Hans Roggen Posted February 22, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know guys. Most of you are quite jumpy when someone says something bad about the M8. Don't get me wrong, i love mine, but I think you're being a little childish, to say the least, to react like this on a great camera that just got introduced. I would love to hear all of you if these were the specs of the R10, or 11, or 12. Is it just because there's no red dot with silver lettering on a Canon? The new 1D seems to be a great camera, even without that dot. I shoot a lot of sports and every enhancement made to my 1DIIN's is a welcome one. It seems Canon did listen to photographers when making their mkIII. I have shot many wonderful (even sharp, Edmund) pictures with all my Canons in the most extreme of weather conditions and dusty environments. Sometimes I found the AF even faster than my eye and nailing the focus when i thought it would be way off on a racing car or a speedskater flashing by. And if they made all of that even better and the camera even faster, how can that be a bad thing? I'd love to see the images especially the improved dynamic range in the highlights. If the IQ of this camera turns out to be less than great and some colours seem to be way off or there's some strange form of cyan vignetting in the corners or the first 1500 need to go back to Japan or someones camera, like so many others before him, suffers from a sudden death just when Christian Albers crosses the line in his first F1 Grand Prix victory, we can start putting it down. Â Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Hi Hans Roggen, Take a look here Product Watch: EOS-1D Mark III dSLR. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
larry Posted February 22, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Hans, Â I agree with what you've written, which was the point of the sarcasm in my first post in this thread. People tend to make blanket criticisms of equipment based on their own often quirky needs and fail to understand that there are plenty of photographers who will find that particular camera perfect for their style of shooting. Â Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 22, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Well, I am a heavy user of the 1DMkII and 1DsMkII cameras for much of my equestrian and polo photography. The 10fps is welcomed. It is not about firing off dozens of frames at all, but about being able to get two consecutive frames in closer sequence that counts. No matter how good one's timing may be, there are things that require a burst every now and then. Â If one takes the time to read through the entire white paper put out, I think they would be very surprised at just how much useful tech is crammed into the new brick. The ISO range was expected. The increased DR had yet to be measured, but my guess is that there will be lots more shadow details than before. Â There are tons of new or improved features on this newer version that some will find quite useful. I may be one. My only hesitation is that I would have to change out three cameras in order to keep batteries, controls, and performance characteristics the same for the tool. Too expensive right now with Leica constantly opening my wallet. Â As for the sesnor size and all....that is as much related to how many sensors can be fit to a silicon wafer to provide best yield. The 1.3x crop maximizes that part of the equation, and personally, I am happy they stayed with it. The 10MP thing also caters to PJ shooters who have to wrestle with file sizes and storage. 10MP can provide an awful lot of great resolution, as we well know. Â I realize this is the Leica forum, and talking about the new Canon offering should be more confied to someplace else, but Leica could do well to look hard at some of the newer tech and features on this 1DMkIII in thinking about their own next R offering, unless they intend to create a new MF standard or something. Â As for resolution and stuff, Canon also has revamped their 16-35 f2.8L lens with higher edge resolution to couple with the newer microlens arrangement on the camera. While I still think it will not come close to what we experience with Leica glass, I think many will be pleasatly surrprised with how good some of those images are going to look. And at 14-bit color depth, they have also pushed that bar a bit too. Â Not wanting to sound like a Canon "fanboy". I just have and need to use their top end pro gear a lot, and I think this new brick has an awful lot to offer. Â LJ Â P.S. BTW, one of the new features is a user controlled micro-adjustment for AF points.....all 19 new high resolution crosshair points, so if you have a backfocus or frontfocus issue, or just want to fine tune things to get the tip of the nose, the user can now do this for all of their lenses, rahter than shipping things back for adjustment. That could be a very useful feature for more than just sports shooters and photojournalists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 22, 2007 Share #24 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Heh--I will sound like a Canon and a Leica fan, but that's ok. Â Two things that make me really want to look at this as a replacement for the 5d I have: Â 1) auto ISO Â 2) improved low-light AF Â When you need to concentrate on getting the shot and lighting conditions are changing rapidly, these are killer features to me. Â Other stuff? 10 fps is overkill for my work, auto-sensor-cleaning is great, sRAW will be perfect for proofing, and the fact the new camera will let you continuously write to backup media (instead of just writing copies) is all welcome, and it looks like they've taken a hard look at the problems they have with flash and wireless, too. Â We'll see how it looks with a 50 R Lux bolted on to it, too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 22, 2007 Share #25 Â Posted February 22, 2007 I agree, LJ ... the new 16-35 II is way more interesting than the 1D3. And we shall see how it's gonna debunk the urban myth that Canon isn't good at wide angles. Anyone who has used the Contax N 17-35 would know the Japanese companies could manage it ... have you noticed that it's taking a 82mm filter instead of 77mm now? Â Here's one sample shot from Canon's Japanese web site ... sadly, it's not full size. Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 22, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted February 22, 2007 2) improved low-light AF Â I wonder what Nikon has to say about this ... now Canon also can do EV -1. 19 cross type sensors, that's more than everything combined from Nikon's top dog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted February 22, 2007 Share #27  Posted February 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used my 1DII once, close to when it came out, at a fashion show - at the end a few of the photographers were looking at ME, not at the girls. Ok, so it was a small undersubscribed show and some amateurs got in. That thing makes a racket when going at full speed. And then I sold it because it would never get a sharp shot and Canon couldn't fix it. The old 1Ds would just take one picture for three from the 1DII, but that one would be nailed focus and sharp.The old 1DII got removed from the product lineup VERY quickly. Execution is as important as features.   Edmund  Edmund,  Which lenses were you using? I think in the past my 1Ds, 1Ds2 and 1D2 all have required a focus adjustment at Canon, but they all work perfectly. Some lenses focus faster than others, and for something like a fashion show you really need to keep a single focus point on the eyes of the girls (despite the fact your eyes may be elsewhere), but once you learn to work with the camera it is actually quite good.  This is a photo from the 1D2 - from the time he comes into view from behind a row of bushes, to the time he hits the water, 0.4 seconds elapse. That will tax the focus system of any camera, and many lenses will not focus quickly enough to get get this sort of shot.  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 22, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted February 22, 2007 I agree, LJ ... the new 16-35 II is way more interesting than the 1D3. And we shall see how it's gonna debunk the urban myth that Canon isn't good at wide angles. Anyone who has used the Contax N 17-35 would know the Japanese companies could manage it ... have you noticed that it's taking a 82mm filter instead of 77mm now? Â Here's one sample shot from Canon's Japanese web site ... sadly, it's not full size. Â Â I do agree here a better 16-35 is what is seriously needed . I went through 3 of them. 82mm though wow that may look like the Holland tunnel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dablan Posted February 22, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Seems like it's not full frame - and only 10MP I'll stick with my 5D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Maio Posted February 22, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Seems like it's not full frame - and only 10MP <snip> Â LOL! Sounds like an M8!! Â Seriously, thats one awesome technology platform and I'll be one of those upgrading my 1D2. No one bothered to mention that the 1D3 body is significantly less expensive than the M8, by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted February 22, 2007 up and downs, pro and cons ... Â the 1D3 images are smoother than its predeccessor but, it has better DR and tonality ... 14-bit, Dual DIGIC III processors ... are you listening, Leica? Â I can't believe I bought a 8-bit camera ... buyer's remorse already. Â Â Are you sure it is 8-bits? I am totally confused by the Uri Geller act with the numbers - 16 bits read off the sensor - two bits discarded - magically compressed to 8 bits and hey-presto it is expanded to a 16-bits file more or less. Too much for me to understand - but I like the result. Â Anyway, this Canon sounds like a superb camera - for those that need it, but indeed a bit like a lead brick for those that don't, myself included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted February 22, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted February 22, 2007 No one bothered to mention that the 1D3 body is significantly less expensive than the M8, by the way. Â Is $3999 really significantly less at this level? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted February 22, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted February 22, 2007 That last paragraph from Steve's Digi report was an eye opener. 31 billion dolars ??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 22, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Are you sure it is 8-bits? I am totally confused by the Uri Geller act with the numbers - 16 bits read off the sensor - two bits discarded - magically compressed to 8 bits and hey-presto it is expanded to a 16-bits file more or less. Too much for me to understand - but I like the result. It's 14 bit read off the CCD sensor and compressed into 8 bit DNG file and then interpolated into 16-bit TIFFs, or JPEGs when you run it through ACR, Silkypix, C1 whatsever. Â I've only ordered my camera yesterday but from what I've seen to date ... the M8 files looks good. However, without trying the original 16-bit DNG myself ... I'd always suspect that it can be vastly superior. Â What Leica chose to do makes absolutely no sense to me ... no one was expecting the M8 to work like a machine gun, and memory cards are dirt cheap, one can get a 4gb 150x Transcend card for 50 bucks. You've got to wonder what's on top of the heads of their engineering programmers nuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted February 22, 2007 Share #35 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Many of the camera's technical features seem very impressive to me, although it is too big and heavy for my use. I looked at their sample images and I didn't see the DR in those images that the technical specs would have led me to believe would be there. I know they are just JPGs. The other thing is looking at the eyes on the two models photos at full size on the screen adn they lack sharpness and sparkle. I would expect much better from the specifications and maybe those are just bad examples. I really am curious to see what they are able to get from the sensor in the way of high ISO performance as it seems one can never have too much when shooting in low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2007 Share #36 Â Posted February 22, 2007 What Leica chose to do makes absolutely no sense to me ... no one was expecting the M8 to work like a machine gun, and memory cards are dirt cheap, one can get a 4gb 150x Transcend card for 50 bucks. You've got to wonder what's on top of the heads of their engineering programmers nuts. Â Â Maybe the explanation is in the last sentence of the report - 31.8 billion turnover compared to Leica's 125 million (give or take a few). I guess Canon's daily R&D budget exceeds Leica's yearly gross turnover:o Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 22, 2007 Share #37 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Seems like it's not full frame - and only 10MP I'll stick with my 5D Â Hey--a nod to the wise, perhaps: in past years, a "Ds" version of the "D" cameras have not been far behind. Â If you think for a second there isn't, already, a 1ds3 out there--and a 5d replacement--I think you're thinking somewhat wishfully. Â Besides, if you need weather sealing, the 1 series is the only choice. And they've dropped the weight by half a pound (a lot)--so now it only weighs as much as a DMR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 22, 2007 Share #38 Â Posted February 22, 2007 {snipped}What Leica chose to do makes absolutely no sense to me ... no one was expecting the M8 to work like a machine gun, and memory cards are dirt cheap, one can get a 4gb 150x Transcend card for 50 bucks. You've got to wonder what's on top of the heads of their engineering programmers nuts. Â It's not about memory, I don't think, though that's a side bonus. It's about speed. Processing a 16bpp file (like the DMR does) takes a loooonnnggg time. Â Now, I know they could have sped that up, but maybe not without generating a lot more heat, or something equally disastrous in the form factor. Â Anyway, even though people have said the M8 files break when "bent", IMO and experience they bend a lonnnggg way before breaking up much, especially in the highlights. Shadows (at high ISOs) will only be better with better noise response; regardless of color depth. But what I've seen so far of the M8 files at low ISOs and doing a RAW convert is unmatched by my Canon(s). Â We'll see what the "expanded highlight dynamic range" in the 1d3 means Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted February 22, 2007 Share #39 Â Posted February 22, 2007 Many of the camera's technical features seem very impressive to me, although it is too big and heavy for my use. I looked at their sample images and I didn't see the DR in those images that the technical specs would have led me to believe would be there. I know they are just JPGs. The other thing is looking at the eyes on the two models photos at full size on the screen adn they lack sharpness and sparkle. I would expect much better from the specifications and maybe those are just bad examples. I really am curious to see what they are able to get from the sensor in the way of high ISO performance as it seems one can never have too much when shooting in low light. Â John, Canon is notorious (as are many camera manufacturers when it comes to marketing) for displaying some of the worst images one might select. There have been long and drawn out discussions of this in the past, especially when they introduced the 1DsMkII. The images they posted did nothing to help display the features they were boasting about. Even these latest ones are not taken with any of Canon's top of the line glass except for a couple done with the 300 f2.8L IS. I do agree that the results need to be examined more closely before being written off either way, and posted images are not doing any justice right now. Â In the end, I do think that they have fielded another winner on the pro scene, and have done an amazing job of listening to the users about what tweaks to make. There is a lot to be said for that part....mixing desires with practical application and build. I sitll think their overall ergonomics leave something to be desired, but then we are arguing about "grip or no grip" and whether we get nose grease on the LCD here on the forum, so.... Â LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted February 22, 2007 Share #40 Â Posted February 22, 2007 One, minor, reason I'm so glad to have gotten an M8 and into this world of shooting, is that I can watch announcements like this from either Canon or Nikon (I'm a Nikon DSLR system owner) with passive curiosity! If and when I require an updated DSLR, one of these new ones will be available for 1/2 price with a track record to help decide which to get. best....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.