Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: dwdallam on January 26, 2008, 07:20:39 am
-
I know this has been threaded before, but I really want the new technology the 1D and IDS got with their recent updates, including the sensor shaker cleaning option.
Yes, the MKIII is out and for sale for 8, 000 US at B&H--if you can get one.
However, I assume that the new 5D will be around 16MPs and probably 4, 000US, which would make a hard decision, given they have nearly identical technology inside, as the 5D and MKII have.
Yes, having 21MP is nice for cropping otherwise lost photos, but having 2 new 5Ds at 16MP each for the same price as one MKIII is a very real concern.
I'm tempted to wait six months and get the MKIII this summer for 7500 with rebates, but my luck, I'd buy it just before the new 5D comes out, and wish I had purchased the 5D instead.
Does anyone have any information on this yet?
Also, I did a quick search on Amazon and found a new 5D for 2100.00 US!!! That's incredible. I mean that is a really low price for that camera and technology. What this means is that most people will buy the 5D instead of the new 1D or 1DS easily, simply because of price. OK, so that isn't much of a deal for Canon I guess, since those with need and money will buy both of those cameras anyway, regardless of what the 5D does, but what about the 40D? I guess one could argue that the 40D DOES have the upgraded technology, is 10MP, and is only 1150US. Either way, the 5D seems to be in a precarious position right now--old technology, and more expensive than the 40D.
And BTW, I have a friend who recently worked in NY City at a fairly well known studio, and all they used were 5Ds exclusively--they do wedding and commercial photography, such as album covers and famous people, such as the Dave Mathew's Band and the princes of India etc. So the 5D does have a professional life. I'm surprised by how many "pros" I talk to who use the 5D "most" of the time, due to its smaller size and weight ratio.
The sad thing about it is that the 5D is now in the 2K US area, which makes selling one really not worth it, given you won't get much more than 12-1500US out of it used. They'll make good backup cameras I guess.
I would guess that it's going to get an update announcement any day now. What do you all think? And why would you buy the MKIII over a new 5D at 16.7MPSs?
-
I am still scratchin' my head as to what equipment I am going to get also, but on the reverse end, because I am not a professional just an enthusiast. So I am not trying to decide between the 5D and the Mark III, but rather between the 5D, the 40D, and the Nikon D300.
I really like all the features you get with the 10 mp Canon 40D for the price ... yet for just $600 more the 12 mp Nikon D300 has a better body (with better weatherproofing), it has more shutter life (150,000 shutter life to 100,000 on the Canon), and many feel it has superior ergonomics.
But yet the 40D shoots faster and has as good (or in some cases better) image quality, for $600 less. Add to that the fact Nikon lenses are generally a little more expensive (but not any better than Canon), and I would have to spend $1,000 more to get a Nikon D300 and 2 lenses as opposed to the Canon 40D and 2 lenses. So the question I keep wondering is, is it worth $1000 extra to get slightly better weatherproofing, and perhaps some more convenient button placement ... or is it better to save my $1000, not shoot in the rain, and enjoy just as good (if not better) images from the Canon, ultimately?
Which brings up to the to the potentially-new 5D. If this is going to be a 16 mp camera, with a full-frame sensor, that will put both of those other two to shame in image quality ... and yet will only be around $3,000 ... I would surely rather spend the extra $$ on something dramatically better.
But if it's around $4000, I think I will just stick with getting the 40D, because it seems to be the most camera for the least expense.
-
I am still scratchin' my head as to what equipment I am going to get also, but on the reverse end, because I am not a professional just an enthusiast. So I am not trying to decide between the 5D and the Mark III, but rather between the 5D, the 40D, and the Nikon D300.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
Why not consider the "old" 5D at $2100? Just curious about our thinking because I'm seriously considering the current 5D even though it will soon be replaced...but not soon enough.
-bruce
-
I am seriously considering the "old" 5D also, because I have no use for rapid-fire shutter speed, only of simplicity and image quality.
I guess what's holding me back is not knowing what price the "new" 5D is going to start out at. If it comes in at around $4000 then I may well just go for the old 5D ... but if it comes in at around $3,000 then I will just dig a little deeper into my pockets to get the new one.
(Plus, even if the new 5D price comes in too high for me, its very "newness" may make the price of the few remaining "old" 5Ds go down even more )
-
A big issue for me is the new Canon 5D2]?] when it is released at 16mp or whatever is will it be having AF issues like the Mk3 and the original 5D. I had 3 5D before I got one that functioned reasonably well. Some of my best image were made with the last one, but having to go through the first two poor samles was no fun. With my D200 and D300, I had no initial issues, no banding etc. Some would say I was lucky with the D200, OK but that was my experience. I am very happy with the D300, don't get me wrong but I also like the image quality, when the thing was in focus, of the 5D. Luckily I have enough lenses in both systems that switching back and forth is not a problem. A D3 was considered but not chosen due to size, weight, and cost issues. All these things depreciate faster than I like. I still see some quality issues with the old 5D images that I miss with the D300, and this I assume is due to the FF sensor more then anything else. Still need to shoot more with the D300, as there is a learning curve with every new body. BTW, I also have a 40D and while the image quality is not bad for 12Mp on a aps-c sensor it does not compare to the 5D overall, despite what many say. Again due to the FF sensor. JMO...
-
Don, how would you compare the 40D and the D300, as far as quality-of-image goes?
Thanks.
-
I am still scratchin' my head as to what equipment I am going to get also, but on the reverse end, because I am not a professional just an enthusiast. So I am not trying to decide between the 5D and the Mark III, but rather between the 5D, the 40D, and the Nikon D300.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Full frame is nice because of the viewfinder, but the 40D has come close to that now also. If I were in your shoes, I'd get the 40D. Here's why:
1. Superior image quality all around.
2. Has all the updated technology.
3. Crop factor makes your 200mm lens a 320mm lens. You can get a 1.6 crop factor wide angle at I think 14mm (you can look that up on the canon site) also, which makes up the difference between buying longer and much more expensive telephotos.
4. Your 200mm will now be effectively 320mm, and that is a great way to photograph people, if you're interested in that.
5. The 40D is incredibly cheap, at about 1150US.
6. It has 10MPS! You can print nice 20x30 images with that.
7. You can buy nearly 3 40Ds for the cost of one updated 5D, or two for the price of one Nikon300D.
8. Do you really want and need to shoot in the rain? What are you, a combat journalist? LOL. Really though, photographing in really bad weather is not fun and not enjoyable. Some good shots can be made, like a few I saw from national Geographic of a sand storm in Death Valley, but doing that sort of photography doesn't happen too often, especially for non pros.
I wouldn't worry too much about weather sealing. I live in the pacific northwest and where I live we get 45-60 inches of rain average per year, and I have had no problems going on days that are not puring rain. I'm not saying it isn't worth having, just that I would not let it dictate your buying, not yet anyway.
In any event, if you are not a pro, you can get cheap insurance for your gear, like 200 a year, that pays full NEW price for it in the case you damage it. I use to have that, and my policy stated that if I dropped my camera and lens into the ocean, I'd get a full reimbursement of the receipt price. It doesn't work that way for pros.
I just got back for a day trip where I was snow showing and breaking trail. I had a minimal amount of gear with me, but it was snowing pretty good and about 30 degrees. I did set up my kit but it was a bitch trying to keep the lens clear and shoot something in that cold and wet enviro that was worth it. My camera is fine though and it's a 5D. On the other hand, I'm going back out tomorrow. snow shoes etc.
Hope this helps a little.
-
John,
Why not consider the "old" 5D at $2100? Just curious about our thinking because I'm seriously considering the current 5D even though it will soon be replaced...but not soon enough.
-bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a really good idea too. In fact, when the new 5D comes out, if it does, you could probably get a nice, used 5D for under 1500, even at B&H.
-
BTW, I also have a 40D and while the image quality is not bad for 12Mp on a aps-c sensor it does not compare to the 5D overall, despite what many say. Again due to the FF sensor. JMO...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 40D is 10.1MPs, not 12.
-
Full frame is nice because of the viewfinder...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FF's also nicer optically, as you have the option of a shallower depth of field.
-
hear the voice of a "hardliner":
crop cameras are toys. technical features are just gimmicks, that don´t have anything to do with photography.
the 5D is a real camera. get yourself one.
and one more thing: size matters. at least in photography. aps-c is just 43 per cent of full-frame!
-
There would have to be some serious torture devices in place to get me to ever use a cropped sensor camera, no comparison in my mind. I recently used a 40D for a job instead of my own 5D, and it took me a long time to get used to how far away from subjects you would have to stand, it shocked me completely. Bring on an updated version of the 5D, technology has moved on significantly now that it is worth throwing down another $4000 on a new camera.
.
-
There would have to be some serious torture devices in place to get me to ever use a cropped sensor camera, no comparison in my mind. I recently used a 40D for a job instead of my own 5D, and it took me a long time to get used to how far away from subjects you would have to stand, it shocked me completely. Bring on an updated version of the 5D, technology has moved on significantly now that it is worth throwing down another $4000 on a new camera.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some of us might consider using a different lens for a different sensor format. Whacky, I know.
-
hear the voice of a "hardliner":
crop cameras are toys. technical features are just gimmicks, that don´t have anything to do with photography.
the 5D is a real camera. get yourself one.
and one more thing: size matters. at least in photography. aps-c is just 43 per cent of full-frame!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some of those "toys" have produced award winning photographs.
-
Some of us might consider using a different lens for a different sensor format. Whacky, I know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It also puts you a lot further away from your subject, which makes it hard to analyze detail whilst not looking through the viewfinder, which incidently is hard enough to look through on a cropped sensor anyway.
.
-
Okay.
-
It also puts you a lot further away from your subject, which makes it hard to analyze detail whilst not looking through the viewfinder, which incidently is hard enough to look through on a cropped sensor anyway.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure to follow you. Why don't you just use a lens 1.5 times shorter and stand at the same location.
50 f1.2 instead of 85 f1.2 for instance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not sure to follow you. Why don't you just use a lens 1.5 times shorter and stand at the same location.
50 f1.2 instead of 85 f1.2 for instance.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed, lenses are tools, if you need a larger hammer, get one. If you need a finish nailer get that. Having shot formats from 35 through 8x10, I acquired the lenses I needed to cover the field of view I liked working with. Really simple...The nice thing about zooms is you can keep almost the same position and keep the relative image size in the viewfinder. Both formats have advantages, don't use the format for what it isn't, period and then complain about. In the old days, the quote was in relating to being a professional means not complaining about not having the perfect brush. A professional makes do. I heard a story just last week in my office, about a famous violinist or cellist[sp], had a string pop and fail mid concert, he didn't huff and walk off the stage, he took a few seconds and continued playing the complex piece he was playing like nothing happened, no one could tell he didn't have a "perfect" instrument...there is a lesson there...
-
It also puts you a lot further away from your subject
Only if you're too stupid to use a shorter lens...
-
Only if you're too stupid to use a shorter lens...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"people skills"
-
How to deal with a cropped sensor (a guide for full frame purists):
1. Don't panic.
2. Take a step backwards.
3. If Step 2 is not sufficient, choose a different lens.
4. Be happy with your photo.
5. Group therapy.
-
Only if you're too stupid to use a shorter lens...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As said above 'people skills. Not only that, it quite ironic as you're talking rubbish as you are foolishly assuming a shorter lens is to hand. I had a 20D before the 5D came out. I had a 16-35, F2.8 and guess what, it wasn't wide enough. By a long way. And there was no shorter lens as fast available. Stepping back isn't always an option either as perpective changes or there may not be room. A crop sensor camera is limiting in several ways compared to a FF sensor. Smart Alec remarks won't change that.
-
We got it a while ago, jjj, you don't like Jonathan.
-
Not sure to follow you. Why don't you just use a lens 1.5 times shorter and stand at the same location.
50 f1.2 instead of 85 f1.2 for instance.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, it still kinda doesn't make sense to me, that means to replace my 24mm f1.4 I would have to either purchase the 14mm f2.8, or resort to using lesser quality zoom lenses? I would also loose a lot of low light capability along with the ability to limit depth of field. I'm pretty set in my old school ways, I've only ever shot with prime lenses, that's the way I was taught, and I quickly saw the benefits, I've never had the time to research cropped sensors so was a bit shocked when using one in December.
.
-
Well, it still kinda doesn't make sense to me, that means to replace my 24mm f1.4 I would have to either purchase the 14mm f2.8, or resort to using lesser quality zoom lenses? I would also loose a lot of low light capability along with the ability to limit depth of field. I'm pretty set in my old school ways, I've only ever shot with prime lenses, that's the way I was taught, and I quickly saw the benefits, I've never had the time to research cropped sensors so was a bit shocked when using one in December.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some things there are NO simple answers to. Bottomline - if you need a hammer, then a screwdriver will not do. IF there are no other choices then save your pennies for FF or buy the closest lens to do the job. Sigma for example makes both 20mm and 24mm 1.8 lenses. I use the 24mm on a D300 for close up high school BB shots. They are not perfect but let me get the shot. There are always compromises that may need to be made. You can complain that is your right, and we all need to blow off steam here occasionally, but bottomline complaining does not help you solve the lens issue. Also, if you are a professional photographer, then buy the tools you need to do the job, or don't take the job.
-
Would be fun if canon came out with 5DS S = square format sensor. its possible to have 36x36 with the lenses we already have, no more turning the camera, large crop choice. think this would be around 31 MP based on 21 MP on a 36x24 sensor. Would be good to see the Pixel race slow down a bit and other features such as dynamic range become of greater importance. How about one shot sharp and second shot defocused then blended in camera for a nice soft image.... sure this can be done in PS but it would be fun. there must be lots of great features that could be added. Enough.
-
Would be fun if canon came out with 5DS S = square format sensor. its possible to have 36x36 with the lenses we already have, no more turning the camera, large crop choice. think this would be around 31 MP based on 21 MP on a 36x24 sensor. Would be good to see the Pixel race slow down a bit and other features such as dynamic range become of greater importance. How about one shot sharp and second shot defocused then blended in camera for a nice soft image.... sure this can be done in PS but it would be fun. there must be lots of great features that could be added. Enough.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I couldn't agree more. Why is the standard 35mm frame the option everyone returns to? I don't actually like its proportions very much. I much prefer square and 4X5 frames. Obviously, it would be ferociously expensive to produce a whole new line of digital SLRs that were not based on 35mm practice, but I'd gladly pay for a 24X24 DSLR that used the Canon lens mount. I'd even consider one without a Bayer pattern just for square format B&W.
-
That'd be a funky viewfinder.
-
Viewfinder, oh no... nice BIG Live view,on a swivel mount.. to use one of those naff phrases...lets think out of the box
-
That'd be a funky viewfinder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just make them interchangeable. Kind of like a half size Hasselblad. You could have a huge live view screen on the back, and a simple waist-level finder, or pay extra for the prism of your choice. Nothing new really.
-
I would also loose a lot of low light capability along with the ability to limit depth of field.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The LL Spelling Police feel obligated to jump in here and cite you for your incorrect spelling of "lose".
Please remember: "Lose lips loose ships", or something like that.
-
hear the voice of a "hardliner":
crop cameras are toys. technical features are just gimmicks, that don´t have anything to do with photography.
the 5D is a real camera. get yourself one.
and one more thing: size matters. at least in photography. aps-c is just 43 per cent of full-frame!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I appreciate your perspective, but I don't see how some of these cameras are mere "toys" seeing as many have taken quite wonderful pictures. Also, how do these cameras have "nothing" to do with photography?
I can certainly see your point and perspective as to the cropping effect limiting your purposes by rendering your favored wide-angle lenses less useful, but since I am mostly interested in nature photography (butterfly/insect macro work as well as bird photography), for my purposes such bodies would actually render my lenses even more useful.
Therefore, while such non-FF bodies as the 40D might make your wide-angle lenses not quite so wide, the flipside to that is the fact these bodies thereby would make macro and telephoto lenses even more intense and useful.
Like anything else, it is all a matter of perspective.
Jack
-
"people skills"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL. You have to take Jon's comments with some salt. Rephrase them is what I do, something like:
"Only if you're too stupid to use a different lens."
Becomes automatically in my ears:
"What's the problem with using a different lens?"
Now isn't that sweet.
-
Not meaning to insult anyone but it is just perspective, with film I shot MF and LF, thinking 35mm was just not enough real estate for fine prints, but I would not go as far as saying 35mm was a toy....different needs = different tools...
I have always found Mr Wienke a little brusk and try to stay out of his line of fire. He is a wealth of knowledge and has offered mostly good advice. He seems to have a very high opinion of himself, his own business, just an observation, but his manner can be off putting, and for many his good parts get lost in the noise. If you visit his blog you will find out that there have been some health issues recently, not an excuse, but maybe a reason why he does not suffer ignorance or foolishness so well. ...hope I have not been out of line with talking about a poster, but trying to give some background and balance, and NO we are not friends.. and the info is on the web, placed there by him....on his blog...fwiw
lastly what I was told and what I told my kids when they were young is "use your words, don't let them use you" not always easy but usually works...
-
We got it a while ago, jjj, you don't like Jonathan.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't like anyone who is so rude and patronising. Dosen't help the fact he was talking rubbish whilst trying to be superior.
And like the above post says, he is very knowlegable on some issues, but lets himself down by being so off putting and in this instance innacurate as well.
-
LOL. You have to take Jon's comments with some salt. Rephrase them is what I do, something like:
"Only if you're too stupid to use a different lens."
Becomes automatically in my ears:
"What's the problem with using a different lens?"
Now isn't that sweet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So would you also interpret a real world bully's punches as a soothing massage?
-
So would you also interpret a real world bully's punches as a soothing massage?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really we need to get back to discussing gear not people and photography in general, if you have personal complaints write the moderators or owners of the site. Now I want to know how many Mp there the new 7D will have...any good latest rumors..?
-
So would you also interpret a real world bully's punches as a soothing massage?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, you have a very invalid analogy simply because words are very different than physical violence.
I will say that calling people "stupid" is never a way to conduct conversations, ever, and without excuse.
-
All of that preamble gives me the Perfect inroad for this: If the 5D isn't weather sealed anyway, and APS does not offend, then why not save a big bag o' dough, and put a separate XSi body on every single one of your lenses? Many news services have already done this with the XTi. Cringe to your hearts' content, but this makes infinitely more sense than changing lenses on a known dust magnet...... The bottom line is IQ, and you can't show me any advantage the 5D has over the XSi.
-
All of that preamble gives me the Perfect inroad for this: If the 5D isn't weather sealed anyway, and APS does not offend, then why not save a big bag o' dough, and put a separate XSi body on every single one of your lenses? Many news services have already done this with the XTi. Cringe to your hearts' content, but this makes infinitely more sense than changing lenses on a known dust magnet...... The bottom line is IQ, and you can't show me any advantage the 5D has over the XSi.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Go for that Dennis Hopper look from Apocalypse Now.
-
All of that preamble gives me the Perfect inroad for this: If the 5D isn't weather sealed anyway, and APS does not offend, then why not save a big bag o' dough, and put a separate XSi body on every single one of your lenses? Many news services have already done this with the XTi. Cringe to your hearts' content, but this makes infinitely more sense than changing lenses on a known dust magnet...... The bottom line is IQ, and you can't show me any advantage the 5D has over the XSi.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A very big advantage that the 5D has over every crop-frame DSLR I've had a chance to try is that the full-size viewfinder lets you see a decent image, rather than a dinky little rectangle at the end of a long, dark tunnel. That's the main reason I upgraded from a 10D to a 5D.
If the XSi actually has a good optical viewfinder, then it might be worth considering. I certainly have no objection to anybody else choosing it. But for me, IQ requires that I be able to see what I'm trying to take a picture of.
-
I was just reading all of the upcoming announcements from Nikon, Sony, etc., and I have a new question to ponder:
Why should Canon upgrade any of its cameras at this moment, since they are in the driver's seat, solidly: They have the only FF 21MP 35mm camera, arguably the best prosumer/pro FF 35mm (5D) and no one is slated to challenge them in the next eight months with anything at this level?
If you want better quality and more pixels than the 5D has, you buy the 1DS MKIII for 8K US or you shut your pie hole, cry more, and go home. I'll bet we get no new cameras from Canon until 2009.
I would suggest for those who can wait, to wait. There is just too much going on right now to buy an 8, 000 dollar camera that may be obsolete in one year.
-
A very big advantage that the 5D has over every crop-frame DSLR I've had a chance to try is that the full-size viewfinder lets you see a decent image, rather than a dinky little rectangle at the end of a long, dark tunnel. That's the main reason I upgraded from a 10D to a 5D.
If the XSi actually has a good optical viewfinder, then it might be worth considering. I certainly have no objection to anybody else choosing it. But for me, IQ requires that I be able to see what I'm trying to take a picture of.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Going by the numbers I'm sure it is better than the Xti but it doesn't look great. The 40D, on the other hand.
The 5D has good frame coverage (96%) but it is only .71x mag with an eyepoint of 20mm. The 40D by comparison is .95.x mag with a 22mm eyepoint.
In other words the 5D has a pretty crappy viewfinder that is bailed out by the larger format.
When I've compared them there seemed to be little difference.
Now the XSi is 95% coverage with .8x mag and an eyepoint of 19mm. Better than the Xti but not all that great.
-
"If you want better quality and more pixels than the 5D has, you buy the 1DS MKIII for 8K US or you shut your pie hole, cry more, and go home. I'll bet we get no new cameras from Canon until 2009."
Is this kind of language[attitude] really necessary, no matter what the provocation
was???
-
My old 5D easily matches my 1D mk3 for IQ and at a substantially lower cost. I have friends with Nikon D300s and 40Ds but the 5D's images just seem nicer.
-
"If you want better quality and more pixels than the 5D has, you buy the 1DS MKIII for 8K US or you shut your pie hole, cry more, and go home. I'll bet we get no new cameras from Canon until 2009."
Is this kind of language[attitude] really necessary, no matter what the provocation
was???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huh, there was no provocation. We're all implicated here. We all know what we want and Canon hasn't announced it. We want the 5D at 16MPs to be announced. If it isn't and we want more pixels, etc., then we can buy the MKIII or go home, crying. It's a play on words and phraseology.
-
Huh, there was no provocation. We're all implicated here. We all know what we want and Canon hasn't announced it. We want the 5D at 16MPs to be announced. If it isn't and we want more pixels, etc., then we can buy the MKIII or go home, crying. It's a play on words and phraseology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the explanation, and glad that wasn't directed to anyone, just seemed kind of sarcastic in general, and I may be slow, but don't get the "play part" but point taken and time to move on. Your point, obviously, was that none of us got what "we" wanted...some are happy with status quo. Me, I too would be "up" for a new 5D as you described, but would also add, it would be nice if the darn camera came out without focusing issues and other glitches like the original 5D did. Went through 3 bodies before I got one that focused worth a fenig[sp]. Lot of resolution, but not deliverable with the first two samples. Also would be nice if they updated the lens line to have a decent less expensive wide zoom, like in the 17-40mm range. Yada, yada, yada....Went through 3 samples of that one also. Alot of this is why getting a D300 in the meantime has shown me that someone can make a new camera without major issues from the get go. I still miss FF for some things and it will be a battle to see who comes out with a FF model first and have it clean. Will it be a D300FX or a 5D2 and when. Would be nice if it was April like certain rumors mention, but guess we will all find out then if it does. Don't mean to bash Canon as a 40D I own for now has been generally issue free, and will keep it for now, until I see what is next. ...
-
I'm going to be saving up for a 5DII or 6D or whatever it's called as my next camera. I hope it comes out this year. I was pretty disappointed that it was not announced at PMA.
-K
-
I'm going to be saving up for a 5DII or 6D or whatever it's called as my next camera. I hope it comes out this year. I was pretty disappointed that it was not announced at PMA.
-K
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm gonna buy the 1DS MKIII and then I have nothing to second guess except my bank account. It's the best camera canon puts out, and its the best camera in that level. If it sucks, it's still the best thing going at this time, and I want those extra technologies. I'm really tired of cleaning/blowing my 5Ds sensor every two days, or every lens change, for one. I also print at 20x30 and I'm tired of losing images because I'm cropping them so closely at the time I take the picture as to not lose any resolution, later to find out that I actually needed another 5% to make the image. I'd like to have that 5% error margin to frame images, and later crop 3-5% w/o worrying about print quality at 20x30.
And then there is the time where you do have a good image, but it take a 10% aspect crop to get it. even if the 5D does come out at 16.7MPs, the extra 4MPs is good padding.
For those thinking about doing the MKIII, remember you'll need 8GB cards too, for serious shooting w/o having to change cards.
-
As a new 1DS MKIII owner [only done two shoots with it too date], but long time 5D shooter [had one of the first 5D's in Australia] - I can say it has been worth every $ for the 1DSMKIII and I have zero buyers remorse.
As you say.. its best camera you can currently buy from Canon. And, worth the price of admission in my book for the extra rez, 14 bit over 12, live view, sensor cleaning, uber bright view finder which is just a joy to use, weather sealing, more rugged and the list goes on...
In terms of image quality comparisons between the 1DS MKIII and 5D - well its a no brainer. the 1DSMKIII has about the same noise characteristics as the 5D - so much so that any difference either way is quibbling. But it has boat loads of pixels avaiable for cropping and there is a noticeable benefit in 14 bit.
I have kept my 5D as a second body for now.. but I really cant see it getting much use.
-
As a new 1DS MKIII owner [only done two shoots with it too date], but long time 5D shooter [had one of the first 5D's in Australia] - I can say it has been worth every $ for the 1DSMKIII and I have zero buyers remorse.
As you say.. its best camera you can currently buy from Canon. And, worth the price of admission in my book for the extra rez, 14 bit over 12, live view, sensor cleaning, uber bright view finder which is just a joy to use, weather sealing, more rugged and the list goes on...
In terms of image quality comparisons between the 1DS MKIII and 5D - well its a no brainer. the 1DSMKIII has about the same noise characteristics as the 5D - so much so that any difference either way is quibbling. But it has boat loads of pixels avaiable for cropping and there is a noticeable benefit in 14 bit.
I have kept my 5D as a second body for now.. but I really cant see it getting much use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's one of my main issues--noise. You know something will happen to reduce the noise in that level camera, then we're left holding the bag on that old "Noisey MKIII."
-
I think Canon would be smart to just put the new 1ds3 chip into a smaller, lighter body. Maybe take away some speed and a few features. They'd retain their IQ lead over their competitors and make everyone happy.
-
Are you shooting low light, action. where are you shooting in a full frame camera dust is a real enemy. The 5 D is a dust magnet. The 40 d by all reports has better autofocus in bad light then the d300 also better image quality in bad light as nikon smooths there image down at the expense of image detail. I would if the ultimate image quality and full frame are important to you get a rebel xti till the new 5 dii comes out, sell the xti or keep it as a back up body. If action is more important to you then get a 40 d and do not look back. I suggest the xti for now because it is really cheap will not be too much of a loss to sell is very light nice for a backup body. But again if action is more important just get a canon 40d. Anyone who thinks the 5d has better quality in low light then a id mk 111 has not shot with it. Nikon has ana advantage with the d3 to 1dmk111 in low light canon has the advantage with the 40 d to d300. Hope this helps . David
-
That's one of my main issues--noise. You know something will happen to reduce the noise in that level camera, then we're left holding the bag on that old "Noisey MKIII."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huh?
Considering the 1D is basically twice the megapixel count of the 5D and offers the same noise performance how exactly is that bad?
-
Are you shooting low light, action. where are you shooting in a full frame camera dust is a real enemy. The 5 D is a dust magnet. The 40 d by all reports has better autofocus in bad light then the d300 also better image quality in bad light as nikon smooths there image down at the expense of image detail. I would if the ultimate image quality and full frame are important to you get a rebel xti till the new 5 dii comes out, sell the xti or keep it as a back up body. If action is more important to you then get a 40 d and do not look back. I suggest the xti for now because it is really cheap will not be too much of a loss to sell is very light nice for a backup body. But again if action is more important just get a canon 40d. Anyone who thinks the 5d has better quality in low light then a id mk 111 has not shot with it. Nikon has ana advantage with the d3 to 1dmk111 in low light canon has the advantage with the 40 d to d300. Hope this helps . David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't think I'll be buying an XTi anytime soon, or a 40D when I already have a 5D.
-
Huh?
Considering the 1D is basically twice the megapixel count of the 5D and offers the same noise performance how exactly is that bad?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't say it was bad. I was explaining that the noise of the DS MKIII will probably be an issue later on, and then we'll be joking about the noise compared to the new technology. And, after buying the MKIII, the noise is NO better than the current 5D, even though you get 60.4(+-) % more pixels--no where near "twice the pixel count." (12.7 vs 21)
21 x .605 = 12.7
-
Nikon has ana advantage with the d3 to 1dmk111 in low light[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not true at all, at the RAW level. The 1DSmk3 collects about the same amount of total photons as the D3 with the same exposure, and has about the same pixel-level read noise at all ISOs, but almost twice as many of them, for lower image read noise.
The so-called low-light superiority of the D3 is a software noise reduction illusion.
The D3 is #2; not #1.
-
The D3 is #2; not #1.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is at RAW image noise; I didn't mean to imply that this is true overall for the camera. The D3 may very well be a more user-friendly camera to many people.
-
That is at RAW image noise; I didn't mean to imply that this is true overall for the camera. The D3 may very well be a more user-friendly camera to many people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only thing I even think about is RAW performance. If I ever get hired for jpg necessary images, then they'll just have to take what I get using Canon's best.
-
I know this has been threaded before, but I really want the new technology the 1D and IDS got with their recent updates, including the sensor shaker cleaning option.
Yes, the MKIII is out and for sale for 8, 000 US at B&H--if you can get one.
However, I assume that the new 5D will be around 16MPs and probably 4, 000US, which would make a hard decision, given they have nearly identical technology inside, as the 5D and MKII have.
Yes, having 21MP is nice for cropping otherwise lost photos, but having 2 new 5Ds at 16MP each for the same price as one MKIII is a very real concern.
I'm tempted to wait six months and get the MKIII this summer for 7500 with rebates, but my luck, I'd buy it just before the new 5D comes out, and wish I had purchased the 5D instead.
Does anyone have any information on this yet?
Also, I did a quick search on Amazon and found a new 5D for 2100.00 US!!! That's incredible. I mean that is a really low price for that camera and technology. What this means is that most people will buy the 5D instead of the new 1D or 1DS easily, simply because of price. OK, so that isn't much of a deal for Canon I guess, since those with need and money will buy both of those cameras anyway, regardless of what the 5D does, but what about the 40D? I guess one could argue that the 40D DOES have the upgraded technology, is 10MP, and is only 1150US. Either way, the 5D seems to be in a precarious position right now--old technology, and more expensive than the 40D.
And BTW, I have a friend who recently worked in NY City at a fairly well known studio, and all they used were 5Ds exclusively--they do wedding and commercial photography, such as album covers and famous people, such as the Dave Mathew's Band and the princes of India etc. So the 5D does have a professional life. I'm surprised by how many "pros" I talk to who use the 5D "most" of the time, due to its smaller size and weight ratio.
The sad thing about it is that the 5D is now in the 2K US area, which makes selling one really not worth it, given you won't get much more than 12-1500US out of it used. They'll make good backup cameras I guess.
I would guess that it's going to get an update announcement any day now. What do you all think? And why would you buy the MKIII over a new 5D at 16.7MPSs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon's new 450D with a 12 MP sensor might be a good option if you only want to spend 1000 for a body.
Dr. Gary
-
Canon's new 450D with a 12 MP sensor might be a good option if you only want to spend 1000 for a body.
Dr. Gary
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I already own a 12.7 MP Canon camera, which is the 5D. I don't want to step down.
-
And, after buying the MKIII, the noise is NO better than the current 5D, even though you get 60.4(+-) % more pixels--no where near "twice the pixel count." (12.7 vs 21)
21 x .605 = 12.7
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173250\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've got your math a little wrong here as you do not get 60.4% *more* pixels with the 1DsMkIII.
In fact you get ((5616*3744)/(4368*2912)-1)*100% = 65.3% *more* pixels with the 1DsMkIII compared to the 5D.
The other way around the 5D has (4368*2912)/(5616*3744)*100% = 60,5% of the pixels of the 1DsMkIII , meaning you have 39,5% *less* pixels with a 5D compared to the 1DsMkIII.
Cheers,
Andrew