IMHO, the 5D is aimed at 2 main markets. Firstly wedding photographers, secondly video.
For the former, 18MP is plenty and the high ISO with this sensor would be a huge advantage. For Video, the reduced moire with this sensor would be a huge step forward. For those 2 reasons, it makes a lot of sense to put this sensor in the 5D3.
There is one other reason of course. Having just 1 FF sensor simplifies things a lot and reduces costs.
As a wedding photographer myself, I could not afford a 1DX and many of the features are overkill for my needs. If the 5D3 had 30+ MP and only slightly better high ISO performance than the 5D2 I, for one, would not be interested in it. When you're taking 5000+ images over a weekend the idea of them being twice the size of the 5D2 files is not a nice one.
From other wedding photographers I know more mega pixels is the last thing they want.
Don't count me in as being excited about the X. I have no need, and am satisfied with my present MKIV and III. I think canon made a big mistake if they discontinue the 1.3 cameras. They are the ONE edge we have over Nikon when it comes to sports and wildlife. I certainly hope they will continue the IV or canon just may lose the edge over Nikon in wildlife shooting.
I doubt canon will make a 5DIII with any more pixels than the X. Who would buy the X if the 5DIII was so phenomenal???
Forgot to add, why would anyone think the 7D would suffice for wildlife? No way does the IV compare. I've had them both. Canon would be stupid to stop production of the IV.
Forgot to add, why would anyone think the 7D would suffice for wildlife? No way does the IV compare. I've had them both. Canon would be stupid to stop production of the IV.
According to Cannon the 1dx replaces both the 1d4 and 1ds3. From what I've heard, it's quite possible to use a D3s for wildlife shooting, and the 1Dx has 50% more pixels and apparently better ISO as well, so maybe not too shabby? Maybe the 7d2 will be better if you prefer a crop sensor?
Don't count me in as being excited about the X. I have no need, and am satisfied with my present MKIV and III. I think canon made a big mistake if they discontinue the 1.3 cameras. They are the ONE edge we have over Nikon when it comes to sports and wildlife. I certainly hope they will continue the IV or canon just may lose the edge over Nikon in wildlife shooting.
I doubt canon will make a 5DIII with any more pixels than the X. Who would buy the X if the 5DIII was so phenomenal???
Forgot to add, why would anyone think the 7D would suffice for wildlife? No way does the IV compare. I've had them both. Canon would be stupid to stop production of the IV.
Everyone seems to focus on the loss of 1.3x, and not the gain of ~2 stops ISO...
The truth is, if the 1DX comes even close to the possible ISO improvement we see on paper, ...all you really need is a 1.4x converter and you're good to go.
Canon knows that their one remaining strength against Nikon is their monopoly on the telephoto sports industry. They're not going to abandon the 1.3x sensor lightly...
Everyone seems to focus on the loss of 1.3x, and not the gain of ~2 stops ISO...
The truth is, if the 1DX comes even close to the possible ISO improvement we see on paper, ...all you really need is a 1.4x converter and you're good to go.
Adding a 1.4x converter loses one of those stops the 1DX is supposed to have gained. It also slows AF performance by 50%, which hurts badly for sports photography.
Forgot to add, why would anyone think the 7D would suffice for wildlife?
the proof is in the pudding, and in the one using it. I just spent 3 weeks in Africa with it, shooting wildlife. It performed flawlessly. I'm just beginning to work on culling and sorting through 5000 images. But there are some amazing shots from the 7D.
Hi Andy I owned it too. Got plenty of great shots with it. But it is NO WAY even close to the quality photos you get with the MkIV. I actually sold mine because I found myself grabbing my MarkIII alot more often than my 7D. Yeah, it's fine for African Safari stuff. I agree. But no, it does not suffice for what I do. Matthew's statement also is another opinion that if fine, but it does not apply to wildlife/BIF photos. Typically a 1.4x converter does it's job but top of the line quality? I don't think so. Believe me I am the teleconverter queen, . And high ISO will not bail you out for top grade wildlife.
What I meant with the MKIV is I hope they still continue selling them, they'd be idiots not to. They are already off the shelves again, as soon as this was announced, and the price is up. They finally got it right, finally a perfect wildlife camera and now they discontinue for two high end FFs? That really doesn't make sense. And now there is nothing to keep wildlife/sport shooter from jumping over to Nikon, which the 1.3 III and IV had an edge over Nikon. Don't forget, they are coming out with a new camera too. Canon just layed open the door for more competition, ho does that save them money?
Hi Andy I owned it too. Got plenty of great shots with it. But it is NO WAY even close to the quality photos you get with the MkIV. I actually sold mine because I found myself grabbing my MarkIII alot more often than my 7D. Yeah, it's fine for African Safari stuff. I agree. But no, it does not suffice for what I do. Matthew's statement also is another opinion that if fine, but it does not apply to wildlife/BIF photos. Typically a 1.4x converter does it's job but top of the line quality? I don't think so. Believe me I am the teleconverter queen, . And high ISO will not bail you out for top grade wildlife.
What I meant with the MKIV is I hope they still continue selling them, they'd be idiots not to. They are already off the shelves again, as soon as this was announced, and the price is up. They finally got it right, finally a perfect wildlife camera and now they discontinue for two high end FFs? That really doesn't make sense. And now there is nothing to keep wildlife/sport shooter from jumping over to Nikon, which the 1.3 III and IV had an edge over Nikon. Don't forget, they are coming out with a new camera too. Canon just layed open the door for more competition, ho does that save them money?
yes, I believe you, and for that reason it seems impossible for that to be C's intention!
the 1DX is application specific. that it is not good for your application does not mean that Canon has cut their own throats. hardly likely. what it might mean is that they will place alongside the 1DX another specialsit body better for your purposes than what exists atm. ditto for landscape-studio-indoors
Don't count me in as being excited about the X. I have no need, and am satisfied with my present MKIV and III. I think canon made a big mistake if they discontinue the 1.3 cameras. They are the ONE edge we have over Nikon when it comes to sports and wildlife. I certainly hope they will continue the IV or canon just may lose the edge over Nikon in wildlife shooting.
I doubt canon will make a 5DIII with any more pixels than the X. Who would buy the X if the 5DIII was so phenomenal???
Forgot to add, why would anyone think the 7D would suffice for wildlife? No way does the IV compare. I've had them both. Canon would be stupid to stop production of the IV.
Just had a look on your site, lovely wildlife images BTW, but it was interesting that you have only just purchased the Mk4. Is part of your beef simply that your new camera has been replaced by canon a few days after you bought it, buyers remorse? We've all been there at times
BTW, more pixels does not necessarily mean better. The D700 is an excellent camera with only 12MP, as it the D3s.
More megapixels isn't always better, but, when it's the difference between 4 megapixels on target and 12, it usually is...
http://www.imperialstudios.biz - Imperial Studios - Landscape, Travel and Fine Art Photography. Also happens to be my website, a work very much in progress... prints available here if anyone wants my work.
More megapixels isn't always better, but, when it's the difference between 4 megapixels on target and 12, it usually is...
It depends on the sort of photography you do, that's what I was meaning. For me 30+ MP would be a handicap rather than an advantage. 15-25 is about right for me. I do crop a lot of images in post, but not as much as a bird/wlidlife photographer might. Being able to get a decent image at 6400 ISO or more would be a huge advantage OTOH.
I was specifically referring to wildlife photography.
http://www.imperialstudios.biz - Imperial Studios - Landscape, Travel and Fine Art Photography. Also happens to be my website, a work very much in progress... prints available here if anyone wants my work.
Yeah this is blowing my mind. For 3 years we've heard nothing but complaints about banding, dynamic range, noise, and the megapixel race in general.
Now Canon is actually addressing ALL of those complaints, and what do they get? MORE COMPLAINING.
These people make me sick! They should all be sentenced to shoot a roll of 35mm film and get back to us.
not from me (or a couple others here at SmugMug ) ... I had a standing order for the first unit that Tallyn's will get, and we added two others for a coupla passionate guys here at SM
not from me (or a couple others here at SmugMug ) ... I had a standing order for the first unit that Tallyn's will get, and we added two others for a coupla passionate guys here at SM
not from me (or a couple others here at SmugMug ) ... I had a standing order for the first unit that Tallyn's will get, and we added two others for a coupla passionate guys here at SM
Well I'm glad you're one of the sensible ones! I cannot wait for this sensor to trickle down into a 5D-sized body with 7D or better AF. :whew
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The use of a 18MP sensor in the 1DX shouts out one thing loud and clear - a body with a +/-36MP sensor (1DXs?) for top end "fine art"/landscape/commercial/studio shooters is definitely in the works!
not from me (or a couple others here at SmugMug ) ... I had a standing order for the first unit that Tallyn's will get, and we added two others for a coupla passionate guys here at SM
Hey Jack, I'm afraid you don't know what 'sick' is. Try hiking 3 miles with 14 lbs. of gear, after 3 rounds of Chemo and 35 days of radiation. Sorry, but you have alot of growing up to do. I hope you don't throw up on your camera. This discussion appears to me to be about the pros and cons of the new 1D body. I havn't seen anyone whine yet. And if canon decided to do away with the 5D FF line, you can bet there would be tons of whining. [which they'd have every right to do]
Wildlife shooters know the difficulty of their work. It is probably the most unpredictable, precise photography there is, with decision making allowing only one second most the time. I think you should listen to them before you make up your silly assumptions. I know this after shooting sports also which seems like a breeze compared to BIFs and wildlife.
I will reinstate, the Mark IV is the perfect camera for wildlife. Why would canon need to design something new adding to their costs? I don't know of anyone who is sorry they bought it, nor are the prices going down because of a new FF. They have gone up, people have bought them off the shelves like wildfire this week, and most stores don't have them. There is no whining about price drop. This only makes them more valuable, some places asking up to a thousand$ more, so I doubt anyone is whining about price drops, it's not happening . Most are going to treat their IV like gold in case the 1.3 is out of production.
Editing to add, Stuart, thnx, and yes the reason for the delay of procuring my MKIV was because of the earthquake delays. People have back ordered it for months, and I finally got mine through Calumet, and I am so thankful. No, the price is going up, and I doubt they will ever go down, because as I said, it's the perfect wildlife camera, and everyone agrees.
I have 10 years experience with forums and the only people who complained about banding were the 5DMK II, which aren't the wildlife shooters. I am sure most all will be happy with the 1Dx. I know I would be if that's the type of shooting I mostly did. [landscapes, portrait, weddings]
Comments
For the former, 18MP is plenty and the high ISO with this sensor would be a huge advantage. For Video, the reduced moire with this sensor would be a huge step forward. For those 2 reasons, it makes a lot of sense to put this sensor in the 5D3.
There is one other reason of course. Having just 1 FF sensor simplifies things a lot and reduces costs.
As a wedding photographer myself, I could not afford a 1DX and many of the features are overkill for my needs. If the 5D3 had 30+ MP and only slightly better high ISO performance than the 5D2 I, for one, would not be interested in it. When you're taking 5000+ images over a weekend the idea of them being twice the size of the 5D2 files is not a nice one.
From other wedding photographers I know more mega pixels is the last thing they want.
I doubt canon will make a 5DIII with any more pixels than the X. Who would buy the X if the 5DIII was so phenomenal???
Forgot to add, why would anyone think the 7D would suffice for wildlife? No way does the IV compare. I've had them both. Canon would be stupid to stop production of the IV.
According to Cannon the 1dx replaces both the 1d4 and 1ds3. From what I've heard, it's quite possible to use a D3s for wildlife shooting, and the 1Dx has 50% more pixels and apparently better ISO as well, so maybe not too shabby? Maybe the 7d2 will be better if you prefer a crop sensor?
Then again, Canon now has an FF sports camera.
The truth is, if the 1DX comes even close to the possible ISO improvement we see on paper, ...all you really need is a 1.4x converter and you're good to go.
Canon knows that their one remaining strength against Nikon is their monopoly on the telephoto sports industry. They're not going to abandon the 1.3x sensor lightly...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Adding a 1.4x converter loses one of those stops the 1DX is supposed to have gained. It also slows AF performance by 50%, which hurts badly for sports photography.
It just doesn't add up for field sports...
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
What I meant with the MKIV is I hope they still continue selling them, they'd be idiots not to. They are already off the shelves again, as soon as this was announced, and the price is up. They finally got it right, finally a perfect wildlife camera and now they discontinue for two high end FFs? That really doesn't make sense. And now there is nothing to keep wildlife/sport shooter from jumping over to Nikon, which the 1.3 III and IV had an edge over Nikon. Don't forget, they are coming out with a new camera too. Canon just layed open the door for more competition, ho does that save them money?
yes, I believe you, and for that reason it seems impossible for that to be C's intention!
the 1DX is application specific. that it is not good for your application does not mean that Canon has cut their own throats. hardly likely. what it might mean is that they will place alongside the 1DX another specialsit body better for your purposes than what exists atm. ditto for landscape-studio-indoors
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
... and you have it!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Just had a look on your site, lovely wildlife images BTW, but it was interesting that you have only just purchased the Mk4. Is part of your beef simply that your new camera has been replaced by canon a few days after you bought it, buyers remorse? We've all been there at times
BTW, more pixels does not necessarily mean better. The D700 is an excellent camera with only 12MP, as it the D3s.
It depends on the sort of photography you do, that's what I was meaning. For me 30+ MP would be a handicap rather than an advantage. 15-25 is about right for me. I do crop a lot of images in post, but not as much as a bird/wlidlife photographer might. Being able to get a decent image at 6400 ISO or more would be a huge advantage OTOH.
Yeah this is blowing my mind. For 3 years we've heard nothing but complaints about banding, dynamic range, noise, and the megapixel race in general.
Now Canon is actually addressing ALL of those complaints, and what do they get? MORE COMPLAINING.
These people make me sick! They should all be sentenced to shoot a roll of 35mm film and get back to us.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Amen!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Can you add me to that list of passionate guys?
Well I'm glad you're one of the sensible ones!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
How soon will it be on Andy-bay?:D
www.tednghiem.com
Wildlife shooters know the difficulty of their work. It is probably the most unpredictable, precise photography there is, with decision making allowing only one second most the time. I think you should listen to them before you make up your silly assumptions. I know this after shooting sports also which seems like a breeze compared to BIFs and wildlife.
I will reinstate, the Mark IV is the perfect camera for wildlife. Why would canon need to design something new adding to their costs? I don't know of anyone who is sorry they bought it, nor are the prices going down because of a new FF. They have gone up, people have bought them off the shelves like wildfire this week, and most stores don't have them. There is no whining about price drop. This only makes them more valuable, some places asking up to a thousand$ more, so I doubt anyone is whining about price drops, it's not happening . Most are going to treat their IV like gold in case the 1.3 is out of production.
Editing to add, Stuart, thnx, and yes the reason for the delay of procuring my MKIV was because of the earthquake delays. People have back ordered it for months, and I finally got mine through Calumet, and I am so thankful. No, the price is going up, and I doubt they will ever go down, because as I said, it's the perfect wildlife camera, and everyone agrees.
I have 10 years experience with forums and the only people who complained about banding were the 5DMK II, which aren't the wildlife shooters. I am sure most all will be happy with the 1Dx. I know I would be if that's the type of shooting I mostly did. [landscapes, portrait, weddings]
Right back at you. You have no idea who I am.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Now where is my dang D800
Gary
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix