I traded my 5D2 for a junkyard 1Ds3 because I wanted something that could focus, and surprise! the files are solid. In particular, the cheekbone burnout effect which annoyed me on the 1ds2 in my model-shooting days is now well controlled.
Nobody seems to want these tanks of a camera, so I think there is going to be a huge supply of them floating around. I think the shutters are rated forever. Maybe you too can trade for your 5D2's if you really don't want them for video.
There is one issue with using this aging camera btw, apparently some newer Canon chargers supplied with the 1Ds3 have issues with clone batteries, so if you get clones get them in a pack with a charger -or bite the bullet on Canon batteries.
DPP pulls a lot more detail and "shape" out of the file than anything else - I knew that but was still surprised again at the extent of the change - the files come to life. I really don't know if this is due to Canon having measured their AA filter and computed an exact inverse, or whether they are using some trickery.
Edmund
I don't think these large cameras will go away for professional production, they're just too sturdy and too well accepted. I see a lot of Canons on set, less Nikons, some medium format, which is always an H body.
I think DPP works because Canon doesn't give out all the info of their file, or if they do Adobe or others don't use it. I've always been told that Adobe does backward compatible for their raw processing, but I think Adobe just like's orange skintones.
One thing the 1dx does well is tether with DPP though ethernet. We did a gig this year and shot over 9,000 frames and not one freeze on the computer, not one drop, not one issue. Never have I tethered for 4 days and not had at least one crash a day so the ethernet tethering is wicked and I love dpp to tether. I run bridge in the background to check focus and to sort as we go on the fly and any powerbook will run it.
1ds2's and 3's do blow out their shutters. Blew one on every 2 and 3 I owned and 1 shutter on the 1ds1. That's 5 shutters, but Canon fixes them fast and cheap.
I rarely sell cameras, could kick myself for selling both of my 3's, but I might buy two more and just keep working.
I know I won't buy another 5d2. I bought it for video and never shot more than 10 minutes with it, but for stills it's ok, not great, but ok.
For the Non pixel peeping crowd the Canon is still the favorite at least from what I see in the studios and cities I work and I would be surprised if more Nikons are used for professional work than Canons and no I don't have a dog in this hunt as I own cameras from almost every brand.
Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system. The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.
This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras. I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.
If I had more faith in sony and knew how well the A7 focused and tethered I might buy one, but I dunno, Sony always worries me.
IMO
BC
It's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.
I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.