My only problem with 1.3x is lenses. When covering events, my 24-70L isn't wide enough on 1.3x but is just about wide enough on FF. With a 1.3x I had to swap between the 24-70L and an ultrawide a few times, while on FF the 24-70L covered my bases.
But that's just me. Others are just as happy with 1.3x for the narrower field of view when shooting telephoto. If only Canon made a standard zoom for 1.3x...
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your logic. I think the reality is that they are comfortable if you & I (or consumers like us) buy at least in alternate iterations. As long as there's sufficient improvement in each line in each release we will remain loyal to Canon, even if we don't buy each & every model update.
deepbluejh wrote:
This is a pretty "safe" upgrade for Canon. The only thing revolutionary here is the AF system tweaks (relatively minor as they are), and this really should be expected from a new 1-series.
The rest of it:
Video - Predictable, and a natural progression of what is in the 5DII.
A few more pixels - Very predictable
Higher ISO - See above
Same basic ergonomics and screen
Same storage medium (SD... really?)
The only wildcard in my mind right now is how good the upper ISOs will look. Thats about the only thing they've added that will substantially effect the way I shoot. That, and honestly, this camera makes a second hand 1DIII for $2500 look really good right now. I can't say I'm wild about the price creeping up to $5000....Show more →
While I agree to an extent I don't think a brand new AF system is playing anything 'safe', if they were to use the 1DIII's AF that would be safe, nor do I believe the the 'tweaks' are relatively small. "The Canon EOS-1D Mark IV features a completely new 45-point AF system, with 39 f/2.8 sensitive cross-type points located across the frame, providing consistent AF on static or moving subjects, no matter which AF point is being used. All 45 AF points are user selectable and now more sensitive, with the AF points towards the edge of the frame offering identical levels of performance to those in the centre.". I also don't consider a +50% pixel increase to be "a few more" in fact I'd consider that a notable increase, as probable as it was. Obviously it's not what everyone was hoping for, but all in all it should be an outstanding performer and I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do in further testing.
I wonder if canon is going to up the speed of the 1ds IV ... in a few more generations it might be your high speed full frame camera. 1ds - 3fps, 1dsII - 4fps, 1dsIII - 5fps, 1dsIV - 6fps? ...
I like this camera because of:
- 16 MP (enough IMO)
- better AF (has to be proven OK of course )
- more cross points, even the outer ones (yes!)
- cross AF at f/4 with some lenses, which includes the 24-105/4, great!
- better high ISO
- I like 1.3x but that's a personal thing of course
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
My only problem with 1.3x is lenses. When covering events, my 24-70L isn't wide enough on 1.3x but is just about wide enough on FF. With a 1.3x I had to swap between the 24-70L and an ultrawide a few times, while on FF the 24-70L covered my bases.
But that's just me. Others are just as happy with 1.3x for the narrower field of view when shooting telephoto. If only Canon made a standard zoom for 1.3x...
I would contend that is a failure on Canon's part (and third parties) to make better, very wide lenses to accomodate the 1.3x crop...not a problem with the sensor.
My concern is that FF is going to be more expensive. If you look at the 1D-line vs the 1Ds-line, the major difference is the sensor. Yes, the additional pixels cost more, but my understanding is the FF form factor is more expensive regardless of the pixels. While I don't have a problem with the price of the 1D-IV, I would not want the price any higher just to get FF.
deepbluejh wrote:
Ugh. Its even worse than the 25,600 on the 5D Mark II - and even I thought that was embarrassment to Canon for even having it as an option.
Canon needs to quit getting caught up in this ISO silliness.
Four times the sensitivity and worse...IMHO, that is ok. I have some very low light needs and with PP and careful exposure, it will work. Just having the ability to pump the ISO up that high is useful to me. I will then make the determination if the quality is good enough.
Hey Canon...keep pumping it up.
P.S. - I am not very impressed with the sample images that CNET Asia is showing. Underexposed and poorly done.
nathanlake wrote:
Four times the sensitivity and worse...IMHO, that is ok. I have some very low light needs and with PP and careful exposure, it will work. Just having the ability to pump the ISO up that high is useful to me. I will then make the determination if the quality is good enough.
Hey Canon...keep pumping it up.
At this point it is more of a marketing game than anything. Gotta keep up with the Jonses (or in this case, with Nikon).
I may be old fashioned, but I remember the days when the maximum ISO on a camera used to be usable. Now it's a laughing stock.
deepbluejh wrote:
Ugh. Its even worse than the 25,600 on the 5D Mark II - and even I thought that was embarrassment to Canon for even having it as an option.
Canon needs to quit getting caught up in this ISO silliness.
I'm willing to wait for some real ISO comparisons in the 3200 and 6400 range where I would actually use the camera. Hopefully it improves over the current models. But I'm more disappointed in the price. As a hobbyist, for me $5K is a lot for a camera and while I was hoping to justify $4k it's like Canon said just buy the 7D and be happy. It is 1/3 the cost after all.
I'm hoping there's something wrong with that 102K sample. If Canon actually releases the camera with output that poor at any setting, it'll be embarrassing, even though the ISOs that anyone would actually use look pretty good. (I for one, shoot a lot in dim light, and can say I've wished for ISO 6400 only a handful of times, and would more than likely never have a need for more than ISO 12800).
I think I might wait for the 1Ds4 and in the mean time pick up a 7D after the first round of price reductions.
with that in mind, I just ordered another SD990is, my always in my pocket Canon.
I have to send the other one in for service and I cannot be without one. Now I will have like 7 battery chargers for those batteries..
PetKal wrote:
Robert, what is that new avatar of yours ? A Breathanalyser display ?
I drinktooooo muc hic!
Nah, it's photobucket telling me I exceeded my bandwidth. I would use my smugmug account, but I don't know if it will let me link things...should for 150 a year.
)