sensor that can be manufactured using a single-die process. (Canon explained this a few years ago in a FF white paper.) Technology may have improved since then, but I expect this manufacturing efficiency is still a factor in their thinking. Throughput is important, but the D3 shows that you can pretty much hit the right target (8-10 fps) even on FF.
Abiciriderback wrote:
Wow guys I had you idea I was going to cause such an up roar when I started this thread, but hey all in good spirits. Whatever comes out of the announcement I hope all potential buyers are happy.
Ray Still
Are you kidding? There is an uproar on every speculation thread.
First come the people that post what they 'wish/hope' would be in the new camera. This can be endless. Sometimes people will post their wish lists over and over on every speculation thread, hoping that someone at Canon with authority will take their opinion into consideration.
Next, people start arguing about the released specs for the new camera and how the specs can't possibly be right. And how the poster has all the answers for what Canon should do.
And eventually someone will start bashing canon for releasing nothing but crap since the film camera days.
Then come the people that claim 'Nikon this and Nikon that'.
Finally, the people that claim they are going to make the switch, if Canon doesn't produce their dream camera with the very next release.
Nowhere Man wrote:
Are you kidding? There is an uproar on every speculation thread.
First come the people that post what they 'wish/hope' would be in the new camera. This can be endless. Sometimes people will post their wish lists over and over on every speculation thread, hoping that someone at Canon with authority will take their opinion into consideration.
Next, people start arguing about the released specs for the new camera and how the specs can't possibly be right. And how the poster has all the answers for what Canon should do.
And eventually someone will start bashing canon for releasing nothing but crap since the film camera days.
Then come the people that claim 'Nikon this and Nikon that'.
Finally, the people that claim they are going to make the switch, if Canon doesn't produce their dream camera with the very next release. ...Show more →
You forgot the group who says they are ready to make a purchase but are going to wait for the announcement...then they re-post after the announcement to say that this is not the camera they want and will wait for next year's announcement.
I have been waiting for three years to buy a new 1D body..
My 1D2, "the machine gun", is great.
However, I am not going to buy anything less than 16mp and I will be reluctant if it has video.
Given all the quibbling with performance problems with the 1D3, I am beginning to get even more reluctant.
Meanwhile, I buy a new P&S every six months, although at 15mp, I think that will stop soon.
They are great "dont miss the moment cameras", great photocopiers and their video is usable for family purposes.
Come on Canon, get your act together and make some real improvements on your 1D bodies.
Well, I had an interesting experience. I've been using a 1D-MkII for a while now and it's a great camera, but I'm ready for an upgrade. I went to my local camera store because they had a used Nikon D300 for sale. I took some test shots at 800 and 1600 ISO wtih both cameras to make a comparison since I do about 75% of my photography at 800-1600 ISO. I shot both cameras in RAW mode and processed the images at home. I turned noise reduction and sharpening completely off. What I found really surprised me. The D300 noise at 1600 ISO was very film-like and not at all objectionable. The MkII noise at 1600 ISO, OTOH, was really obnoxious and nasty looking (very splotchy and lots of Xmas light speckles). Both looked clean in brightly lit well exposed areas of the image, but the D300 blew the MkII away in shadows and underexposed areas. This only proves that a current Nikon sensor is better than a five year old Canon sensor. But it also illustrates how far sensors have progressed, considering the D300 has 50% more pixels and a much smaller pixel pitch.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
Is there any evidence based on real life pictures that proves that Nikon's sensors are superior?
KIDERAL wrote:
I will be reluctant if it has video.
I don't understand this stance. Personally, I couldn't care less for the voice recorder function on the DsIII. But since it detracts absolutely nothing from the performance of the camera, I just don't use it. Same with the 5DmII. Using the video seemed awkward (despite the cool results) so I didn't, but that feature didn't detract from how well the camera performed as a still camera.
When it comes to not wanting video, you might as well get over it, because it's here to stay, and I will be very surprised if it doesn't show up in every new camera here on out.
KIDERAL wrote:
I wouldn't think pro sports shooters want video. Its a whole new discipline for them.
Of course, depending on the final output, you could go into video mode at 1/2000th and the pull frames for something like a golf swing. And, guess what? No shutter noise, so you could even use a wide angle and be kinda close. New stuff = new opportunities, but only if you are open minded enough to think beyond what you *are* doing to what you *could* be doing.
Always funny to read this threads. Canon will release what it will release. You can decide to buy it or not, switch to nikon/sony/pentex/etc or not. But, don't act like some canon exec came to your house and kicked your dog or something when you don't get exactly what you want. I haven't even been doing this all that long, but I can still remember all the nikon people and their "full frame is dumb" and "why would I want to shoot higher then iso 800" and I also remember them switching to the 5d and 1dII at crazy rates.
KIDERAL wrote:
My concern is that introducing video gives canon another degree of freedom to screw up.
I wouldn't think pro sports shooters want video. Its a whole new discipline for them.
who cares if they screw up some aspect you don't care about
pro sports shooter might use it to be able to take some general footage
although with pro and major college events there are sometimes video restrictions
KIDERAL wrote:
My concern is that introducing video gives canon another degree of freedom to screw up.
I wouldn't think pro sports shooters want video. Its a whole new discipline for them.
I can understand that, but I never thought I'd see the day when a DSLR got favorable mention in American Cinematographer and Filmmaker magazines from professionals who are using it on their current projects. Canon opened up a whole new market for their cameras and lenses at a time when high end DSLR sales were flat. They're not going to to close that door on their top-enders. Just comfort yourself with the knowledge that they didn't screw up the first camera to get it, so it'll probably be fine in subsequent releases as well.
Adam L wrote:
That's a lens I'd be interested in, depending on how many MP the Mk IV has. Does your dealer have an idea of it's release or has he just taken your name down "in case".
I love my 500, but it'd sure be nice for it to match the 300 2.8 and 200 2. They are Canon's best IMO.
Adam, I was kinda kidding, neither my dealer (Henry's Camera in Toronto) nor I have any info on the 500 f/4 MkII. However, I do have a hunch about it materializing within a few short months. BTW, I had the same feel about the 50 f/1.2 as well as 200 f/2 IS long before they even became a rumour.
Many folks are (will be) very keen on that new lens primarily for its anticipated weight reduction. The new 4-5 stop hybrid IS is not to be sniffed at either. Canon might also speed up the lens AF group which is yet another very desireable quality in a wildlife lens.
The only concern is the usual premium the new 500 f/4 II will carry. Probably in the range $6.5k to $7.5k at least, at the lens introduction.
Jay Adeff wrote:
Well, I had an interesting experience. I've been using a 1D-MkII for a while now and it's a great camera, but I'm ready for an upgrade. I went to my local camera store because they had a used Nikon D300 for sale. I took some test shots at 800 and 1600 ISO wtih both cameras to make a comparison since I do about 75% of my photography at 800-1600 ISO. I shot both cameras in RAW mode and processed the images at home. I turned noise reduction and sharpening completely off. What I found really surprised me. The D300 noise at 1600 ISO was very film-like and not at all objectionable. The MkII noise at 1600 ISO, OTOH, was really obnoxious and nasty looking (very splotchy and lots of Xmas light speckles). Both looked clean in brightly lit well exposed areas of the image, but the D300 blew the MkII away in shadows and underexposed areas. This only proves that a current Nikon sensor is better than a five year old Canon sensor. But it also illustrates how far sensors have progressed, considering the D300 has 50% more pixels and a much smaller pixel pitch.
Canon chroma noise sucks, Nikon has always been better in that area. However, I only found chroma really ugly at 3200, not 1600 (assuming good exposure) on the 1D II.
