Isn't Nikon the company that doesn't unlock the full functionality of the camera unless you buy the grip as well? Isn't that just a way of getting people to spend a bit more money? You seem to have the attitude that Canon = Bad and Nikon = Good in virtually every post you ever make. Is there anything about Canon you actually like? You seem to use their cameras quite often so I guess you can't think they are all bad?
Looking back through all my in focus 5D MkII images I really don't seem to be struggling with the AF system, and I don't consider myself to be some kind of photographic genius.
Most wedding photographers I see only use the centre point 99.9% of the time anyhow. What is it that you are using all those other points for? At least with only 9 points it is easy to select the one you need if you have to.
I have to disagree on several points here. 1st of all I would characterize Matt as "leaning towards" nikon but he certainly acknowledges strengths and weakness of both systems. 2ndly how do you know that most wedding photographers use the center point 99.9% of the time? That seems like a baseless statement. I for one use a focal point other then the center most of the time.
I have to disagree on several points here. 1st of all I would characterize Matt as "leaning towards" nikon but he certainly acknowledges strengths and weakness of both systems. 2ndly how do you know that most wedding photographers use the center point 99.9% of the time? That seems like a baseless statement. I for one use a focal point other then the center most of the time.
Firstly, you are just as much of a Nikon fanboi as he is, so you would say that wouldn't you
Secondly. I specifically said wedding photographers "I see", I made no claim to have seen every wedding photographer in the world. However, I have seen about 100 at weddings I guess, and I would say that most of them (that means more than 50%) use the centre point 99.9% of the time. It's easy to spot as you can see them go focus, recompose, click....
I suspect I haven't seen you at work as you probably live in another country to me, but either way I don't see how what you do makes what I said a baseless statement?
Isn't Nikon the company that doesn't unlock the full functionality of the camera unless you buy the grip as well? Isn't that just a way of getting people to spend a bit more money? You seem to have the attitude that Canon = Bad and Nikon = Good in virtually every post you ever make. Is there anything about Canon you actually like? You seem to use their cameras quite often so I guess you can't think they are all bad?
Looking back through all my in focus 5D MkII images I really don't seem to be struggling with the AF system, and I don't consider myself to be some kind of photographic genius.
Most wedding photographers I see only use the centre point 99.9% of the time anyhow. What is it that you are using all those other points for? At least with only 9 points it is easy to select the one you need if you have to.
I totally understand your viewpoint, and I can totally see how I come across like that. I sound like a fanboy a lot, but trust me- I'm not blindly zealous about *ANYTHING*. :-)
1.) The reason for only enabling 8 FPS is because extra voltage is needed, allegedly. Maybe Nikon is lying about that, I wouldn't put it past them. But 6 FPS vs 8 FPS is not NEARLY as dramatic a difference as, say for example, the Canon 85 1.8 vs the 85 1.2.
2.) Nikon sucks on so many levels. This just isn't a topic about what Nikon needs to improve on, this is a topic about what Canon ought to do next. But off the top of my head, I could name plenty of things Nikon REALLY needs to improve on.
3.) I shoot with Canon regularly. As a wedding photographer who often 2nd shoots, and as a workshop teacher, I know most every Canon DSLR ever made since the 10D and 1Ds. I thoroughly enjoy their advantages, including the amazingly effortless skin tones, the cool thumb wheel, and the ability to change ISO with my right hand. And that last one is definitely on my list of things Nikon REALLY needs to figure out.
4.) Yes, it is tragic how much I see portraits and wedding photo with the subject's face dead-center. It's incredibly boring to see so many thousands of images with almost zero thought to composition; people just shoot wide open on their nice 1.2 lens, use the center focus point all the time, and call it "good enough" because the client doesn't know any better. So yes, I do strive to focus on composition as much as I possibly can. Sometimes I can get away with using my center point and re-composing, but many times I NEED to use an off-center focus point if I am going to guarantee an in-focus shot. (BTW if I need to move my focus points around quickly, I can just set the camera to only select from 11 AF points...)
Anyways, I hope you will consider me a camera geek more than a fanboy. Honestly if I were independently wealthy, I'd own just as much Canon gear as Nikon gear, and I'd probably have a Sony, Olympus, and Sigma too. I love technology and each brand's diverse market placement. But the bottom line for now is that I'm not rich, and Nikon's system has always been the practical choice for me considering the extremely wide range of things I find myself shooting. It really stank for Nikon pre-FX, but fortunately I wasn't doing very much low-light work back then so I survived that embarrassing time. ;-)
I don't really like using the center point, not with 45 to choose from ;~). But on the 5D2, you don't have that many. But I'd still rather learn to select different points really quickly (I have learned to do that) and just use whatever point is on the subject.
C'mon people, VOTE!
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I don't really like using the center point, not with 45 to choose from ;~). But on the 5D2, you don't have that many. But I'd still rather learn to select different points really quickly (I have learned to do that) and just use whatever point is on the subject.
C'mon people, VOTE!
Having focus points that are CROSS-TYPE spread out around the edges is a wonderful thing, huh? (Are you listening, Nikon?)
I totally understand your viewpoint, and I can totally see how I come across like that. I sound like a fanboy a lot, but trust me- I'm not blindly zealous about *ANYTHING*. :-)
1.) The reason for only enabling 8 FPS is because extra voltage is needed, allegedly. Maybe Nikon is lying about that, I wouldn't put it past them. But 6 FPS vs 8 FPS is not NEARLY as dramatic a difference as, say for example, the Canon 85 1.8 vs the 85 1.2.
2.) Nikon sucks on so many levels. This just isn't a topic about what Nikon needs to improve on, this is a topic about what Canon ought to do next. But off the top of my head, I could name plenty of things Nikon REALLY needs to improve on.
3.) I shoot with Canon regularly. As a wedding photographer who often 2nd shoots, and as a workshop teacher, I know most every Canon DSLR ever made since the 10D and 1Ds. I thoroughly enjoy their advantages, including the amazingly effortless skin tones, the cool thumb wheel, and the ability to change ISO with my right hand. And that last one is definitely on my list of things Nikon REALLY needs to figure out.
4.) Yes, it is tragic how much I see portraits and wedding photo with the subject's face dead-center. It's incredibly boring to see so many thousands of images with almost zero thought to composition; people just shoot wide open on their nice 1.2 lens, use the center focus point all the time, and call it "good enough" because the client doesn't know any better. So yes, I do strive to focus on composition as much as I possibly can. Sometimes I can get away with using my center point and re-composing, but many times I NEED to use an off-center focus point if I am going to guarantee an in-focus shot. (BTW if I need to move my focus points around quickly, I can just set the camera to only select from 11 AF points...)
Anyways, I hope you will consider me a camera geek more than a fanboy. Honestly if I were independently wealthy, I'd own just as much Canon gear as Nikon gear, and I'd probably have a Sony, Olympus, and Sigma too. I love technology and each brand's diverse market placement. But the bottom line for now is that I'm not rich, and Nikon's system has always been the practical choice for me considering the extremely wide range of things I find myself shooting. It really stank for Nikon pre-FX, but fortunately I wasn't doing very much low-light work back then so I survived that embarrassing time. ;-)
Take care,
=Matt=
Well, first let me say I don't mean the word fanboy as a terrible insult. As an owner of a macbook pro, mac pro, ipad and iphone that would be quite hypocritical
Regarding the canon lenses. The 85 1.2 is a lovely lens and generally considered to be one of the best lenses money can buy. The 1.8 is also a good lens. Sure, a midrange 1.4 would be a nice option but I guess there is a limit to how many lenses they can realistically produce. It is quite possible to use the 1.8 professionally as it is a nice sharp lens so I don't think there is any reason to ascribe devious motives. Obviously a 1.2 lens is much more complex and expensive to build than a 1.4 so it costs more. I guess you personally might prefer a cheaper slightly slower option, but that's your personal preference and other people may prefer the opposite.
Regarding the composition of images, I quite agree, but that wasn't what I was saying. It is quite possible to compose the subject off centre by focusing the centre point on the subject's eyes, then pointing the camera in the direction required for your chosen composition. A lot of photographers use this technique, for example, I noticed Jasmine Star doing it on her creative live wedding. Obviously it is different if you are on a tripod and the camera direction is fixed.
Well, first let me say I don't mean the word fanboy as a terrible insult. As an owner of a macbook pro, mac pro, ipad and iphone that would be quite hypocritical
Regarding the canon lenses. The 85 1.2 is a lovely lens and generally considered to be one of the best lenses money can buy. The 1.8 is also a good lens. Sure, a midrange 1.4 would be a nice option but I guess there is a limit to how many lenses they can realistically produce. It is quite possible to use the 1.8 professionally as it is a nice sharp lens so I don't think there is any reason to ascribe devious motives. Obviously a 1.2 lens is much more complex and expensive to build than a 1.4 so it costs more. I guess you personally might prefer a cheaper slightly slower option, but that's your personal preference and other people may prefer the opposite.
Regarding the composition of images, I quite agree, but that wasn't what I was saying. It is quite possible to compose the subject off centre by focusing the centre point on the subject's eyes, then pointing the camera in the direction required for your chosen composition. A lot of photographers use this technique, for example, I noticed Jasmine Star doing it on her creative live wedding. Obviously it is different if you are on a tripod and the camera direction is fixed.
...And 10-20% of the images Jasmine blogs are slightly out of focus. :-P
With respect to the 1.2 vs 1.4 vs 1.8, I do agree that it was simply Canon's decision to go for broke and make the best lens on the market. And the 1.8 is great. So I guess you could say the increased sales / profits are just a side effect of their decision to pursue excellence. But I still think it's not a coincidence how consistently Canon designs things to subtly encourage upgrading...
j* is a media tart, all brand no knickers. I can think of 20 different photographers locally who could outshoot her for a quarter of the money whilst drunk and being shot at by spetsnaz snipers. I really hate products. She is the ultra product. I mean really, she is so far up herself she can lick her own tonsils. Folks like Ed Pingol are a world apart in quality but considerably quieter.
Sorry to pick on matt but as his was the last post I could see his sig. Look at his work, considerably better, more rounded, great posing, excellent candids, look at j*'s competent at best, on a good day. but she sells, the justin bieber of the tog world.
Whatever lies in nikons future I hope they do not do the same as canon. Not that either brand is wrong, but having that choice is excellent. A brace of d700's was at the top of my list a couple of years back until I tried the 5d2, for what I wanted it did the job better but I was happy to focus and recompose or just mf.
I definitely have nothing against running a business smartly and creating a product that sells like hotcakes. We all need to pay our bills and save for retirement. And I'm actually very close friends with MANY local "A-list" photographers whose work I used to admire but have since moved on to the likes of Ed Pingol as you mentioned, or Jerry Ghionis, Yervant, Jeff Ascough, etc.
I dunno, after you've seen a good half-million wedding images, you just get a little jaded. My standards soared to impossible heights, and it kinda stinks because now I find it very difficult to enjoy my peers' images, and my own, without seeing 3-5 glaring aesthetic errors. But at the same time it pushes me to always improve, even if I know my clients will never know the difference. I can only hope to be remembered as a good artist MORESO than a great businessman.
:-D
...Of course I still enjoy a healthy geek-debate on a subject as inconsequential (to a business' success) as how focus+recompose can give you fuzzy images at f/1.2 when shooting a shifting subject... ;-)
Well I guess J* will be crying all the way to the bank over what you guys say about her on here, but personally I really like her work and have always found her a pleasant person to deal with.
My point though was simply that many wedding photographers use the focus and recompose technique (and therefore probably are quite happy with only 9 points), whether you approve of this technique is not really relevant, you're just beating up a straw man.
Actually, I'll expand a little on that, I do not like people who over promise and under deliver. It's not the way to be. The problem with brand and marketing is sometimes, at some point marketing takes on a life of its own and exceeds the product. The problem there is some people then believe their own marketing.
Well, that's fine, but I don't think it applies to her at all. She is actually very down to earth and does not go around making out she is the best photographer in the world. OTOH, she always seems to be able to make brides look stunning, in a very natural way, in her images so I doubt very much that her clients feel she has under delivered.
You seem to have a very negative view of her for some reason, but I cannot understand why? Is it women photographers in general that you don't like?
Sure I'm sexist lol no not at all, I never said I didn't like your work (which I do like). I did mention my thoughts and reasons.
Didn't say you were sexist. But women photographers often have a different style to men (there's me being sexist I guess, yes this is a huge generalisation) and it might be that you do not like that style in general? I don't think that would make you sexist, but it was interesting that all the photographers mentioned by you and Matt in a positive light were men, and the one you don't like is a woman.
A lot of the comments on J*s blog are from women photographers, so maybe women photographers like women photographers and vice versa.
Not that we have hijacked this thread or anything I am assuming this isn't being taken personally. One female tog that springs to mind would be Kim Aihara (again like Ed P, awesome amounts of talent, humble and a great laugh) another would be Rebecca Honeywell. Maybe you right, perhaps it is a style thing? Not sure why the first ones we thought of were men although , perhaps related more to the higher % of men in the game although that is changing (for the better) these days. I did only mention one tog also.
As I said before though I think it isn't about style, its about attitude. Remember I'm from yorkshire where we drive muddy old defenders, not like all you post cheshire folks with your wayne rovers I do prefer understatement \ quiet competence. If you are going to make a loud noise about yourself you better be beyond awesome. I just like to plod along and have fun and if people like what I do they book me. If not they go elsewhere, its all good. The kids still get fed.
Not taking anything personally (although if I was her I guess being branded a media tart might not be very nice). I think I see where you are coming from though. It's not so much that you don't like J*s photography, just that you don't like her profile/prominence. I think you have to take into account she is based in California, and if you think us cheshire types are show offs, maybe californians are a bit much for your taste.
TBH though, I don't think any of the very well known photographers out there are exactly shy retiring types, you have to be a bit of a self publicist as well as being a great photographer to get into that position. All I can say though, is that from the limited correspondence I have had with her she seemed like a genuine person, and actually quite self deprecating. Her creative live videos are all very down to earth and revealing, I highly recommend them.
Please folks, let's get back on track to the discussion of the Canon 1Ds MKIV conjecture. Thanks.
Sorry, back to the question.
MF - No, small saturated market already.
High FPS - Isn't that the 1d
Standard upgrade - Maybe but it's taking a while, possibly they have had a technical delay though
Dropping the 1ds - Maybe if the 1d mkV has full frame they will no longer need 2 1d models
MF - No, small saturated market already.
High FPS - Isn't that the 1d
Standard upgrade - Maybe but it's taking a while, possibly they have had a technical delay though
Dropping the 1ds - Maybe if the 1d mkV has full frame they will no longer need 2 1d models
I'm not that knowledgeable about the 1 series because it is well beyond my wallet and, on the occasions I used one, too heavy - but I guess that goes away with practice. Seeing as the guy who let me use his tends to backpack around with several kilos of lenses and other accessories, body weight is not his biggest issue.
It does however seem to me that Canon took a decision with the 1s to introduce a market segmentation for the real pros. On the one hand the Mark IV for news and sport with rapid-fire and automatic focus as priorities. On the other hand, the studio/wedding guys with the s standing for sensitivity.
Like normal Japanese practice, the next S body will include dozens of incremental improvements over the previous generation based on market feedback. I suspect it will also include step improvements in sensitivity, particularly in megapixels. Perhaps the stuff which is now only available in after-market software, like focus stacking and hdr, will be included in-camera as a creative option. Increasingly customers are interested in the HD format, so I would expect a signal in that direction. Studio photographers are best placed to say which changes they want because this will be their camera.
By the way, I enjoyed the off-topic link to J's site. OK, it is a distinctively Orange County approach but I find her photos to be fresh and original.
Just thought maybe Canon wants to make an MF-type 1Ds (obviously not MF sensor size, EF lenses can't handle that). A lot of MF users might be interested. Remember that rumor that Canon wanted to buy Pentax? ;~)
I really think it's time, if not the above option, that Canon thinks about merging the 2 1D and 1Ds lines. 24mp, 10fps, etc etc, best features of both lines. Nikon did a fast FF with the D3 and D3s, and somewhat with the D700. Why can't Canon? And there have been rumors (nothing all that reliable) that said Canon might split the 5-series. Don't really see that happening, but it would be interesting: 2 5-series lines and 1 1-series.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Just thought maybe Canon wants to make an MF-type 1Ds (obviously not MF sensor size, EF lenses can't handle that). A lot of MF users might be interested. Remember that rumor that Canon wanted to buy Pentax? ;~)
I really think it's time, if not the above option, that Canon thinks about merging the 2 1D and 1Ds lines. 24mp, 10fps, etc etc, best features of both lines. Nikon did a fast FF with the D3 and D3s, and somewhat with the D700. Why can't Canon? And there have been rumors (nothing all that reliable) that said Canon might split the 5-series. Don't really see that happening, but it would be interesting: 2 5-series lines and 1 1-series.
You're overlooking the one practical matter- when shooting action sports and news photojournalism etc, ...megapixels matter in the "opposite" direction. That's why the Nikon D2H held it's own against the 2x higher resolution 1D mk2, and that's why Nikon stuck with 12 megapixels for years, with much success, while Canon pressed on to 16 and 21.
In my speculative opinion, a merge of the FF and 1.3x lineup will just never happen. People expected it to happen with each new generation, but the bottom line is this- The slight crop REALLY helps for telephoto shooters, (sports / wildlife) both because of the extra reach inherent, AND because the crop also spreads out the AF points to PERFECT locations around the viewfinder, much unlike the 1Ds series that still requires focus + re-compose even to hit the rule of thirds. That, and the lower megapixel count allows Canon to keep the pixel size big enough to deliver awesome low-light performance even with a crop factor. The 1D mk3 and mk4 do *GREAT* ISO 6400 and 12800. Even though so many wedding shooters dismiss the 1.3x crop quickly because they think FF is absolutely necessary, there are still plenty of night-time sports shooters, and dusk / dawn wildlife shooters, taking full advantage of the 1D-series performance.
If they were to merge the two lines, either Canon would have to forfeit it's $8,000 premium on the highest flagship model, and *only* offer a ~$6,000 model, ...OR all the sports shooters who previously had a $4,000 1.3x option will now have to double their expenses AND give up the advantages of the crop. Not gonna happen, IMO.
Yes, a $6,000 25 MP 10 FPS camera would sell like hotcakes. But would it make financial sense to Canon? I don't think so, but of course I don't know any exact profit or sales numbers, so of course we're just having fun guessing.
When Nikon came out with the 12 megapixel D3 and D3s, it was indeed a brilliant move because it pointed out the one major flaw in Canon's 1.3x business model- ultra-wide "in-your-face" action sports. Canon completely monopolized the 1.3x, telephoto shooter market, and rightfully so- If I had to shoot football or birds / wildlife, I'd use a 1D mk3 or mk4, hands-down. Okay maybe a D3s with it's crazy ISO performance could get by with Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR, but you get my point. Canon cornered the telephoto market.
...Which is EXACTLY why Nikon made the stunning 14-24 at the same exact time they made the D3. I still have that poster of the image Sandro made for the Nikon ad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOv9tPSbZFI ...Anyway, my point is that Nikon's choice to make a FX sports camera did not signal the end of the 2-camera flagship era, it was only a tactical move to fill a gap in Canon's lineup. Nikon still came out with the highly successful D3X, and we fully expect to see a D4 / D4X combo in the next few years.
Here's the bottom line for me- I think Canon will indeed "attack" the MF market with it's next 1Ds camera body. 30-40 megapixels alone will do the trick; even if they don't make any quantum leaps in ISO or DR technology, the D3X for example is still WORLDS ahead of any MF camera for high ISO, and a serious contender that beats many (or most?) MF backs for DR.
You're overlooking the one practical matter- when shooting action sports and news photojournalism etc, ...megapixels matter in the "opposite" direction. That's why the Nikon D2H held it's own against the 2x higher resolution 1D mk2, and that's why Nikon stuck with 12 megapixels for years, with much success, while Canon pressed on to 16 and 21.
In my speculative opinion, a merge of the FF and 1.3x lineup will just never happen. People expected it to happen with each new generation, but the bottom line is this- The slight crop REALLY helps for telephoto shooters, (sports / wildlife) both because of the extra reach inherent, AND because the crop also spreads out the AF points to PERFECT locations around the viewfinder, much unlike the 1Ds series that still requires focus + re-compose even to hit the rule of thirds. That, and the lower megapixel count allows Canon to keep the pixel size big enough to deliver awesome low-light performance even with a crop factor. The 1D mk3 and mk4 do *GREAT* ISO 6400 and 12800. Even though so many wedding shooters dismiss the 1.3x crop quickly because they think FF is absolutely necessary, there are still plenty of night-time sports shooters, and dusk / dawn wildlife shooters, taking full advantage of the 1D-series performance.
If they were to merge the two lines, either Canon would have to forfeit it's $8,000 premium on the highest flagship model, and *only* offer a ~$6,000 model, ...OR all the sports shooters who previously had a $4,000 1.3x option will now have to double their expenses AND give up the advantages of the crop. Not gonna happen, IMO.
Yes, a $6,000 25 MP 10 FPS camera would sell like hotcakes. But would it make financial sense to Canon? I don't think so, but of course I don't know any exact profit or sales numbers, so of course we're just having fun guessing.
When Nikon came out with the 12 megapixel D3 and D3s, it was indeed a brilliant move because it pointed out the one major flaw in Canon's 1.3x business model- ultra-wide "in-your-face" action sports. Canon completely monopolized the 1.3x, telephoto shooter market, and rightfully so- If I had to shoot football or birds / wildlife, I'd use a 1D mk3 or mk4, hands-down. Okay maybe a D3s with it's crazy ISO performance could get by with Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR, but you get my point. Canon cornered the telephoto market.
...Which is EXACTLY why Nikon made the stunning 14-24 at the same exact time they made the D3. I still have that poster of the image Sandro made for the Nikon ad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOv9tPSbZFI ...Anyway, my point is that Nikon's choice to make a FX sports camera did not signal the end of the 2-camera flagship era, it was only a tactical move to fill a gap in Canon's lineup. Nikon still came out with the highly successful D3X, and we fully expect to see a D4 / D4X combo in the next few years.
Here's the bottom line for me- I think Canon will indeed "attack" the MF market with it's next 1Ds camera body. 30-40 megapixels alone will do the trick; even if they don't make any quantum leaps in ISO or DR technology, the D3X for example is still WORLDS ahead of any MF camera for high ISO, and a serious contender that beats many (or most?) MF backs for DR.
Happy speculating,
=Matt=
I guess canon could enable an option to only use a 1.3 or 1.6 crop of the sensor in a merged 1d/1ds. This could be linked to higher fps if data throughput is the limiting factor.
In the longer term, I can't help feeling that the real innovation at the moment is happening with cameras like the g1 etc where they are doing away with the optical viewfinder. These could evolve into something much more professional over the next few years, and I suspect that removing the viewfinder probably makes it easier to design fast affordable, compact lenses. Imagine something the size of the m9 with a really high res LCD viewfinder and great lenses to go with it. Canon or Nikon could make it affordable with economies of scale, I'd be all over that!
Good point, the crop really helps sometimes... I was gonna say the 7D, but the 7-series is very different from the 1-series... but the D3s is FF, and still has the best high ISO performance of any DSLR... but yes, the 1.3x is important...
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I guess canon could enable an option to only use a 1.3 or 1.6 crop of the sensor in a merged 1d/1ds. This could be linked to higher fps if data throughput is the limiting factor.
In the longer term, I can't help feeling that the real innovation at the moment is happening with cameras like the g1 etc where they are doing away with the optical viewfinder. These could evolve into something much more professional over the next few years, and I suspect that removing the viewfinder probably makes it easier to design fast affordable, compact lenses. Imagine something the size of the m9 with a really high res LCD viewfinder and great lenses to go with it. Canon or Nikon could make it affordable with economies of scale, I'd be all over that!
Good point; Nikon did that with the D2X, and it worked fine. But that doesn't overcome the hurdle of price, and I don't think Canon is going to give up their two separate price brackets any time soon. The $8K camera is a cash cow, and the $4K camera is also very profitable, and priced to sell.
Now, concerning EVF and stuff- Not even gonna go there. At this point, I'm very against the idea, and if they take away my optical viewfinder, I'll be stocking up on "old" DSLR's and retiring from professional photography.
Good point, the crop really helps sometimes... I was gonna say the 7D, but the 7-series is very different from the 1-series... but the D3s is FF, and still has the best high ISO performance of any DSLR... but yes, the 1.3x is important...
...Which is why I love the way Nikon has done their D300s, D700, and D3-series. The D300s has dual card slots, near-pro AF, 8 FPS, and near-pro reliable construction, sealing, etc. As a Nikon sports photographer, I'd be more than happy to use the D3s for low-light (but give up a bit of the telephoto) ...and use the D300s for daylight action (especially where extra reach is important)
The 7D is still a great camera though, I'd totally use it for sports along side a 1D mk3 or mk4. And with the 7D, you can use crop-sensor lenses to regain that ultra-wide feel that you lose with the 1.3x crop! Of course I guess you could use the Sigma 12-24 on the 1.3x since it's a FF lens, and hit ~16mm. But with 1.6x you have quite a few options, including Sigma's new 8-16, or Tokina's 11-16 if 2.8 is important, or of course the very respectable Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20, etc. etc. PLENTY of options to get you to ~14-17mm ultra-wide... It's not a D3s+14-24, but it gets the job done!
I guess canon could enable an option to only use a 1.3 or 1.6 crop of the sensor in a merged 1d/1ds. This could be linked to higher fps if data throughput is the limiting factor.
In the longer term, I can't help feeling that the real innovation at the moment is happening with cameras like the g1 etc where they are doing away with the optical viewfinder. These could evolve into something much more professional over the next few years, and I suspect that removing the viewfinder probably makes it easier to design fast affordable, compact lenses. Imagine something the size of the m9 with a really high res LCD viewfinder and great lenses to go with it. Canon or Nikon could make it affordable with economies of scale, I'd be all over that!
Nikon has an option on their pro D3-gen bodies to enable crop, but the problem is it's much lower res. From 12mp FF is like 5mp DX. But that might work on a 32mp 1Ds4! But I don't think the sensor will be square. The lenses don't have a big enough image circle, and I don't think it's as simple as ripping the rectangular ends off the backs of the lenses. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't see why Canon would give lenses a bigger image circle than needed, unless they PLANNED to have a square sensor...
The latest rumors point to a March 2011 release for the 5D3. It's pretty definite that the 5D3 will come before the next 1Ds. So, while it is very early, I'm gonna make a 1DsIV spec list...
32.7mp FF CMOS with good low light capabilities, but not like the D3s. Not square. DR improvements.
5fps
3.5" 1-million dot LCD, with improved LV
1080p @ 30fps, nothing new.
Digic V
1DIV AF
USB 3.0
Something radical. Lots of rumors have pointed to this, but no one's sure what it is. It could be USB 3.0, but who cares unless it would be used in place of FW, if it's faster. Or modularity (I just can't imagine Canon doing this). And I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with video. I think Canon will save video breakthroughs for the 5-series.
What say you?
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Nikon has an option on their pro D3-gen bodies to enable crop, but the problem is it's much lower res. From 12mp FF is like 5mp DX. But that might work on a 32mp 1Ds4! But I don't think the sensor will be square. The lenses don't have a big enough image circle, and I don't think it's as simple as ripping the rectangular ends off the backs of the lenses. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't see why Canon would give lenses a bigger image circle than needed, unless they PLANNED to have a square sensor...
The 24 MP D3X can hit ~11 MP with 1.5x crop, but I don't think they *let* it get to 8 FPS. Again, product differentiation. It sounds like an awesome idea, but I think the companies have done the math and probably decided they'd be forfeiting profits if they rolled two cameras into one...
But like I said, I've never done the math, so I dunno for sure...
Somehow doubt it would be ECF. It could be but wouldn't they have to spend a bunch of money on testing, making sure it's safe, etc.? Would it be different on digital?
I've never used an EOS 3, but I did use an Elen 7e and it seemed like the AF was pretty slow... is it different on the 3? I understand they're each in a totally different market, but is the AF different?
I just figured out what it's gotta be... Of course! A new and improved direct print button! Everyone's been asking for it, and Canon seems to deliver with every new DSLR...
That's gotta be it, and it makes sense with Canon...
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited November 30, 2010
A Regular upgrade to the 1Ds3
With how HORRID Canon's AF point control system was, you NEEDED eye-control back then. Otherwise it was just a joke, on the 45 point EOS 3.
(Me with an EOS 3 earlier this year...)
...Nowadays, with the little joystick capable of full-time focus point control, I don't really find eye-control to be very necessary. I can use my thumb to move the focus point around just as quickly as I can think about focusing my eye and hitting the shutter at exactly the same time, and sometimes having to do it twice when the first time misses and accidentally picks another point.
But, hey if the R&D has been done, I say throw it in! It wouldn't hurt. Aside from the fact that those menus are already complicated enough... :-(
That guy doesn't look like your avatar photo, Matt . Did you get a haircut or something?:D
Another point in favor of a radical 1ds-1d merge is that the 1Ds4 will have to compete with the D4 for most (or all) of its life, and the D3x. If the D4 is anything like the D3, I see problems for Canon. The 1D4 is already behind the D3s in their category. But I don't think the D4 will be anything major. The D2x (or did the D2h come first?) was a mediocre upgrade, and I think the even number tradition will continue. The reason? Well, Nikon may have some REALLY amazing stuff up their sleeve, but really, can the D3s sensor get any better? Is it physically posibble to increase the MP while maintaining the D3s's ISO performance, at full frame? Just don't think so. I think Nikon will have to lower the ISO a little in order to up the MP. I think it's pretty clear that the D4 will have more than 12mp.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited December 4, 2010
A Regular upgrade to the 1Ds3
The D4 might squeeze out 16-18 megapixels without compromising the D3S's level of low light performance, I bet.
That, and I think they may change up the AF system a little bit, but if you ask me that's not really much to get excited about; Canon's 45 point AF is already stellar and I prefer how the cross-type AF points are spread out more.
I still don't think the 1Ds 4 will merge the two canon flagship lines, though. Not right when Nikon has clearly put a TON of effort into achieving the same lineup split. There is obviously money to be made (and more function to achieve) by offering two separate pro bodies with two different purposes. I understand that technology *CAN* consolidate things, but professional tools have always been HIGHLY specialized.
Yes, Canon lacks a FF camera that can hit 8-10 FPS. But I don't think they can remedy that problem without forfeiting serious profit margins. If you do some rough math, you'll see that all the current cameras can handle roughly 100-150 megapixels per second. An 8-10 FPS 1Ds mk4 with 35-40 megapixels, well, you do the math. You'd have to roughly double the transfer speed of the 1D mk4, and I think they've already pulled out all the stops on that camera.
Canon users need to just come to terms with the fact that Nikon has filled a gap in their lineup, and if they want a full-frame, high-speed camera they need to get a D3 / D4.
Nikon users need to just come to terms with the fact that Canon will always have a slight advantage when it comes to telephoto sports etc. where the crop and AF point spread is critical.
Very valid points. Canon have mentioned in the past that they have issues with fast full frameness(i cant remember if it was mirror or ghosting related?). Maybe its just their tech and a different approach to Nikon \ Sony. If you need FF and FPS and the 1ds3 doesnt cut it fps wise for you the d3 is a great and logical choice. Just wish they would hurry up and release stuff already.
Well of course if anyone wants to hit ultra-wide angles on a 1.3x crop it's not really *THAT* difficult. Just slap a Sigma 12-24 on, and yeah you don't have f/2.8 or ISO as clean as the D3s, but it's good enough for anyone who's shooting...
Comments
I have to disagree on several points here. 1st of all I would characterize Matt as "leaning towards" nikon but he certainly acknowledges strengths and weakness of both systems. 2ndly how do you know that most wedding photographers use the center point 99.9% of the time? That seems like a baseless statement. I for one use a focal point other then the center most of the time.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Firstly, you are just as much of a Nikon fanboi as he is, so you would say that wouldn't you
Secondly. I specifically said wedding photographers "I see", I made no claim to have seen every wedding photographer in the world. However, I have seen about 100 at weddings I guess, and I would say that most of them (that means more than 50%) use the centre point 99.9% of the time. It's easy to spot as you can see them go focus, recompose, click....
I suspect I haven't seen you at work as you probably live in another country to me, but either way I don't see how what you do makes what I said a baseless statement?
I totally understand your viewpoint, and I can totally see how I come across like that. I sound like a fanboy a lot, but trust me- I'm not blindly zealous about *ANYTHING*. :-)
1.) The reason for only enabling 8 FPS is because extra voltage is needed, allegedly. Maybe Nikon is lying about that, I wouldn't put it past them. But 6 FPS vs 8 FPS is not NEARLY as dramatic a difference as, say for example, the Canon 85 1.8 vs the 85 1.2.
2.) Nikon sucks on so many levels. This just isn't a topic about what Nikon needs to improve on, this is a topic about what Canon ought to do next. But off the top of my head, I could name plenty of things Nikon REALLY needs to improve on.
3.) I shoot with Canon regularly. As a wedding photographer who often 2nd shoots, and as a workshop teacher, I know most every Canon DSLR ever made since the 10D and 1Ds. I thoroughly enjoy their advantages, including the amazingly effortless skin tones, the cool thumb wheel, and the ability to change ISO with my right hand. And that last one is definitely on my list of things Nikon REALLY needs to figure out.
4.) Yes, it is tragic how much I see portraits and wedding photo with the subject's face dead-center. It's incredibly boring to see so many thousands of images with almost zero thought to composition; people just shoot wide open on their nice 1.2 lens, use the center focus point all the time, and call it "good enough" because the client doesn't know any better. So yes, I do strive to focus on composition as much as I possibly can. Sometimes I can get away with using my center point and re-composing, but many times I NEED to use an off-center focus point if I am going to guarantee an in-focus shot. (BTW if I need to move my focus points around quickly, I can just set the camera to only select from 11 AF points...)
Anyways, I hope you will consider me a camera geek more than a fanboy. Honestly if I were independently wealthy, I'd own just as much Canon gear as Nikon gear, and I'd probably have a Sony, Olympus, and Sigma too. I love technology and each brand's diverse market placement. But the bottom line for now is that I'm not rich, and Nikon's system has always been the practical choice for me considering the extremely wide range of things I find myself shooting. It really stank for Nikon pre-FX, but fortunately I wasn't doing very much low-light work back then so I survived that embarrassing time. ;-)
Take care,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
C'mon people, VOTE!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Well, first let me say I don't mean the word fanboy as a terrible insult. As an owner of a macbook pro, mac pro, ipad and iphone that would be quite hypocritical
Regarding the canon lenses. The 85 1.2 is a lovely lens and generally considered to be one of the best lenses money can buy. The 1.8 is also a good lens. Sure, a midrange 1.4 would be a nice option but I guess there is a limit to how many lenses they can realistically produce. It is quite possible to use the 1.8 professionally as it is a nice sharp lens so I don't think there is any reason to ascribe devious motives. Obviously a 1.2 lens is much more complex and expensive to build than a 1.4 so it costs more. I guess you personally might prefer a cheaper slightly slower option, but that's your personal preference and other people may prefer the opposite.
Regarding the composition of images, I quite agree, but that wasn't what I was saying. It is quite possible to compose the subject off centre by focusing the centre point on the subject's eyes, then pointing the camera in the direction required for your chosen composition. A lot of photographers use this technique, for example, I noticed Jasmine Star doing it on her creative live wedding. Obviously it is different if you are on a tripod and the camera direction is fixed.
With respect to the 1.2 vs 1.4 vs 1.8, I do agree that it was simply Canon's decision to go for broke and make the best lens on the market. And the 1.8 is great. So I guess you could say the increased sales / profits are just a side effect of their decision to pursue excellence. But I still think it's not a coincidence how consistently Canon designs things to subtly encourage upgrading...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I dunno, after you've seen a good half-million wedding images, you just get a little jaded. My standards soared to impossible heights, and it kinda stinks because now I find it very difficult to enjoy my peers' images, and my own, without seeing 3-5 glaring aesthetic errors. But at the same time it pushes me to always improve, even if I know my clients will never know the difference. I can only hope to be remembered as a good artist MORESO than a great businessman.
:-D
...Of course I still enjoy a healthy geek-debate on a subject as inconsequential (to a business' success) as how focus+recompose can give you fuzzy images at f/1.2 when shooting a shifting subject... ;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
My point though was simply that many wedding photographers use the focus and recompose technique (and therefore probably are quite happy with only 9 points), whether you approve of this technique is not really relevant, you're just beating up a straw man.
Well, that's fine, but I don't think it applies to her at all. She is actually very down to earth and does not go around making out she is the best photographer in the world. OTOH, she always seems to be able to make brides look stunning, in a very natural way, in her images so I doubt very much that her clients feel she has under delivered.
You seem to have a very negative view of her for some reason, but I cannot understand why? Is it women photographers in general that you don't like?
Didn't say you were sexist. But women photographers often have a different style to men (there's me being sexist I guess, yes this is a huge generalisation) and it might be that you do not like that style in general? I don't think that would make you sexist, but it was interesting that all the photographers mentioned by you and Matt in a positive light were men, and the one you don't like is a woman.
A lot of the comments on J*s blog are from women photographers, so maybe women photographers like women photographers and vice versa.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Not taking anything personally (although if I was her I guess being branded a media tart might not be very nice). I think I see where you are coming from though. It's not so much that you don't like J*s photography, just that you don't like her profile/prominence. I think you have to take into account she is based in California, and if you think us cheshire types are show offs, maybe californians are a bit much for your taste.
TBH though, I don't think any of the very well known photographers out there are exactly shy retiring types, you have to be a bit of a self publicist as well as being a great photographer to get into that position. All I can say though, is that from the limited correspondence I have had with her she seemed like a genuine person, and actually quite self deprecating. Her creative live videos are all very down to earth and revealing, I highly recommend them.
Sorry, back to the question.
MF - No, small saturated market already.
High FPS - Isn't that the 1d
Standard upgrade - Maybe but it's taking a while, possibly they have had a technical delay though
Dropping the 1ds - Maybe if the 1d mkV has full frame they will no longer need 2 1d models
I'm not that knowledgeable about the 1 series because it is well beyond my wallet and, on the occasions I used one, too heavy - but I guess that goes away with practice. Seeing as the guy who let me use his tends to backpack around with several kilos of lenses and other accessories, body weight is not his biggest issue.
It does however seem to me that Canon took a decision with the 1s to introduce a market segmentation for the real pros. On the one hand the Mark IV for news and sport with rapid-fire and automatic focus as priorities. On the other hand, the studio/wedding guys with the s standing for sensitivity.
Like normal Japanese practice, the next S body will include dozens of incremental improvements over the previous generation based on market feedback. I suspect it will also include step improvements in sensitivity, particularly in megapixels. Perhaps the stuff which is now only available in after-market software, like focus stacking and hdr, will be included in-camera as a creative option. Increasingly customers are interested in the HD format, so I would expect a signal in that direction. Studio photographers are best placed to say which changes they want because this will be their camera.
By the way, I enjoyed the off-topic link to J's site. OK, it is a distinctively Orange County approach but I find her photos to be fresh and original.
I really think it's time, if not the above option, that Canon thinks about merging the 2 1D and 1Ds lines. 24mp, 10fps, etc etc, best features of both lines. Nikon did a fast FF with the D3 and D3s, and somewhat with the D700. Why can't Canon? And there have been rumors (nothing all that reliable) that said Canon might split the 5-series. Don't really see that happening, but it would be interesting: 2 5-series lines and 1 1-series.
In my speculative opinion, a merge of the FF and 1.3x lineup will just never happen. People expected it to happen with each new generation, but the bottom line is this- The slight crop REALLY helps for telephoto shooters, (sports / wildlife) both because of the extra reach inherent, AND because the crop also spreads out the AF points to PERFECT locations around the viewfinder, much unlike the 1Ds series that still requires focus + re-compose even to hit the rule of thirds. That, and the lower megapixel count allows Canon to keep the pixel size big enough to deliver awesome low-light performance even with a crop factor. The 1D mk3 and mk4 do *GREAT* ISO 6400 and 12800. Even though so many wedding shooters dismiss the 1.3x crop quickly because they think FF is absolutely necessary, there are still plenty of night-time sports shooters, and dusk / dawn wildlife shooters, taking full advantage of the 1D-series performance.
If they were to merge the two lines, either Canon would have to forfeit it's $8,000 premium on the highest flagship model, and *only* offer a ~$6,000 model, ...OR all the sports shooters who previously had a $4,000 1.3x option will now have to double their expenses AND give up the advantages of the crop. Not gonna happen, IMO.
Yes, a $6,000 25 MP 10 FPS camera would sell like hotcakes. But would it make financial sense to Canon? I don't think so, but of course I don't know any exact profit or sales numbers, so of course we're just having fun guessing.
When Nikon came out with the 12 megapixel D3 and D3s, it was indeed a brilliant move because it pointed out the one major flaw in Canon's 1.3x business model- ultra-wide "in-your-face" action sports. Canon completely monopolized the 1.3x, telephoto shooter market, and rightfully so- If I had to shoot football or birds / wildlife, I'd use a 1D mk3 or mk4, hands-down. Okay maybe a D3s with it's crazy ISO performance could get by with Nikon's 200-400 f/4 VR, but you get my point. Canon cornered the telephoto market.
...Which is EXACTLY why Nikon made the stunning 14-24 at the same exact time they made the D3. I still have that poster of the image Sandro made for the Nikon ad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOv9tPSbZFI ...Anyway, my point is that Nikon's choice to make a FX sports camera did not signal the end of the 2-camera flagship era, it was only a tactical move to fill a gap in Canon's lineup. Nikon still came out with the highly successful D3X, and we fully expect to see a D4 / D4X combo in the next few years.
Here's the bottom line for me- I think Canon will indeed "attack" the MF market with it's next 1Ds camera body. 30-40 megapixels alone will do the trick; even if they don't make any quantum leaps in ISO or DR technology, the D3X for example is still WORLDS ahead of any MF camera for high ISO, and a serious contender that beats many (or most?) MF backs for DR.
Happy speculating,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I guess canon could enable an option to only use a 1.3 or 1.6 crop of the sensor in a merged 1d/1ds. This could be linked to higher fps if data throughput is the limiting factor.
In the longer term, I can't help feeling that the real innovation at the moment is happening with cameras like the g1 etc where they are doing away with the optical viewfinder. These could evolve into something much more professional over the next few years, and I suspect that removing the viewfinder probably makes it easier to design fast affordable, compact lenses. Imagine something the size of the m9 with a really high res LCD viewfinder and great lenses to go with it. Canon or Nikon could make it affordable with economies of scale, I'd be all over that!
Now, concerning EVF and stuff- Not even gonna go there. At this point, I'm very against the idea, and if they take away my optical viewfinder, I'll be stocking up on "old" DSLR's and retiring from professional photography.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The 7D is still a great camera though, I'd totally use it for sports along side a 1D mk3 or mk4. And with the 7D, you can use crop-sensor lenses to regain that ultra-wide feel that you lose with the 1.3x crop! Of course I guess you could use the Sigma 12-24 on the 1.3x since it's a FF lens, and hit ~16mm. But with 1.6x you have quite a few options, including Sigma's new 8-16, or Tokina's 11-16 if 2.8 is important, or of course the very respectable Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20, etc. etc. PLENTY of options to get you to ~14-17mm ultra-wide... It's not a D3s+14-24, but it gets the job done!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Nikon has an option on their pro D3-gen bodies to enable crop, but the problem is it's much lower res. From 12mp FF is like 5mp DX. But that might work on a 32mp 1Ds4! But I don't think the sensor will be square. The lenses don't have a big enough image circle, and I don't think it's as simple as ripping the rectangular ends off the backs of the lenses. Maybe I'm wrong?
32.7mp FF CMOS with good low light capabilities, but not like the D3s. Not square. DR improvements.
5fps
3.5" 1-million dot LCD, with improved LV
1080p @ 30fps, nothing new.
Digic V
1DIV AF
USB 3.0
Something radical. Lots of rumors have pointed to this, but no one's sure what it is. It could be USB 3.0, but who cares unless it would be used in place of FW, if it's faster. Or modularity (I just can't imagine Canon doing this). And I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with video. I think Canon will save video breakthroughs for the 5-series.
What say you?
But like I said, I've never done the math, so I dunno for sure...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I've never used an EOS 3, but I did use an Elen 7e and it seemed like the AF was pretty slow... is it different on the 3? I understand they're each in a totally different market, but is the AF different?
That's gotta be it, and it makes sense with Canon...
(Me with an EOS 3 earlier this year...)
...Nowadays, with the little joystick capable of full-time focus point control, I don't really find eye-control to be very necessary. I can use my thumb to move the focus point around just as quickly as I can think about focusing my eye and hitting the shutter at exactly the same time, and sometimes having to do it twice when the first time misses and accidentally picks another point.
But, hey if the R&D has been done, I say throw it in! It wouldn't hurt. Aside from the fact that those menus are already complicated enough... :-(
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Another point in favor of a radical 1ds-1d merge is that the 1Ds4 will have to compete with the D4 for most (or all) of its life, and the D3x. If the D4 is anything like the D3, I see problems for Canon. The 1D4 is already behind the D3s in their category. But I don't think the D4 will be anything major. The D2x (or did the D2h come first?) was a mediocre upgrade, and I think the even number tradition will continue. The reason? Well, Nikon may have some REALLY amazing stuff up their sleeve, but really, can the D3s sensor get any better? Is it physically posibble to increase the MP while maintaining the D3s's ISO performance, at full frame? Just don't think so. I think Nikon will have to lower the ISO a little in order to up the MP. I think it's pretty clear that the D4 will have more than 12mp.
That, and I think they may change up the AF system a little bit, but if you ask me that's not really much to get excited about; Canon's 45 point AF is already stellar and I prefer how the cross-type AF points are spread out more.
I still don't think the 1Ds 4 will merge the two canon flagship lines, though. Not right when Nikon has clearly put a TON of effort into achieving the same lineup split. There is obviously money to be made (and more function to achieve) by offering two separate pro bodies with two different purposes. I understand that technology *CAN* consolidate things, but professional tools have always been HIGHLY specialized.
Yes, Canon lacks a FF camera that can hit 8-10 FPS. But I don't think they can remedy that problem without forfeiting serious profit margins. If you do some rough math, you'll see that all the current cameras can handle roughly 100-150 megapixels per second. An 8-10 FPS 1Ds mk4 with 35-40 megapixels, well, you do the math. You'd have to roughly double the transfer speed of the 1D mk4, and I think they've already pulled out all the stops on that camera.
Canon users need to just come to terms with the fact that Nikon has filled a gap in their lineup, and if they want a full-frame, high-speed camera they need to get a D3 / D4.
Nikon users need to just come to terms with the fact that Canon will always have a slight advantage when it comes to telephoto sports etc. where the crop and AF point spread is critical.
Just an opinionated opinion, of course...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum