Yep I can see most UK amateurs that want one going to the states and then breaking the law by smuggling it back in. In fact you could even do it legally - pay the 20% at customs and it would still save you about a grand.
Canon charges us these prices cos they think they can get away with it, nothing more, nothing less. Some products are priced equally US/UK, but with new cameras especially they like to have a good gouge early on. Gits.
In fact, on the outside the MIV is strikingly similar to the MIII.
Seems they basically changed the inside.
Cost reductions, I guess...
Probably the reason why the viewfinder is the same as the MIII.
Ok some bizarre things with the AF on the 1D IV. x-type to f/4 only with a handful of lenses such as the 17-40 f/4L but not a 70-200f/4L (IS) or 500/600 f/4L IS. I hope that's something that can be addressed via firmware. Having non-centre x-type points with a 500 f/4L IS would be fantastic.
WmPat wrote:
Good decision. Mark 4 is a pro camera. Most of the people who fell for the 5D2 hysteria and the Full Frame hype would be over their heads with it.
Are you saying that someone who shoots a 5D2 wouldn't be able to figure out a 1d4?
ME SMASH CAMERA ME NO UNDERSTAND! GRRRRRRR!! I R CONFUSED!
WmPat wrote:
Good decision. Mark 4 is a pro camera. Most of the people who fell for the 5D2 hysteria and the Full Frame hype would be over their heads with it.
Guess Nikon f***ed up then. No serious PJ or sports shooter is going to go for full frame. What are they thinking?
Seriously, there are a great many reasons for preferring full frame:
- wideangles are wideangles
- more light is captured, leading to a less noisy image
- the viewfinder is bigger
- for a given angle of view the AF system is more accurate and lenses needn't be so sharp
- lower shutter speeds can be used for same angle of view
- higher ultimate image quality is attainable
- shorter depth of field and greater subject isolation are possible
- pictures can be more successfully cropped
I could go on, but full frame isn't hype, and there are tangible reasons why some people prefer it. Of a 16 Mpixel 1.3 crop camera and a 16 Mpixel full-frame camera, the full-frame version will be a better camera in every way except reach. If it's reach you want, then a 7D beats the 1D4 hands down, because it has significantly smaller pixels.
The reason Canon produces the 1.3 crop sensor is that it's cheaper to make, and therefore they can bleed 1D users for higher margins.
brainiac wrote:
Seriously, there are a great many reasons for preferring full frame:
- pictures can be more successfully cropped
I succesfully crop my Mark III images all the time. I'll be able to crop them even more succesfully with the Mark IV's higher image resolution. I really don't get your point unless your fixated soley on print size. To me, it's all about the composition of the final image and not how big it can be printed.
rockitman wrote:
Seems like a 1D3N to me. IMO, the 7D AF scheme is the predecessor (guinea pig) for the next gen of 1 series (1D5) AF (but with 45 points).
No, it's much more like the leap from the MkI to the MkII.
