Daan B wrote:
LMAO at the 104K ISO. Even ISO6400 doesn't look THAT good. Now about those samples... what, how and when
If I were Canon, I'd give my cameras for testing to the REAL photographers and not some reviewers who don't know how to use them properly. I seriously could care less what CNET is posting,but I'd be embarrassed if I was Canon. The CNET's images are just garbage.
willis wrote:
The 102400ISO looks worse than the highest ISO on the crappiest P+S camera I've ever seen. I hope for Canons sake that Nikons attempt is not useable.
I think I'll wait on a second opinion (or a second test shot) before I make any determination as to how well the body performs at high ISO settings.
Tom_W wrote:
I think I'll wait on a second opinion (or a second test shot) before I make any determination as to how well the body performs at high ISO settings.
I agree. I plan getting one of these cameras, but not until they have been on the market for a couple months. I was an early adopter of the 1D-III, but I won't take the risk this time. That is the type of hole that Canon dug for itself with the 1D-III. That is also why I expected them to offer some type of deal for current registered owners of the 1D-III. I am still hopeful.
Well, not that anyone cares about my opinion, but as someone with a 1D MKII and a 1Ds MKIII, I'm pretty happy with the announced specs.
1. 1.3 crop: In my personal opinion, I like FF better than the 1.3 crop. I agree with the comments about zoom lenses not feeling 'right,' i.e. too narrow on the short end. With that said, I understand why Canon stayed there. First, many shooters with the 1D are used to that crop, have their equipment setup for it and so forth. So, you have a group of shooters that are quite happy with it. In addition, Canon needed to up the resolution to entice people to upgrade. If they did 12MP FF, a lot of people (Not all mind you) would have said it's not worth the cash. On the other hand, they couldn't do 16 or 18MP FF because that would destroy the 1Ds for the next 12 months.
Face it, Canon needs to make money on their equipment. (In terms of the $4999 versus the $4499 or the $3999 of the 1D MKII, I'm sure in terms of Yen the price has gone down.)
2. 16MP - really happy about this. 10MP wasn't enough to get me to go for the 1D MKIII. I love the 'cropability' of the 1Ds MKIII. Yes it's optimal to get a perfect framing in camera, but that's just not possible with a lot of wildlife or candids. I find I'm really limited with 8MP.
If it has IQ close to the MKIII, that's huge.
3. AF: Frankly, I was hoping for something a little more revolutionary. Will the 45 points are OK, I would have liked more frame coverage. Of course, I'm hoping there are no issues and can't understand why those 6 points aren't also cross points. I'm guessing because the center sensor has bigger AF bars, but still.
Overall, I'll probably pick one up next year at some point.
Chris
PS - I also think Canon needs to upgrade their 2.8 zooms. They are far inferior to the Nikon models and probably will show their weakness at this pixel density. This is higher than the 1Ds MKIII.
PPS - You can also probably guess the 1DS MKIV MP. This camera pumps out 160 MP/sec. So, @ 5fps, that's about 32MP or about 27MP @ 6fps.
Schlotkins wrote:
3. AF: Frankly, I was hoping for something a little more revolutionary. With the 45 points are OK, I would have liked more frame coverage. Of course, I'm hoping there are no issues and can't understand why those 6 points aren't also cross points. I'm guessing because the center sensor has bigger AF bars, but still.
In all fairness we have yet to see how the new AF system performs...it may indeed be revolutionary.
nathanlake wrote:
I agree. I plan getting one of these cameras, but not until they have been on the market for a couple months. I was an early adopter of the 1D-III, but I won't take the risk this time. That is the type of hole that Canon dug for itself with the 1D-III. That is also why I expected them to offer some type of deal for current registered owners of the 1D-III. I am still hopeful.
Amen. I don't have enough confidence in Canon to be an early adopter any longer.
Just looked at that 3200 butterfly shot...very sweet. Looking forward to testing one of these. But I was very early on the Mk3, not going to put out yet.
Just noticed that the CNet Asia site which had high ISO example shots now has a notice that says the images were taken with a pre-production camera and were removed as per Canons request...... All I can say is they didn't do the camera any favors..... They looked horrible! Good thing they were removed.....
The AF coverage of the 1D II/III/IV is pretty good, covering a lot more of the VF than in the 1Ds series.
It's good they have gone back to allowing you to select all 45 manually if you like and some of the expansion option look good. Hopefully AI Servo II is a noticeable improvement over the 1D II/III.
I think there's no doubt the IQ will be better than the 1D III, and having 40D pixel density means my 500mm becomes a whole lot more useful for birding and surfing.
Only crazily disappointing thing is why the 500/600 f/4L IS can't use off centre f/4 x-type points, but the 17-40 can (it doesn't need it at all).
brainiac wrote:
...and, of course, you would be able to crop them yet more successfully still if the camera was full frame. Thanks for making my point while pretending to disagree with me ;-)
going to say this again...There surely is going to be a 1DSMK4 (FF) brought out..think about it duh Canon still has to compete with the Nikon D3x..Also why would they change a formula that seems to work 1 Pro camera for PJs and sport shooters that need a fast resposive camera and a Full Frame pro body for the fashion,magazine photogs..so why are some of us STILL dense about this?
nathanlake wrote:
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.
No doubt. That's why I said the problem with 1.3x is lenses. Nothing wrong with the sensor size per se; just that Canon haven't bothered to make a standard zoom and ultrawide for it. And price is definitely a benefit of 1.3x. Considering the Nikon D3S is FF and $5200 while the 1DIV is 1.3x and a mere $200 less, I'd hate to see what Canon consider justified pricing for a FF 1D.
digitalbug30d wrote:
going to say this again...There surely is going to be a 1DSMK4 (FF) brought out..think about it duh Canon still has to compete with the Nikon D3x..Also why would they change a formula that seems to work 1 Pro camera for PJs and sport shooters that need a fast resposive camera and a Full Frame pro body for the fashion,magazine photogs..so why are some of us STILL dense about this?
Because we PJ's and event photogs want a FF PJ camera ? =)
I can't wait to get rid of my 2 5ds, but I won't spend 7k per body to do that.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If Canon releases an EF 12-24 f/4L say, most noise about 1.3x crop would subside. Personally I find a 16/17mm plenty wide enough on 1.3x crop.
+1
Heck! I don't even have 16/17 in my lens line-up on Canon so I could care less
other than resolution,cropping the arguments for a Full Frame are in the artistic,landscape,fashion ect where some will argue what I might add is a valid one the DOF aspect of 1.3 crop and FF,now saying that why would a PJ taking photos of say a senetor in a room need to worry about anything other than the main subject and things like DOF isnt on the list like it would be for a fashion photog out doors where the subject needs to be isolated then a FF would surely be needed to take advantage of 85Ls or 135Ls..
MaxiKana wrote:
Because we PJ's and event photogs want a FF PJ camera ? =)
I can't wait to get rid of my 2 5ds, but I won't spend 7k per body to do that.
didnt think PJs really NEED a FF to do the job? me thinks its a want..since most FF cameras arnt tailored for fast action,go look in the nature forums and see what they use..many with a 1dmk2s,2ns,3s none of which are FF
and the 3 or 4 PJs Ive talked to use non-FF because FF isnt really needed
