1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

[Ger Bee]

Don't knock serious amateurs who can recognise quality gear just
because they don't make a living from your trade and don't assume
that the high price of this kit isn't an obstacle - it is for many.

.... complaining about the price.

Most amateur will buy this without worry about money or anything else, and they will certainly outweigh the professional purchases.

Sure, I’m not actually knocking the amateur at all really.

The 1DMKII will be well worth its purchase price, the 10DMKII will be even better for those who chose to wait, there is lots of choice today in price & features and they will be even more choice tomorrow. )

 

[Rune Moberg]

.... I know the 10D still has FEL in memory after taking the shot,

FWIW: One of the reasons I've been craving the 1D is that I was pretty sure it had this feature (user adjustable FEL timeout), whereas my D60 doesn't. From past discussions, some have reported that keeping the FEL button depressed works as well (so does keeping the * button down on the D60, so I know it's not a viable solution for me ).

remember this at some stage and try extending the 16sec timeout
without trying it I am of the impression that the 1D cancels after
the first shot at least it felt this way to me, and I noticed it
did not on the 10D.

Photonotes mentions only the 16s timeout. I'd be very surprised if the 1D would cancel FEL right away as that would be a departure from the way other EOS bodies work. ( http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index3.html#fel )

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

 

[doctor digi]

Just remember - no matter how good you think the 1DII is, in 18
months time it will be a doorstop after the next one comes out and
you will have wasted your hard earned cash on a pile of junk.

dd (and for the humour-impared, the last statement, while true as
regards product replacement, is tongue-in-cheek)

I tend to disagree, even though you are tongue in cheek...

I disagree with you disagreeing with me ;-)

We all seem to have become aclimatised to high prices. Really, the prices for high-end digital cameras are insane. I see the professional DSLRs coming down in price to about the 1.5K mark within the next 5 years. There will be a corresponding drop in consumer-grade cameras too.

This will bring it all in line with film bodies.

I agree that the feature set is beginning to get to the point of being generally acceptable and the advances in the technology will become less with each passing year allowing one to skip not just one new model but several before an upgrade.

dd

 

[John Walsh]

I have a 10D and am pretty happy with the file size. But lets face it a bigger file size and ff would cover more contingencies not necessarily what you need for every day use. These items are something that a person would buy a future camera for just to have them. Once we have them, granted the megapixel issue is foggy, I think the camera companies are going to have to really pull something out of their hat to get people to jump at a new camera. People will be sticking with their camera a bit longer using the wear and tear factor as the reason too buy a new camera. I think the next generation will be the start of the keeper cameras.

Just for the record, in most case 8 megapixels are just fine except for large groups.

I keep wondering when people are going to decide that a digital
camera can do large groups! :0)

I tend to think a 6mp camera did a pretty good job. 8 has to be
25% better.

I guess it depends on your defiinition of "large", but I feel like
my current 6mp camera can easily handle a group fo 100 or so...
presuming 6 rows of say 16 or so. If you start stretching your
group WAY out, perhaps it gets a little questionable, but I have no
problem printing 24x30 inch prints from my 6mp camera. 30x40's
are a bit of a push, but I look for the Mark II to get me closer to
the 30x40 really nice looking image.

classici

--
John Walsh

 

[rbmorse]

Don't confuse surface area with volume

 

[David Mazeau]

I
think the camera companies are going to have to really pull
something out of their hat to get people to jump at a new camera.
People will be sticking with their camera a bit longer using the
wear and tear factor as the reason too buy a new camera. I think
the next generation will be the start of the keeper cameras.

That may be true for some. It isn't my intention in any way to
dismiss the value of macro shots of beautiful flowers, but I think
for those that take a lot of shots like that, they often cannot see
what the issue is with dynamic range. It's just not a problem for
them.

But even looking at the recent 1D Mark II shots, which is supposed
to have the best dynamic range from Canon yet, it is clear that there
is loads and loads of room for improvement in the area of
dynamic range.

If Canon could "pull something out of their hat" that was radically
better in terms of dynamic range, I think there's a lot of people
that would leap at it.

But either Canon is being super sneaky on this issue, or they are
hitting up against a technological wall, and simply cannot do better
at this point in time.

 

[DavidMillier]

Where did I do that?

Don't confuse surface area with volume

 

[EricHanson]

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

So is comparing a 10D and a 1D Mk II. If you think that a 1D Mk only offers faster frame rates and 2MP extra then you are plum loco. I use an EOS 3 with power booster and I regularly use 6fps and sometimes wish I had the 10fps of the 1V. Also there are so many things about the pro levels camera that are superior to a 10D it's very hard to even shoot one. I have an EOS 5 and shooting with it after using an EOS 3 is now a pain.

Many people maynot need a 1 series camera but those who have used them know they are getting a tank with great performance and reliability and a host of features that are hard to live without.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

As support for my hypothesis, I would say that if someone baked a
cake with twice the ingredients the resulting cake would be
considered to be twice the size but according to the linear
argument you would need 8x the ingredients to double the size of
the cake (which would be the size of a small house!)...

if you bake a cake with twice the ingredients you end up with a cake only 26% larger in each dimension. It's far worse in 3D as you have cube roots not square roots.

Unbound is right about print sizes. All things being equal (print res.) then 8MP only yields 15.5% bigger prints than 6MP but 41% bigger than 4MP.

However, if noise is much lower on 1D Mk II then you can make a bigger print at lower res and still look great and Mk II has more potential here than 10D.

 

[Michael Long]

I own a 1Ds, and could, if pressed, give you whatever economic justification you desired, based on film, processing, and print costs.

I can also make the case for quality against 35mm and 6x45 MF gear, if you wish.

But in reality, I also appreciate fine tools, craftsmanship, and the knowledge that whatever limitations there are on the output are pretty much mine.

The 1Ds, and the 1DMII, are each the current pinnacles of DSLR development. Could I, or some people, "get by" with lesser cameras?

Perhaps. But why? Why simply get by? Why knowingly accept limitations? Why accept the frustrations? If one can afford it, why on earth would you NOT use the best possible tool for the job?

If a 10D is "good enough" then why not a 300D? And if that's "good enough" then why not a F828? Or a G5? Or a S50? Or a S100? Each one is only "slightly" better, after all.

I'm sorry, but "good enough" and "getting by" are societal diseases, to be diagnosed, cured, vaccinated against, and eradicated at all costs.

Quality builds upon quality. What true painter would not use the best brushes he can find? What true violinist would not dream of a Stradivarius?

Just the simple act of picking up and using that camera warms my soul.

For that alone, in and as of itself, it's worth every single penny.

 

[Zaid]

or a TV, or a DVD player, or a cellphone, or a 3-CCD videocamera, or a 2500 sq. ft. house, or a queen-sized bed, or.....

And your point is?

It's not anyone's place to decide for another person what that person NEEDS. You could say that there's no such thing as NEED, there is only WANT.

• I WANT my camera to focus faster to catch shots of my daughter smiling so I WANT a MKII.
• I WANT my camera to shoot 8fps to do my martial arts photography so I WANT a MKII.
• I WANT to take my camera to the beach so I WANT a (weathersealed) MKII.

(replace WANT with NEED in the above statements.)

So now that this thread has about 80 posts in it, do you feel better knowing the reasons that someone might NEED/WANT/WHATEVER a MKII?

Zaid

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

 

[unbound]

You are right, it's not up to me to decide what anyone should buy. Why do you claim that I'm saying that... just because I ask what is so great about the camera that justifies the extreme difference in cost?

But if you took the time to actually read my original post, you would see that what I was asking was "What does the Mk2 bring to the average photographer that justifies the $3000 difference in price?". I posed a very direct question: "Why should I buy it."

My guess is that you didn't read any of the other 80 messages that were posted in this thread... the tone of your response shows it. If you had bothered to read even some of them, you would see that some very good discussion points were brought up, and that some very smart answers were also posted (yours not included).

So now it's my turn, and since you were so strong in your response, I'll take a similar attitude and I won't hold back either.

Interestingly, of all of the items that you list below, only the frame rate has any approximation of truth to it. And if you are good at it, even that is questionable. I work with a dance photographer, with 20 years experience, and she can photograph a dancer at the peak of action, at single frame settings, and get it right almost every frame. I'm getting there myself. We know dance well enough to predict the action... do you know Karate well enough to do the same? Concerning having camera that has enough response to catch a kid smiling, any DSLR is responsive enough to catch a kid smiling... if you can't do that, you really should check your reflexes with a doctor. And as far as buying the camera "so I can take it to the beach"... well... let's just say that you would never catch me using a $4500 camera + $$$ lens at the beach to take casual photos; in a professional setting, yes, but casually... never, regardless of camera build. You want trouble... change the lens on your 'sealed' camera on a sandy beach with even a slight breeze blowing (not just sand, but salty humid air on your sensor.)

And as for your statement "You could say there's no such thing as NEED, there's only WANT." That is utterly untrue, since for example I personally NEED fast lenses in my profession.

Another fact that I find interesting is how utterly angry some people get at the fact that I have the gumption to even ask what is so great about this new camera that it's a "must have". There have been many responses that have given great reasons, and I'll be quick to say if they ask me "Yes, I agree, this is the camera for you... you want it and need it." But for the applications that you mention... a weatherproof digicam with a good frame rate and response sounds like what you really need (but not necessarily want).

And your point is?

It's not anyone's place to decide for another person what that
person NEEDS. You could say that there's no such thing as NEED,
there is only WANT.

• I WANT my camera to focus faster to catch shots of my daughter

smiling so I WANT a MKII.

• I WANT my camera to shoot 8fps to do my martial arts photography

so I WANT a MKII.

• I WANT to take my camera to the beach so I WANT a (weathersealed)

MKII.

(replace WANT with NEED in the above statements.)

So now that this thread has about 80 posts in it, do you feel
better knowing the reasons that someone might NEED/WANT/WHATEVER a
MKII?

Zaid

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

 

[unbound]

I took a look at your website; very nice photography. Your work with latex is very creative, and your photography combines with the original artwork very well. The way that you combine the design with the poses really works well together. Congratulations... I'm very impressed, not that you care after my last posting to you.

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out. It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an 'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape, portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an artist, and a good one at that.

Edward

And your point is?

It's not anyone's place to decide for another person what that
person NEEDS. You could say that there's no such thing as NEED,
there is only WANT.

• I WANT my camera to focus faster to catch shots of my daughter

smiling so I WANT a MKII.

• I WANT my camera to shoot 8fps to do my martial arts photography

so I WANT a MKII.

• I WANT to take my camera to the beach so I WANT a (weathersealed)

MKII.

(replace WANT with NEED in the above statements.)

So now that this thread has about 80 posts in it, do you feel
better knowing the reasons that someone might NEED/WANT/WHATEVER a
MKII?

Zaid

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

 

[Louis4444]

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

Because photographers really in need of a performance-opimized camera are finally able to get good image quality. Another reason for the excitement is that you find a lot of wanna-be tech geaks in only forums.

 

[MarkMiller]

why do you assume that is the only type of photography he does?
why do you presume to tell him which camera suits his needs?
I for one would take the 1d2 over the sigma body based kodak any day.

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That
camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I
suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a
couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out.
It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an
'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape,
portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost
twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an
artist, and a good one at that.

Edward

And your point is?

It's not anyone's place to decide for another person what that
person NEEDS. You could say that there's no such thing as NEED,
there is only WANT.

• I WANT my camera to focus faster to catch shots of my daughter

smiling so I WANT a MKII.

• I WANT my camera to shoot 8fps to do my martial arts photography

so I WANT a MKII.

• I WANT to take my camera to the beach so I WANT a (weathersealed)

MKII.

(replace WANT with NEED in the above statements.)

So now that this thread has about 80 posts in it, do you feel
better knowing the reasons that someone might NEED/WANT/WHATEVER a
MKII?

Zaid

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[unbound]

What part of "Might I suggest..." is spelled so wrong that it is incomprehensible?

Now we are at the point that even suggesting an alternative is wrong? Even if the alternative MIGHT make sense and be worth considering?

It's a tradeoff... with the Kodak you get the higher resolution and the lesser body, with the Canon you get the better body but lesser resolution. The choice is there to be considered, and there is NOTHING wrong with talking about it.

Edward

why do you assume that is the only type of photography he does?
why do you presume to tell him which camera suits his needs?
I for one would take the 1d2 over the sigma body based kodak any day.

~

 

[MarkMiller]

What part of "Might I suggest..." is spelled so wrong that it is
incomprehensible?

is this from the same guy that flamed me for comparing the 1d2 in quality to the 1ds yet in your original post you compare the 10d to the 1d2?

all I am saying is people will choose the camera which suits their needs - I see from his site a lot of his work is outdoors so therefore the better sealed/built body of the 1d2 would probably suit him better.

Now we are at the point that even suggesting an alternative is
wrong? Even if the alternative MIGHT make sense and be worth
considering?

It's a tradeoff... with the Kodak you get the higher resolution and
the lesser body, with the Canon you get the better body but lesser
resolution. The choice is there to be considered, and there is
NOTHING wrong with talking about it.

Edward

why do you assume that is the only type of photography he does?
why do you presume to tell him which camera suits his needs?
I for one would take the 1d2 over the sigma body based kodak any day.

~

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[Zaid]

Sorry man, I didn't mean to be a jerk. I just got a little incensed at the implication that the people buying this camera don't know what they need or want nor how to get choose the appropriate tool for the job.

Interestingly, of all of the items that you list below, only the
frame rate has any approximation of truth to it. And if you are
good at it, even that is questionable. I work with a dance
photographer, with 20 years experience, and she can photograph a
dancer at the peak of action, at single frame settings, and get it
right almost every frame. I'm getting there myself. We know dance
well enough to predict the action... do you know Karate well enough
to do the same? Concerning having camera that has enough response

Actually, I shoot Aikido, not karate, and the fact that it's a throwing art and not a striking art means that there's lots of people flying through the air. Catching the moment where the angle of the person being thrown in relation to the thrower is just right is VERY difficult, especially with a D60. And besides that, I want (need?) to take a sequence of shots and composite them together to show the complete sequence of the throw from beginning to end. I suppose I can use a digital video camera for that and just capture the frames, but then I'm limited to only 1.7megapixel or so.

to catch a kid smiling, any DSLR is responsive enough to catch a
kid smiling... if you can't do that, you really should check your
reflexes with a doctor. And as far as buying the camera "so I can

Do you have kids? If you do, then you realize that when they're young, they're expressions and moods change quite rapidly. Also, the fact that they're flailing their arms around uncontrollably means that getting the frame where the smile was fully formed without the arms in the way is literally a matter of fractions of a second. In addition, shooting a series of images where you can see the whole sequence of a particular emotional reaction from beginning to end is just plain fun. To see be able to see, frame by frame, the complete development of a facial expression, to see in sucession how first the lips curled up and then the cheeks puffed out and then the eyebrows lifted and then the eyes opened wide and then the mouth opened and then the tongue moved forward.... you just can't catch that with a D60. You would have missed a lot in between.

take it to the beach"... well... let's just say that you would
never catch me using a $4500 camera + $$$ lens at the beach to take
casual photos; in a professional setting, yes, but casually...

I don't take casual photos at the beach with my MKII. I photograph the models that I bodypaint at the beach. Check out this link:

http://www.surrealscapes.net/water_gallery.html

This was done at a reservoir INSTEAD of the beach where I really wanted to shoot it.

never, regardless of camera build. You want trouble... change the
lens on your 'sealed' camera on a sandy beach with even a slight
breeze blowing (not just sand, but salty humid air on your sensor.)

I don't intend to change the lens on the beach.

Another fact that I find interesting is how utterly angry some
people get at the fact that I have the gumption to even ask what is
so great about this new camera that it's a "must have". There have

I didn't get angry at that. I wouldn't have gotten angry at that. What I got angry about was this:

"I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?"

You didn't ask "Why do I need the camera?" You asked "Why do YOU need the camera [emphasis mine]?" It didn't sound like you were trying to get answers for yourself.

Also, there's more out there than professional sports photographers who have a use/need/want for a camera like the MKII. I've been wanting to get an EOS-1 digital body for a while now. I was all set to get the 1D just two months ago, but when I heard about the MKII, I figured I would wait for it instead.

There's a whole other aspect to this discussion and that is the aspect of going straight for what you need/want rather than incrementally stepping into it. Doing the latter means that you ultimately spend more money. Let's say because I'm not happy with the autofocus of my D60 that I upgrade to a 10D which is better. So I sell my D60 for $700 and buy a $1500 10D. And that holds me for a while until I decide that I really do want to take shots at 8fps for my aikido stuff. So what I do? I sell my 10D for $800 and buy a MKII. It would have been better if I just bought the MKII and saved the $700 that I lost on the 10D. I've been through that cycle enough times with my studio strobe equipment (going through a Dynalite system with a M500XL pack and 1015 heads, then 2040 heads, and THEN 4080 heads then a M1000DR pack) that I just said "screw it" and went straight for what would get the job done in the least amount of time with the least amount of effort. That happened to be a Profoto D4 system at $5000+, but it was money well spent.

Anyway, sorry for being a jerk. I hope I've given you a better answer this time.

Zaid

 

[Zaid]

Edward,

Thanks for the kind words. I DO need a MKII for even this type of photography. I've done a series of Jedi warrior pics, as below (these are just the raw images. I need to create a CGI background plate and add the lightsaber effect):





and I wanted to capture a sequence of photos where the model was actually swinging the lightsaber and then composite those images together in kind of a stroboscopic effect.

My poor old D60's 3fps just can't do it.

Zaid

I took a look at your website; very nice photography. Your work
with latex is very creative, and your photography combines with the
original artwork very well. The way that you combine the design
with the poses really works well together. Congratulations... I'm
very impressed, not that you care after my last posting to you.

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That
camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I
suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a
couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out.
It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an
'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape,
portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost
twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an
artist, and a good one at that.

Edward