Re the UK pricing, yes as usual we are being asked to bend over. Still, most of us don't have to buy kit when it comes out. Personally I'm budgeting for a 7D next summer, shouldn't be too much over a grand by then hopefully.
The new Mk 4 looks a great camera, but I wonder how many they will sell in the UK at such high prices. Perhaps thats just code for saying they aren't going to import that many to the UK in the first place.
Mr Zoom wrote:
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.
...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 ;-)
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.
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 →
+1
SOOOO much more is yet to be said, but at this point I think you've pretty much said it all.
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 →
brainiac wrote:
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....Show more →
Totally agree with you on the wide angle issue here. It really is just to keep the 1ds in business. On top of that, Canon doesn't even make wide angle lenses for the 1.3x crop factor (unlike EF-S for 1.6), so you really are limited as to how wide you can go on the 1.3x. As for the shutter speed issue- a lot of that is also dependent on the ultimate resolution of the picture, and not necessarily the crop factor. If you want the shot to be as sharp on a FF camera for the same focal length, you will need the same shutter speed as the crop body with the same pixel density, at the same focal length.
No matter how much folks who come to boards like this want all-in ones, and there are many fine shooters in that group, the 1 series are purpose-built tools for professionals who have big gear bags equipped with different bodies. And that's certainly how that primary audience rigs itself out when shooting from the sidelines with multiple bodies lensed up to address different scenarios.
ftemoto wrote:
No matter how much folks who come to boards like this want all-in ones, and there are many fine shooters in that group, the 1 series are purpose-built tools for professionals who have big gear bags equipped with different bodies. And that's certainly how that primary audience rigs itself out when shooting from the sidelines with multiple bodies lensed up to address different scenarios.
You have the cause and effect mixed up. The reason these people have gear bags with different bodies is because Canon doesn't make a decent one size fits all camera. A FF 1D4 could have been that, but it's not, so people will still have to carry 1Ds4s and 1D4s etc.
I predict this debate will go on until Canon produces a full-frame sports/action camera that costs less than $8k.
Full frame is nice, but you could equally make the argument that the 1D4 is the ultimate "do it all camera": a large enough sensor to provide shallow DOF and excellent sharpness while still providing "reach"; high enough resolution for commercial work, with flexible file formats and fast shooting speed for editorial work, events and photojournalism; stills + pro-quality video, etc., etc. (And of course, adding a 5D2 to your bag for extreme wide angle shooting is a relatively modest investment for a professional.)
For whatever reason, Canon's product philosphy here seems different than Nikon's. This will better for some, worse for others. For now, if you want a full frame camera that shoots 8-9 fps, Nikon's your supplier. But if this camera works as advertised, I can think of a number of things that a D3s or D700 will do less well.
Dawei Ye wrote:
You have the cause and effect mixed up. The reason these people have gear bags with different bodies is because Canon doesn't make a decent one size fits all camera. A FF 1D4 could have been that, but it's not, so people will still have to carry 1Ds4s and 1D4s etc.
Not every update can be earth shattering. Manufacturers don't even want every release to be earth shattering. They want it to be useful, relevant, and desirable to the user at a price that makes them money.
Take the 1D-IV and remove the HD video. Some people would not care, but judging by the fast adoption of the 7D (even by professional film makers), I think the video capability is easily worth a $1000 in a 1D camera. I for one have been thinking of adding video to my product line. I have tested several video cameras and planned to buy a 7D for that purpose if the 1D-IV did not include video. From Canon's perspective, I am the perfect 1D-IV customer. I would either use my 1D-III and buy a 7D or I would buy the 1D-IV. On a unit basis, I would guess they make more money on the 1D sale. Cha-ching...perfect product placement.
ftemoto wrote:
Sorry, I don't think I have it mixed up.
I agree with you moto...At 16 Mp, it is equal to earlier 1Ds sensors. As for it not being FF...nobody has ever shown me a reason that FF is inherently better in any way.
Interestingly, by the same logic - Canon missed out on my $'s because neither recent camera releases provide enough value added for me to buy. I have a 1DIII & a 5DII. Although I think that both the 7D & 1DIV look like good cameras, they don't provide enough features/improvement over those I have access to in my current line-up. Thus, Canon's not getting any (more) $'s from me this year.
globalkiwi wrote:
Interestingly, by the same logic - Canon missed out on my $'s because neither recent camera releases provide enough value added for me to buy. I have a 1DIII & a 5DII. Although I think that both the 7D & 1DIV look like good cameras, they don't provide enough features/improvement over those I have access to in my current line-up. Thus, Canon's not getting any (more) $'s from me this year.
I guess that means that Canon is betting there are more people like me than like you. That is the case with all products. Every business school in the country has a project in the curriculum that boils down to "ATAP"....All Thing to All People. Students are instructed to position a product that appeals to everyone. It is a project intended to result in failure to prove the point.
