laforet's vid is far from a work of art, but it's awesome because it demonstrates that a few high school kids (say the star trek club) or a group of film students can do something of that quality in a weekend. nice to know that that kind of video can be easily purchased by a university film department for budding cinematographers.
£4500 in the UK That equates to $7200, The UK £ against the dollar is meant to go above the $1.70 mark [business rate] over the next month or so maybe I should order a couple from Amazon
Photon wrote:
It all sounds great, but I just finished a quick scan of a rumor thread that suggested a full frame body with APS-H crop mode for full fps. That sounded even better than what turns out to be reality. No surprise there, I guess.
The custom function that moves the selected focusing point when the camera orientation is changed V>H might be enough to make me not miss the system of the Mk II (two back button AF each with a different selected point).
Any rumor mill that suggested the 1D-IV would be a FF camera is not a very good mill. This line of body is 1.6x and will probably remain so for the near future. If you make this FF, you would immediately cut into the 1Ds sales and that makes no sense.
Not sure why some people are so opposed to crop sensors that they would refuse to buy this camera based on that. There is no inherent advantage to FF....now someone will tell me that a FF sensor will have less noise. Not a very solid argument considering the advances that have been made in reducing sensor noise over the past 5 years.
abam wrote:
laforet's vid is far from a work of art, but it's awesome because it demonstrates that a few high school kids (say the star trek club) or a group of film students can do something of that quality in a weekend. nice to know that that kind of video can be easily purchased by a university film department for budding cinematographers.
I agree that the video is far from a work of art and it's pretty lame in many ways (i.e., story/plot/etc.). A note to anyone that hasn't seen it yet, the final 35%-40% is all credits.. Skip the final third and stop at 3:02 if you want to save yourself.....
What's great about the video is the "film" quality. For ISO 6400 I think it's terrific and I'm sure not going to get that kind of quality from my current bodies. He used some great lighting techniques (I loved the shot of the guy running down the tracks at 2:14), and who doesn't love 60's vintage Lincolns with suicide doors? I wasn't impressed with the chick with all the tats and piercings, but otherwise a great look, great "props", and great quality.
I think Canon will have a successful product on their hands for film makers.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The way the US economy is going it'll be more like $9999 by the time it ships. The looney will be $1.20US and the South sea Peso $1.10US soon.
There's a move underway in the US treasury to change the name from the "dollar" to something that relects its real status and value in the world. Front runners were either the "peso" or the "simoleon" but Mexico is objecting because they got the name first.
many people will find the word simoleon too "foreign sounding" so "waffle" might be the new winner.. US citizens will be paid at the rate of 10 waffles per week, capping the efforts of an 8 year attack on the US economy launched by Washington in 2000.
We're changing a slogan too.. Out goes "We're number ONE!" to "We're sorta, kinda like, 39th or something, and slipping!" While it doesn't roll off the tongue, it is at least more realistic.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The way the US economy is going it'll be more like $9999 by the time it ships. The looney will be $1.20US and the South sea Peso $1.10US soon.
There are lots of ways to think about price. When looking at the announced price (which is often higher than the street price) Consider this....
Canon 1D ($6499) - 4.15 Mp = $1566/Mp
Canon 1Ds ($7999) - 11.1 Mp = $720/Mp
Canon 1D MII ($4499) - 8.2 MP = $548/Mp
Canon 1DMIII ($4199) - 10.1 Mp = $416/Mp
Canon 1DMIV ($4999) - 16.5 Mp = $303/Mp
Comparing these five cameras for image quality, noise level and features....it is not even worth the comparison.
Adjusting for inflation only, the cost of the Canon 1D in 2009 would be as follows...
$7,900.93 using the Consumer Price Index
$7,777.51 using the GDP deflator
$8,387.29 using the value of consumer bundle
$7,707.09 using the unskilled wage
$8,547.98 using the nominal GDP per capita
$9,124.33 using the relative share of GDP
nathanlake wrote:
There are lots of ways to think about price. When looking at the announced price (which is often higher than the street price) Consider this....
Canon 1D ($6499) - 4.15 Mp = $1566/Mp
Canon 1Ds ($7999) - 11.1 Mp = $720/Mp
Canon 1D MII ($4499) - 8.2 MP = $548/Mp
Canon 1DMIV ($4999) - 16.5 Mp = $303/Mp
Comparing these four cameras for image quality, noise level and features....it is not even worth the comparison.
Adjusting for inflation only, the cost of the Canon 1D in 2009 would be as follows...
$7,900.93 using the Consumer Price Index
$7,777.51 using the GDP deflator
$8,387.29 using the value of consumer bundle
$7,707.09 using the unskilled wage
$8,547.98 using the nominal GDP per capita
$9,124.33 using the relative share of GDP
Sorry Nathan, but isn't that kind of a meaningless comparison? Why don't we compare the price of a Compaq 12MHz 286 computer selling for $16k in 1986/7 with something today from HP? How about the price of memory then compared to now? Means absolutely nothing and I'll suggest the reason we don't do that now with cameras is because it's a nonsense test; nothing stays the same in tech. The fab lines have changed, the processes have changed, in short, the world has changed. 2002 prices of the 1Ds are irrelevant...
I think a better comparison is today's dollars versus what the 1D3 should have been sold for in 2007 (forget Canon's slimy last-minute price increase) and use the real price of $3999 as released in the white paper. In those terms, given the 20% decrease in the exchange rate, Canon's price of $4999 is about right. They're charging 25% more than they were 2+ years ago, to not only recoup the exchange rate loss (approx $800), but a little $200 premium on top to add a little more to their coffers. They have done nothing to reflect a real decrease in their production costs, which we all know are there and are effectively charging $4200 for the 1D4.
Note: I'm not factoring in any additional expenses Canon had to cover for their own incompetence on the Mark 3 AF, but that's a part of doing business when you're negligent and don't test your products before sale...
For me unless I need ISO 6400 as my standard shooting ISO, otherwise my 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III will do well @ ISO 3200...
Let's see what's the real story about the IQ at higher ISO, I am not interested at the video and other features added on top of Mark III.
Any way, still a very impressive camera, but I would still just call it a 1D Mark III N though
And for $5000 is just too much compared with the current 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III's prices if you believe that the Mark III's AF was fixed, but the price tag of $5000 for the Mark IV is very reasonable for what it can do on paper...
maybe I should order a couple from Amazon 
