Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: nemophoto on September 17, 2012, 02:12:06 pm
-
I haven't had a chance to try the "new" (if you can call a nearly one year old - from announcement though only recently available - camera "new") the 1Dx. I recently borrowed a 5D3 from Canon CPS, and though the files produced were nice, I didn't see any qualitative edge over my 4-1/2 year old 1Ds3, especially in the 100-200 iso range. I also found the 5D3 lacked a a few features I've really come to appreciate and use in the 1D series. For a number of my clients, I shoot instore posters that are about 8' tall. Even though production on the images lowers the final output res, I still end up enlarging the original, retouched images from 150-220%.
I've practically given up on Canon ever coming out with anything that resembles the 36MP Nikon (witness the slew of 20+ MP FF cameras from Canon in the past year. Also I posted earlier that I think Canon has largely given up on pro photogs, focusing instead on the amateur and enthusiast, and the pro cine market). In many ways, I see the 1Dx as more of a replacement for my 1D4. I've never really liked the IQ of the 1D4; I always felt the images looked a bit "crunchy", no matter what program I used for conversions. As a result, I've had thoughts of replacing that camera with the 1Dx, if the price becomes a little more realistic. What the 1Dx has going for it is faster write times (therefore no waiting for the buffer as I often do with my 1Ds3) and faster frame rate. The video is a total waste to have to pay for, even though I started my career as a cinematographer. For that reason, I've thought maybe the 1Dx might be able to replace the 1Ds3 on occasion. But I'm curious. Has anyone seen or done a qualitative enlargement test with the 1Dx? Theoretically, there shouldn't be that much difference compared to the 1Ds3 since it's only 3MP difference in res. I've also seriously thought of going with a Mamiya 645 or Pentax 645 to get the res I need for retouching, but hate to lose the performance of a 35mm based camera.
Any thoughts? Thanks.
Nemo
-
You see no difference? Try shooting at an ISO setting over 400. Try Shooting at longer exposures. Try tracking an object moving fast and erratically. Try using Live view.
-
You should contact JoshH. He wrote here that the image quality of the 1DX is superior to any other camera he has used, including that of the D800E he had experience with also.
Being a former 1Ds3 user, he should be able to help you with your purchasing decision.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You should contact JoshH. He wrote here that the image quality of the 1DX is superior to any other camera he has used, including that of the D800E he had experience with also.
Being a former 1Ds3 user, he should be able to help you with your purchasing decision.
Cheers,
Bernard
Slight correction there - the 1DX produces the best file I have seen from a 35mm DSLR. Taking into account high ISO capabilities, colour, etc. and based on my own subjective evaluation. The D800 File is also excellent - but I just prefer the look of the Canon 1DX file.
In terms of 1DS MK3 v 1DX - even at ISO100 I prefer the look of the 1DX file. I took a 1DX and a 1DSMK3 to Europe for a months photography and never even got the 1DS MK3 out of the bag. Its subjective though and YMMV. I would recommend you borrow or rent a 1DX and try it for yourself.
BTW: 1DX files do up rez very nicely.
-
I've just bought a 1Dx (as a replacement for my 1D MkII and backup to my 1Ds MkIII - or maybe visa versa) and will be doing some side by side comparisons in New Zealand next week, if you can wait a couple of weeks to see the results. :)
-
Maybe you have to read the review Diglloyd (http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html)wrote about the 1Dx. He was very dissapointed about the pattern noise apparent at ISO 100 with a well-exposed image.
I cancelled mine order for the 1Dx and hoping that Canon will comes soon with a good replacement for the 1Ds MarkIII. I am not very interesting in the high iso performes of the 1Dx
-
Maybe you have to read the review Diglloyd (http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html)wrote about the 1Dx. He was very dissapointed about the pattern noise apparent at ISO 100 with a well-exposed image.
I cancelled mine order for the 1Dx and hoping that Canon will comes soon with a good replacement for the 1Ds MarkIII. I am not very interesting in the high iso performes of the 1Dx
Unfortunately, that seems to be Canon's modus operandi these days. Always chasing the sports and action shooters, with faster frame rates, higher ISOs, etc., while forgetting that the vast majority of photography is done in the ISO 100-1600 range. Perhaps it's because Canon simply cannot match the Sony Exmor's performance at low ISOs, in terms of dynamic range and pattern noise, but these problems are all drowned out at high ISO by other forms of noise, allowing Canon sensors to compete on an even field there.
-
Thanks for all the replies. Sounds, though, like I'll need to rent (or if CPS ever gets one, borrow) a 1Dx to do my own qualitative enlargement tests. I have to agree with Shadowblade, though. Canon seems as though it's not as interested in the commercial shooters who don't need noiseless results at 3200. Personally, I need the buffer and resolution. Maybe the siren of the A99 calls (not a big fan of Nikon), or dive into medium format. Too bad I'm so heavily invested in L series lenses. Just doesn't make sense to jump ship.
-
I would respectfully suggest that the majority of shooting till now occurs at low ISO because that's what the cameras have been capable of doing. As sensor technology is improving, and will improve that "limitation" will fade. Even lens technology and portability will be enhanced by the advances.
To the OP... the a99 had better be FAR better than my old a77 was or you will be disappointed. Further, the Sony glass is nowhere near as varied and abundant than C or N.
As always YMMV...
-
The majority of my shooting IS 400 iso and below. I recently shot an editorial at 800 with my "old" 1Ds3. I found nothing wanting in the files. They were beautiful and I just saw the magazine, and reproduction was, in short, nearly perfect. So, what I want is higher res, larger buffer. I was shooting last week in the studio, and because of my shooting style, kept running into full buffers with the 1Ds3, even with higher speed CF cards.
-
I've got both the 1Ds III and 1D X right now, and have done some comparison tests for both low ISO noise, resolution, and dynamic range. I also did the same comparisons with the 1D X and a friends D800E.
I'd say the resolution difference between the Canon's is very, very close. The 1Ds III might pull a slight amount of detail more than the 1D X, but only 3 megapixels is a very small difference. On a huge print you might notice it if they were side by side, but honestly the 1D X could make most any print that the 1Ds III could. A fair way to look at is the 7% linear difference. If you can make a 48 inch wide print with the 1Ds III, then you could make a 45 inch wide print with the 1D X. The D800E obviously eats them both for lunch with 36 megapixels.
On low ISO dynamic range, I'd give a slight edge to the 1D X over the 1Ds III. Both have a fair bit of leeway to push the shadows, but the 1D X holds off pattern noise just a tiny bit better than the 1Ds III, maybe 1/2 stop? The pattern noise in the 1Ds III is horizontal and the 1D X is vertical. The 1D X noise is just a little less objectionable (finer) before a pattern becomes evident as the shadows get pushed. Both do better when you are pushing shadows that are not totally black. The 1Ds III seemed to hold highlight detail just a tiny bit better at equivalent exposures, a little less than 1/3 stop if I had to guess. D800E again eats them both for lunch in terms of low ISO shadow noise. Just cleaner overall, and far deeper into underexposed blacks. I agree with Josh about preferring the default look of a pushed 1D X file over the D800E though. The tone curve of the D800E gets flat and funky looking when pushed, while the Canon keeps a more natural look to it. Nothing that couldn't be fixed in post for the Nikon, but getting a nice image is simpler with the 1D X.
Rendition between the 1Ds III and 1D X is slightly different, but both look great IMHO. Really nice look straight out of camera, great white balance and exposures. I might give the "look" edge to the 1D X. No real dramatic differences here.
Generally my take is that I don't really feel like I've given up anything by going from the 1Ds III to the 1D X, even at base ISO. And taking into consideration the speed, AF, frame rate and high ISO (oh man the high ISO!), the 1D X is just much better as an image capturing device.
-
Thanks Sheldon for the info. That's the sort of assessment I've been looking for. Inuitively, one would think there isn't much difference between 18MP and 21MP, but the difference between 16MP and 21MP (1D4 versus 1Ds3) has been significant in my eyes. I have to say, I actually liked the files from the 1D3 better than the 1D4. The latter seems to have a lot of artifacts, even in RAW (which is all I really use). I keep hoping Canon will see the error in their ways and intro a camera aimed more at commercial shooters than sports, but I suppose that's not to be. Though the 5D3 is a vast improvement over the 5D2, I just don't care for the handling. I suppose I could just bite my tongue and go for the res of the 5D3, but I just KNOW when I do that, they'll finally come out with a 1Dxs or something. (Happened recently when I sold my older 24-70, waited for six months, and finally replaced it, only to have them bring out the 24-70 mark II three weeks later!)
Nemo
-
Inuitively, one would think there isn't much difference between 18MP and 21MP, but the difference between 16MP and 21MP (1D4 versus 1Ds3) has been significant in my eyes.
I'd bet that a big part of that is the difference between 1.3 crop and full frame. The 1D X has an advantage there, being full frame and less demanding of lens resolution than the 1D IV (which leads to better MTF/microcontrast).
-
I suppose I could just bite my tongue and go for the res of the 5D3, but I just KNOW when I do that, they'll finally come out with a 1Dxs or something.
Then com'on, don't be selfish and buy a 5DIII, that is going to help many people out there! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Then com'on, don't be selfish and buy a 5DIII, that is going to help many people out there! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
OMG - We agree ;D
-
Then com'on, don't be selfish and buy a 5DIII, that is going to help many people out there! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
That's a brilliant idea!
-
Slightly off topic here...
What are your thoughts (Josh and Bernard and the rest of you) about the 5dmIII? I know that the body isn't the same as the 1d series but higher ISO will be much better than what I own now.
I ask because I love my 1DsmIII and I am looking to "upgrade". I don't shoot in the rain and I am not really rugged with the body but I do like shooting in available light (400-800-1600 iso). I LOVE the super precision matte screen for my Zeiss manual lenses and I see you CAN'T change the screen in the 5dmIII.
I am not sure I want to spend that money on a 1DX.
Thanks in advance!!
Ken
-
I own the 5D3 and 1DS3 and shoot mostly with Zeiss primes but also Canon 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 IS and 400mm DO.
Image Quality up 800ISO - I see very little between the cameras. At 3200 the 5D3 has a good edge, perhaps a stop better noise wise. However fine detail takes on a slightly smeared look compared to the 1DS3.
Autofocus, the 5D3 wins hands down. Focus confirmation with my Zeiss primes is better too especially in low light.
The LCD on the 5D3 is great. In a different league to the 1Ds3.
The 5D3 has some nice features compared to the 1DS3 - video, quiet shutter mode, User modes C1,C2,C3 and auto ISO.
Ergonomics - I prefer the pro body of 1DS3.
My 1DS3 is now up for sale.
My biggest disapointment with the 5D3 is the lack of improvement in DR.
-
What are your thoughts (Josh and Bernard and the rest of you) about the 5dmIII? I know that the body isn't the same as the 1d series but higher ISO will be much better than what I own now.
Sorry, I have not had the chance to shoot with one besides a casual test in a camera store. I cannot provide first hand comments on the image quality aspects.
Overall, the 5DIII seems to me to be an excellent camera and the user reports I have read are very positive, especially those of users coming from the 5DII that seem to appreciate the better AF.
It seems to be a good platform to tap into the potential of the excellent Canon lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jusr as an FYI for those who may not know, the review at Diglloyd requires a subscrion to the site to read.
-
What are your thoughts (Josh and Bernard and the rest of you) about the 5dmIII? I know that the body isn't the same as the 1d series but higher ISO will be much better than what I own now.
If you are coming from a 5D MKII then the MKIII is a significant upgrade in terms of Auto Focus and High ISO.
The 1DX smokes the 5D MK3 in the frame rate and autofocus dept though. I found this out when shooting side by side with the two cameras in Iceland photographing puffins coming into land at their nests on the edge of the cliff. They are like missiles and the 1DX was able to track them in flight - the 5D MK3 could not. The difference on paper seems trivial - just a dedicated Digic processor. However, in practice this seems to make a very big difference in my experience.
If you don't need this blazing fast auto focus, gazillion frames per second and rugged bullet proof body then then 5D MK3 is a good choice and obviously a lot cheaper.
Having tested the 5D MK3 and 1DX High ISO side by side I would say the 1DX has 1.5 - 2.5 stop advantage in high ISO over the 5D MK3. If you are shooting hand held in near darkness this may be of benefit. As I recently found out inside the dark cathedrals of Europe where flash and tripod are not allowed - those extra stops can make a difference.
The only other thing I would add is 'accidents happen'. When in Iceland in August this year I slipped whilst scrambling up a steep scree slope with my tripod and 1DX. I smashed the 1DX into a large rock (hard). Anything other than a 1 series would have likely been seriously damaged or destroyed. But the 1 series bodies are seriously tough.
Hope this helps.
-
I would respectfully suggest that the majority of shooting till now occurs at low ISO because that's what the cameras have been capable of doing. As sensor technology is improving, and will improve that "limitation" will fade. Even lens technology and portability will be enhanced by the advances.
To the OP... the a99 had better be FAR better than my old a77 was or you will be disappointed. Further, the Sony glass is nowhere near as varied and abundant than C or N.
As always YMMV...
Having used an A65 (same sensor as A77) for a few days and tried an A99 for only a few minutes, I can assure you the A99 is far and away better. I'd say the noise at "ISO"3200 on the A99 matches 640 on the A65. Both sensors pull highlights very well. Beyond that, there is a smoothness to the A99 files totally lacking in the A65. I don't own a Sony but I wouldn't dismiss them. Plus they have very good glass now, for those who can afford it.
Don
-
Hi,
I shoot horse competions. I used a DS Mark II for almost 7 years with satisfaction but with severe reservation about the focusing system but loved the image quality. I rented a DS Mark III and also D Mark IV. I was not impressed. Yes, they were better but the focussing problems where still there.
I have been using the IDX for a month now. The focussing problems are resolved. A horse jump last a half of a second. The interesting images are in the quarter of a second region. With the 1 DX it's no longer a focusing problem. It auto ajusts between high speed shots. The damper is quite sufficent for my work. Plus, shooting only in RAW, I did not have to replace my server.
Another point, I can now stay all day at an event. Go in the stables without a flash and produce images that I could only wish for before hand. Forget using a flash in an event.
The clients are more vocal about my work that previously.
All in all, the camera fufill my needs for sport shooting and much more. Simply put, I was thinking of using the DS Mark II for a back up just in case. I never used it since the 1 DX arrived, so I offered it on the Internet and it was gone within 10 minutes. I have never regretted it.
-
i've not seen any comparison done, I keep intending to shoot my sIII and X side by side to see whats real and what I imagine to be the difference.
What I think is the difference is weak AA on the X and lots of depth in the shadows.
In another forum I saw some posted shots of the X which apparently shows pattern noise in the shadows. From my experience it does not exist, I've tried everything I can think of to find it including some over the top shadow recovery. I've pushed sliders bent curves, shot high iso, boosted saturation to the max, honestly it's a myth, the X has long deep clean shadows.
http://kevinallen.photodeck.com/-/galleries/1d-x-extreme-processing
My DsIII has not been used since the X arrived, the files appear thick and robust you can process them to Hell and back.
Kevin.
-
I did a torture test of the 1Ds III and 1D X side by side and shot a series of bracketed exposures with a high dynamic range scene (dark interior looking out to sunshine outdoors).
The 1D X seemed better at avoiding pattern noise than the 1Ds III. I could generate some fine pattern noise with the 1D X, but I had to dramatically push the exposure and shadow recovery, and it had to be of an area that was essentially clipped in the shadows already. Once there is some base level of unclipped exposure then the files are very malleable without pattern noise issues.
-
I own the 5D3 and 1DS3 and shoot mostly with Zeiss primes but also Canon 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 IS and 400mm DO.
Image Quality up 800ISO - I see very little between the cameras. At 3200 the 5D3 has a good edge, perhaps a stop better noise wise. However fine detail takes on a slightly smeared look compared to the 1DS3.
Autofocus, the 5D3 wins hands down. Focus confirmation with my Zeiss primes is better too especially in low light.
The LCD on the 5D3 is great. In a different league to the 1Ds3.
The 5D3 has some nice features compared to the 1DS3 - video, quiet shutter mode, User modes C1,C2,C3 and auto ISO.
Ergonomics - I prefer the pro body of 1DS3.
My 1DS3 is now up for sale.
My biggest disapointment with the 5D3 is the lack of improvement in DR.
Frankly, I was a bit disappointed with the 5D3. Let me rephrase that. I felt the quality of the file was great. But, having owned 1D cameras since the original film model, I felt it was a little lacking in pro use, compared to my 1Ds3. I really missed things I'd taken for granted, such as the frames remaining readout in the viewfinder. I missed the higher flash sync speeds. I don't have large hands, but missed the 1D series grip size. Yes, I know an additional battery grip can be added. The focus was OK, but I didn't notice a huge improvement over my 1Ds3, at least in the studio level lighting I used. Okay, here comes the whine. I want a 36, no what the hell, a 42MP 1Ds with 6-frames per second frame rate and a buffer of 20-shots min. There. Now I feel better.
-
Yes, the 5d3 is certainly not a pro body. You would be better off with a 1DX.
-
A big Thanks for all that chimed it! I have the opportunity to try the 5dm3 for a bit and I will see what I think. I do believe that I would miss the rugged body of the 1d series.
Thanks,
Ken
-
Yes, the 5d3 is certainly not a pro body. You would be better off with a 1DX.
I absolutely must share that opinion with the many professional, advertising, architectural, wedding, editorial & industrial photographers I know who who are using the EOS 5D Mark III as their main camera. I am sure they will immediately begin to wail, rend their clothes & gnash their teeth at their benighted folly. I am sure they will bless you for dispelling their ignorance.
-
owning a 1series camera doesn't instantly make you a professional photographer.
you could say owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer. ::)
-
owning a 1series camera doesn't instantly make you a professional photographer.
you could say owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer. ::)
...any more than owning a stove makes you a cook! I admit to chuckling about this. I know professional photographers who use 5ds of various types and even 7Ds and 30Ds. The most successful of the bunch used a 20D for many years before finally getting a 5DII less than two years ago.
-
I can say, having owned a 1Ds3, a 5d2, and now an IQ160/645DF combo and 5D3... the 5D3 is lightyears ahead of the 5D2 as far as fit and feel go. In fact, while there's a few things not quite 1D about it, it's so close to it, I dare say that for 99% of the time, it'll stand up to the same physical rigours a 1 series would. I've seen first hand what the one series can handle, having dropped mine from nearly 20m high onto a concrete slab with little more then a layer of industrial heat foam to protect it (yes, it survived with little more then a scuff or two, though ultimately the shutter did fail at about 10,000 actuations).
The reality is, there's rugged and then there's just obscene. If there were someone out there doing 'drop tests' on all of them, then great. That said... the 1Dx (I've had the chance to use) does seem to focus a little stronger. I couldn't put my finger on it though, I'm sure with some configuration the 5D3 could probably approach it in that respect too.
-
I just noticed that Canon released their new flagship, the 1DX. As an owner of the 1DS MKIII, I was a little disappointed, given the now large choices from Nikon (up to 36+MPs). On the other hand, I'm happy because I won't be upgrading my 1DSMKIII.
I can see if you shoot action, the 1DX might be a must have, for it is superior to the older Canon action cameras. You even get a MP boost and more speed. That would be hard to pass up.
However, if you shoot anything other than speed, I can't see upgrading to the 1DX, especially if you paid 8, 000 USD for the 1DS MKIII in 2008. I shoot models, landscape, interior, autos, boats, studio, products, fine art/artistic etc, and I have never shot speed, although I would like to try some automotive events. Even then, I would expect the 1DS MKIII to do a good enough job. If I shot sports or other speed events exclusively or for my living, I'd definitely go with the 1DX. But precious MPs I'm not willing to give up.
When I upgraded to the 1DS MKIII, I owned and still own the original 5D. The upgrade was was worth it--no difference in noise, 8MP increase, more speed, etc. To go from the 1DS MKIII to the 1DX and lose precious pixels, for me, is a nonstarter. I could never justify the move from a 1DSMKIII to the 1DX, given my needs.
I could see myself going to a new 1Ds series with a good increase in MPs, however, and the option to shoot lower RAW files faster, with all of the new IQ the 1DX has; and that's what I don't get. Why not offer a 28-30MP camera with the option to shoot 18MP files for speed? Why go all the way to 18Ms, and leave out people who need or want as many MPs as they can get? I mean this is a pro camera, so why even add video (replace video with the higher MPs for cost)? I don't really want to pay for something I'm not going to use at the expense of other things I would.
I have to say, if I were on the market to buy either Canon or Nikon at this juncture, I'd pick Nikon hands down--I simply have more options (D800 @ 36MPs) plus action oriented cameras.
Canon's last several years worth of updates have been geared towards those who shoot moving subjects (1D models opposed to 1DS models), while the 1DS line has been stale. I do hope Canon offers a higher MP pro camera in the future. Until that time, I'll be keeping my 1DSMKIII as my primary and my trusty no problems 5D (have yet to need it, but as clean as it shoots, it would do) as a backup. Sorry Canon. It's just not worth it for shooters with needs like myself.
-
I absolutely must share that opinion with the many professional, advertising, architectural, wedding, editorial & industrial photographers I know who who are using the EOS 5D Mark III as their main camera. I am sure they will immediately begin to wail, rend their clothes & gnash their teeth at their benighted folly. I am sure they will bless you for dispelling their ignorance.
That's the problem with canon of late--they don't offer enough pro bodies so pros use their consumer bodies. I mean 1DS MKIII vs 5DMKII/III--hands down I'm buying 2 5ds for less than the price of one 1DSMKIII -- 2x less than the 1D series. The images are almost identical. Unless one actually just must have the speed and autofocus etc the 1DX offers, it's 5D time. I get that totally. It's like Canon priced itself out of pros buying their pro cameras, unless absolutely necessary.
I do prefer the 1D series feel over the others, though. they give me more to hold onto and I can control the camera better. Now, if they came out with a 5d camera with the same body style as a 1D series, that would be it. I'd go 5D also.
-
This is the perfect example why you would want the new 1DX. Perfect example.
Hi,
I shoot horse competions. I used a DS Mark II for almost 7 years with satisfaction but with severe reservation about the focusing system but loved the image quality. I rented a DS Mark III and also D Mark IV. I was not impressed. Yes, they were better but the focussing problems where still there.
I have been using the IDX for a month now. The focussing problems are resolved. A horse jump last a half of a second. The interesting images are in the quarter of a second region. With the 1 DX it's no longer a focusing problem. It auto ajusts between high speed shots. The damper is quite sufficent for my work. Plus, shooting only in RAW, I did not have to replace my server.
Another point, I can now stay all day at an event. Go in the stables without a flash and produce images that I could only wish for before hand. Forget using a flash in an event.
The clients are more vocal about my work that previously.
All in all, the camera fufill my needs for sport shooting and much more. Simply put, I was thinking of using the DS Mark II for a back up just in case. I never used it since the 1 DX arrived, so I offered it on the Internet and it was gone within 10 minutes. I have never regretted it.
-
That's the problem with canon of late--they don't offer enough pro bodies so pros use their consumer bodies. I mean 1DS MKIII vs 5DMKII/III--hands down I'm buying 2 5ds for less than the price of one 1DSMKIII -- 2x less than the 1D series. The images are almost identical. Unless one actually just must have the speed and autofocus etc the 1DX offers, it's 5D time. I get that totally. It's like Canon priced itself out of pros buying their pro cameras, unless absolutely necessary.
I do prefer the 1D series feel over the others, though. they give me more to hold onto and I can control the camera better. Now, if they came out with a 5d camera with the same body style as a 1D series, that would be it. I'd go 5D also.
What a Canon person told me is that pro photographers simply don't have the money for the pro models any more, and buy the prosumer models, while the doctors lawyers etc get the pro models which are now bought in the vast majority by amateurs. Of course -my comment - this removes any incentive to keep the prices on the pro models reasonable, they are a cash pump.
Edmund
-
Maybe it helps to forget the labels "pro", "pro-sumer", amateur etc. and just consider all current DSLRs have adequate sensors for most commercial work and professionals choose bodies based on their specific requirements (ruggedness, weight, cost, lens compatibility, AF speed/quality, frame rate, focal length multiplier and so on). A "pro" body is any body that you trust to make you money!
A few professionals can also use higher pixel counts but 18MP is already absolutely masses of resolution, if your lenses are up to it (Easily enough for magazines, billboards or weddings for example).
-
What a Canon person told me is that pro photographers simply don't have the money for the pro models any more, and buy the prosumer models, while the doctors lawyers etc get the pro models which are now bought in the vast majority by amateurs. Of course -my comment - this removes any incentive to keep the prices on the pro models reasonable, they are a cash pump.
Edmund
Well, they shot themselves in the foot, really. I mean their consumer cameras have nearly the same resolving power and IQ that their pro cameras have. The exception is the 1DX model that came out last year, which is truly a fascinating pro camera--if you need to shoot action and you do it for a living. It seems to be a little better IQ wise than the closest thing Nikon has in that same area. Of course Nikon hasn't released their action camera yet, their new, new one either.
Yet even the people really needing that speed are a little put off by the reduction in MPs. After all, they need to blow things up also, especially wildlife shooters.
For everything except sports shooters and wildlife shooters, who both need that 12fps for optimum shooting, the 5D series does everything a pro needs. When I bought my 1DS MKIII I did it before the 5DMKII came out, or it would have been an easy choice to go 5DMKII. I mean I could have two of them plus 2K left over for the price of one 1DSMKIII.
For what I do, I don't need top end speeds. I would really like to have more MPs for cropping, since I like to crop square much of the time. That 38MP monstrosity Nikon came up with for under 4K looks really good to me. Canon has absolutely nothing to compare to it. I don't understand canon right now at all. I'm disgusted how they implemented their RT flash system and their lack of pushing MPs, as Nikon has done.
I was fully prepared to put the cash down on the new Canon 35MP 1DS MKIV, with the option to shoot 18MP files as fast as the new 1DX does. For the price of the 1DX, I don't see why Canon didn't do something like that. I mean instead of going backwards in MPs, they could have gone forward and offered both more MPs and a camera as fast as the 1DX. That would put Nikon out of the running in that price range, since Canon could have captured both MPs and speed in one camera. I realize that noise at higher ISO would still be a problem, as it is with the Nikon camera. So that is a problem.
But it seems that canon could have split the difference in MPs, say 28MPs, to reduce high ISO noise, but still kept the camera fast with the option t go to 18mp for speed shooting, while offering a 28MP camera for those who need more MPs.
Instead, they decided to completely ignore MPs technology for speed. Nikon has both, Canon doesn't.
-
Maybe it helps to forget the labels "pro", "pro-sumer", amateur etc. and just consider all current DSLRs have adequate sensors for most commercial work and professionals choose bodies based on their specific requirements (ruggedness, weight, cost, lens compatibility, AF speed/quality, frame rate, focal length multiplier and so on). A "pro" body is any body that you trust to make you money!
A few professionals can also use higher pixel counts but 18MP is already absolutely masses of resolution, if your lenses are up to it (Easily enough for magazines, billboards or weddings for example).
MPs disappear fast when you're cropping. More is always desirable. 18mps for cropping and enlargements is pushing it. Imagine have 38mps to crop with. Imagine the freedom. Since the aspect ratio of modern digital is wide and thin, compared to other past aspect ratios, one being square, you can lose lots of MPs when cropping for creative purposes. I mean camera manufacturers came up with "the aspect" ratio for their own reasons. It has really no bearing on creative aspect ratios. The current aspect ratios are more conducive to horizontal landscape than they are, for example, portraits or fine art. So if you end up needing a square format, you are losing something like 20-30% of your total resolution. "Pro" cameras mean just that: They have more MPS, they are faster, and they are more sturdy than consumer cameras. There should be a definable difference between the two, enough to justify the extra expense. The only way you can get 12fps at 18MPs, for example, is to buy a "pro" camera (the Canon 1DX). If you don't need that speed, you are only getting a pro body for yuor money, because even the 5DII will resolve as well as the 1DX can, perhaps better.
I'm simply not impressed with canon over the last 3 years. On the upside, I will not need to invest in their new flash system nor upgrade my 1DSMKIII for the foreseeable future--given that Canon is updating their 'pro" line for the next few years. And I'd bet people in the pro area and prosumer area wanting MPs will go Nikon for that 38mp camera they have, unless Canon can offer something similar. It's going to be an exodus from canon to Nikon, especially if Nikon can offer a flash system that doesn't throw under the buss all of it's past customers except those who have one year old cameras or newer, like Canon did.
In summary, if Nikon can outperform Canon with its new RF flash system, by offering backward compatibility, 2nd curtain off camera, and zoom control from camera, and Canon has nothing to match Nikon MPs, it's going to get very hard over at Canon. I mean who would think that a new flash system that is only compatible with 2012 cameras and newer? Who would ever think that is a good marketing move?
If I were Nikon, I'd see a knock out blow by doing two things:
(1) Offering a camera that does what the Canon 1DX does (should be no problem at all).
(2) Continue working on high MPs technology that Canon does not have.
(3) Update a backward compatible USB firmware up-datable RF flash system that works at least as well as the Phottix Odin/PW offerings (Should not be a problem either, since that technology already works. They might even contract to one of those companies to develop a built in FW upgradable system, like they did with Sony and the Sony sensor a few years back).
If Nikon can roll that out in the next year or so, and Canon doesn't pull its head out, I just can't see much future for Canon in the pro market. Maybe they can maintain the consumer market, but if they can't do the above and Nikon can, it's over for them. I'll give Canon two more years, and by then I'll be ready to upgrade my equipment. If canon is still disrespecting customers, like it did with it's RT flash system, I'll be going to Nikon.
-
You see no difference? Try shooting at an ISO setting over 400. Try Shooting at longer exposures. Try tracking an object moving fast and erratically. Try using Live view.
Ellis, all true. Try cropping out 35% of your pixels and enlarging and see what happens. There simply is no replacement for more MPs, no matter how nice a lower MP file is.
If one needs the speed of the 1DX, then it's worth it. If you need to shoot over 1600ISO, then it's worth it. Barring those two specifics, I don't think "upgrading" from the 1DSMKIII is going t be very convincing to most people. You can do a lot of high quality noise reduction in software these days, but you can never add MPs to a file. And then there is the 36+ MP Nikon. I can't understand what canon is ding expect pushing pros to Nikon, where there are more options.
-
The modern Hi-Iso cameras are incredible at focusing and for natural light. If you never have a need for that, don't talk about it. I've pushed my Nikon D4 into taking pictures in light so dim that I couldn't see.
Edmund
Ellis, all true. Try cropping out 35% of your pixels and enlarging and see what happens. There simply is no replacement for more MPs, no matter how nice a lower MP file is.
If one needs the speed of the 1DX, then it's worth it. If you need to shoot over 1600ISO, then it's worth it. Barring those two specifics, I don't think "upgrading" from the 1DSMKIII is going t be very convincing to most people. You can do a lot of high quality noise reduction in software these days, but you can never add MPs to a file. And then there is the 36+ MP Nikon. I can't understand what canon is ding expect pushing pros to Nikon, where there are more options.
-
Well, that is important. Focusing, even on the 1DSMKIII and all of it's IQ is pretty poor in low light. I'd like the 1Dx's ability to do that, but it's not reason for me to 'upgrade.' But Nikon has had a very high ISO camera with equivalent MPs to Canon as far back as 2008.
The modern Hi-Iso cameras are incredible at focusing and for natural light. If you never have a need for that, don't talk about it. I've pushed my Nikon D4 into taking pictures in light so dim that I couldn't see.
Edmund
-
Do you have experience shooting tethered in the studio, with the Canon 1Ds MK III and Lightroom. My current rig involves a trusty old iDs MK II and a Firewire connection; it's quirky sometimes but workable. I was wondering if the MK III would be much slower since it uses a USB connection. Any and all help would be appreciated.
JGeiger Photography
-
My 1DsIII tethered to my older MBP OS10.9.5/8GB RAM/250GB SSD and 27" ACD takes about two seconds to preview an image.