1DS MKIII

[Ken R]

Hmmm.... Interesting business model: Spend millions of $$$ or billions of yen developing a new product with bleeding-edge technology, and when it's all ready to go, say to youself, "There's no competition for this product, I think I'll just wait for the competition to catch up before I start selling it and capturing market share with it."

Yah.  That makes complete sense.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, while milking the 1Ds mk2 as much as posible, extending its life all the while increasingly developing the 1Ds mk3 while also learning "beta testing" from the 1D mk3. Most of the development cost of the 1Ds mk3 is actually shared with the 1D mk3, which is already out, since the technologies should be basically similar just applied to a larger sensor in the case of the 1Ds mk3. (new battery system, body, lcd, sensor clean, digic 3 etc etc)

Remember when Nikon released the D2h, what happened miraculosly a few months later, bam! the Canon 1D mk2 came out and obliterated Nikons hopes of good sales. I dont think it was coinsidence

Why did Canaon release the 1D mk2, 1D mk2N and now the 1D mk3 all the while only having the 1Ds mk2? Why didnt they release a 1Ds mk2N with a larger LCD and few upgrades, that wouldve increased sales a bit wouldnt it?

[iGuy]

The idea that upgraded products are released based on market pressure applied by competing products is reasonably valid. But it certainly isn't the only reason.

However I think most posters on this thread have overlooked the obvious. The competition for the 1DsII is not from Nikon but from Canon's own 5D. Yes, I understand the differences between the 1DsII and the 5D and don't want to go there.  

As a bit of a technology geek, I was quite surprised by the general consensus on this site by seasoned photographers suggesting that the 5D produced slightly better images than the 1DsII. Proving once again that you can't judge a product by its spec sheet alone.

If this favourable comparison of the 5D over the 1DsII holds up to further scrutiny, then Canon will likely feel the market pressure to upgrade the1DsII as quickly as possible. From a branding perspective it's not a good thing to have your flagship product usurped by one of your own, much less expensive products.

This also translates in to lost sales for the 1DsII. I was thinking of purchasing Canon's flagship, and more importantly, most expensive DSLR when two things happened. First the 1DIII was released with a larger LCD panel and more friendly user interface. And two, the 5D now has sufficient distribution to provide real world comparisons with the 1DsII.

Given the significant price difference between the two cameras I've settled on the 5D. Budget permitting I can purchase a new 1DsIII when it's released and have the 5D as a full frame backup that's also much lighter to carry around. The emphasis here is on the 'budget permitting' part.  

Add all of this together and you can see where sales of the 1DsII are likely to slow down. This is evidenced by its recent drop in price. The assumption being that the drop in price is an attempt by Canon to stimulate lagging sales.

In summary, I think Canon will release the 1DsIII once it's ready. They may wait for production to ramp-up before they announce it as I'm sure they'll want to be able to ship it quickly. They may also be waiting for current inventory levels to drop a little further.

Just my two cents.

~iGuy

[David Anderson]

Good point Guy...

Not long after the 5D came out I pointed out to Canon (Oz) that I thought it was a little too close to the quality of the 1DSII for what it cost and that it had stripped the 1DSII of much of it's value.

I think Canon were banking on people buying the 1DSII over the 5D for it's toughness alone, but given that you could get almost 3 5D's for the same money it was hard to justify.

[BernardLanguillier]

As a bit of a technology geek, I was quite surprised by the general consensus on this site by seasoned photographers suggesting that the 5D produced slightly better images than the 1DsII. Proving once again that you can't judge a product by its spec sheet alone.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The idea that fewer pixels doesn't necessarily mean less detail had been put forward by Nikon D2x users long before the release of the 5D, but it seems that the concept became easier to accept for some once the cheaper contender became a Canon camera.

Similarly, it took Canon to release the 1DIII for people to accept that smaller pixels can still deliver more DR.

The key to understand all this is simply to integrate the idea that technology is moving fast enough that high school physics knowledge isn't enough to predict the capabilities and limitations of the next generation of complex systems like sensors/processors/converters.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DiaAzul]

Similarly, it took Canon to release the 1DIII for people to accept that smaller pixels can still deliver more DR.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pixel pitch is smaller, not necessarily the pixel size - old hobby horse.

As to the rest of this thread canon will do a Johnny Depp and seek the opportune moment.

[SecondFocus]

Photo Plus Expo is Oct 18 -20 in NYC. So if I were to guess I would expect to see the 1dsMk111 intoduced then. It has been discussed from what I have heard to be at 22mpx and I guess as the 1dMkII at 14bit. However I was originally told that it would have been introduced at PMA.

Usually I don't care one way or the other. But I was planning on adding new gear this year so it was relevant for me. So as it is, I may not be interested having added the Mamiya 645AFDII and Leaf 65. So my Canon needs are possibly really met with the 1dMkII to replace my 1dMkII.

I like Canon gear but some real information sometimes would be better for planning out equipment upgrades. With the Mamiya/Leaf I know I am good to go for some time and they have been more forthcoming about upgrades and information.

With that said, the ZD might be a real option depending on your shooting requirements. The price point is pretty good.

[JimGoshorn]

My thinking on the lenses is this: They just invested how much to come up with the 16-35 and the 85 and they say that both have been improved for digital. I can't imagine them doing this knowing that the 1Ds3 would instantly antiquate them (not to mention piss off how many purchasers of these lenses). If anything, I would think that Canon would prefer to put a cap on the pixel count before they would antiquate their lenses. I know for me if I would have to replace a number of lenses I would think twice about upgrading to a 1Ds3 and I might go so far as to think of picking up another 1Ds2 instead.

[MarkKay]

I tried two of the new 16-35mm II lenses and the amount of improvement was marginal. There was less CA and flare but the image sharpness and distortion the corners  and edges were marginally better at some focal lengths and not as good at others compared to my 16-35 I.  These comparisons were concordant on the 5D and 1Dsmk2.  I suspect that the improvement on the new 1Dsmk3 is going to be primarily in image quality unrelated to resolution.  I would speculate the DR and less noise especially at the higher isos.  

I also have the newer 85mm II 1.2 lens. I did not have my old I version so I cannot compare resolution differences directly.

My thinking on the lenses is this: They just invested how much to come up with the 16-35 and the 85 and they say that both have been improved for digital. I can't imagine them doing this knowing that the 1Ds3 would instantly antiquate them (not to mention piss off how many purchasers of these lenses). If anything, I would think that Canon would prefer to put a cap on the pixel count before they would antiquate their lenses. I know for me if I would have to replace a number of lenses I would think twice about upgrading to a 1Ds3 and I might go so far as to think of picking up another 1Ds2 instead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]