Is the 1dsmk3 sensor worth $4k more than the 1dmk3

Uhh, Nikon is holding a major introduction on September 3 and the D800 could be introduced then. Canon will have to hurry to beat that.

As for a 16MP 1D4, I think it much more likely that Canon will make it a 12MP FF model. (I'd be willing to bet that there was a prototype 1D3 made with just such a sensor and the current 1D3 was put into production because of its lower manufacturing cost.) Speaking as a 5D owner, for most applications, 12MP are quite enough. Furthermore, a 16MP FF model probably wouldn't have the D3's incredible high ISO performance and there is always the issue of file size.
It's still a perfectly viable model, although very overpriced for the
marketplace. And, if it is discontinued, what will it be replaced by?
Or will Canon just abandon that market segment?
See my previous post about the Canon 1D4.
You know these rumors about the Nikon D800 - a D700 with a 24mp
sensor? I'm betting that Canon will be the first to market with such
body. This is what will replace the 1Ds3.
In 2009 we'll see a complete makeover of the 1-series line.
--
Bob
 
You apparently didn't realize it, but my questions were rhetorical replies to the posting that I was responding too.

Owning the cheapest 21MP DSLR is only useful if you need 21MP. For lots of 5D owners, 12MP are quite enough. I think the D3 (with the recently enlarged buffer) is just about perfect, but I could make do nicely with a D700 combination, particularly in combination with a D800. Unfortunately, I own $12,000 in Canon lenses.

Instead of smaller, incremental price drops, what would you propose, a single $3000 price drop when the Nikon and Sony competition becomes available? Because the 1Ds3 price WILL have to drop.
It's still a perfectly viable model, although very overpriced for the
marketplace.
You really don't know what "over priced" means, do you?

The 1DsMKIII is the cheapest 21mp FF DLSR on the market today.

And, if it is discontinued, what will it be replaced by?
Or will Canon just abandon that market segment?
Daff.
Canon will not abandon the FF market segment.
What surprises me is that Canon hasn't been reducing its price
regularly since last fall and particularly since PMA.
The prices, as is with all of their DSLR's, are always reduced as
they get older - they just don't do it on your timetable.
Canon will have to either lower the price (unlikely) or quietly
discontinue the 1Ds3 althogether (much more likely, IMO).
--
Bob
--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
--
Bob
 
We think alike :)

I feel the same way.

I personally feel that the 1dmk3 is a better body than the d3.

The only thing keeping me from buying one is the fact that is a crop.

If they put a 12mpx FF in the 1dmk4 that would be my dream camera.
 
I just tested the 1dmk3 and 1dsmk3 side by side today and honestly
the image quality to me was better on the 1dmk3 than the 1dsmk3.

Sure 1ds mk3 has higher mpx and more detail if you need it. But the
1d mk3 has much better shadow noise even at low iso.

And if you don't print large enough to need the extra resolution you
are losing image quality.

Personally I don't think that the sensor in the 1dsmk3 is worth $4k
more than the 1dmk3.

Yes the 1ds is FF and 1d is crop. And yes that is also the reason I
went from a 1dmk2 to a 5D I don't regret my choice but I don't really
like the body/features on the 5D and would like to return to a 1
series body.

Is just that I can either lose the FF by buying a 1dmk3 or pay a lot
more money and slow my whole PP process to get worse images from the
1dsmk3.

So anybody else thinks the 1dsmk3 should not be selling for 8k?
Of course not. But in the absence of competition, canon can price its top of the line camera pretty much what the market will bear.

The 1DMKIII is a remarkable camera in terms of image quality, but it is not full frame. And full frame does have advantages even over the 1.3x crop 1DMKIII, especially in wide angles. The 1DMKIII cannot accept EF-S lenses (except third party EF-S mount lenses), so it is limited to full frame ultrawide angles, which means it is not wide angle friendly as the full frame models. For the sports photographer, who rarely use ultrawide angles, perhaps this deficiency does not matter. Nevertheless I think Canon should replace the 1DMKIII with a full frame, with low pixel count to perserve its speed and high ISO performance. I am guessing a 12-14mp full frame 1D may be in the pipeline.
 
Unfortunately for Canon, these latter buyers are not brand loyal – they will buy into whatever system gives them most return on investment.
Yes; the system works.

I don't personally subscribe to "brand loyalty," so I buy what suits my needs. If a camera and lenses from some company other than the one that manufactures what I currently own is what does it for me, then that's where my money goes.

Why should it be any other way?

--

"I don't want more choice. I just want nicer things." —Edina Monsoon
 
And that is my point entirely. canon has been taking advantage of
... an opportunity they created, they've been taking advantage of
their hard work, they've been taking advantage of their ingenuity,
they've been taking advantage of their superiority over their
competitors. Just like a good company should.
Agreed. They've been squeezing more money out of the consumers than what is necessary. I would probably do the same thing in their position too. However as a consumer, I'm not exactly thrilled about it but I have no other choice.
its consumers for a lonnnng time with the pricing on its 1Ds.
Hopefully that practice will come to a screeching halt this fall.
And then start up again with the release of the 1DsMKIV. :-D
You act like you want this to happen. I dont get it.

I personally think that once Canon's "pro, full frame" stranglehold is broken that the era of $8000 pro 35mm DSLRs will come to an end. I dont know what sales of the 1Ds Mark II were like, but its a minuscule trickle of what the $2500 5D sold.
Learn to make more money and it won't be an issue - or learn to deal
with life without whining.
Who the hell are you talking about? You know absolutely nothing about how much money I make. Besides that, I wasnt whining at all, just stating a fact, which you turned around and agreed with. The only difference is that you seem to ardently support Canon and their unnecessarily high prices. I, myself, welcome the upcoming competition and look forward to prices falling. Competition drives innovation and thats never a bad thing.
Canon is not in business to give you their top camera at a price
you can afford - what about the poor smuck that can't afford what
you've got? Should Canon base their prices on each persons ability to
pay?
This is a planet of whiners.
And you sound very angry... for whatever reason.
--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
--



Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about sales
Photographers worry about light

http://archive.jmhphoto.net
 
As for a 16MP 1D4, I think it much more likely that Canon will make
it a 12MP FF model.
It's too late to make the 1D4 only 12mp. Canon missed their chance to do this with the 1D3 (which a lot of people expected to have the 5D sensor).

Think about what Canon did in the past six years with the 1Ds: its resolution has increased from 11mp to 16mp to 21mp - while at the same time speed and ISO performance have been the same/better.

It would be the same with the Nikon D3 - most likely in 2010, the D3 will receive a bump in resolution to 15-16mp while having the same speed and ISO.

So, if in 2009 Canon release a 12mp 1D4, it will very soon will be out-spec'ed (again) by Nikon.

Actually I don't know, Canon may be stupid enough to do it - looking at what they've been doing with the pro line recently.
 
I was just pointing out that the 1Ds3 days are numbered as an $8K camera.
Everyone already knew that. One has been able to acquire that camera at a price much lower than its MSRP for some months now. Further, everyone already knew that competition breeds both lower prices and higher innovation. This is nothing new, and I think it's great.

It's as I've stated; the system works.

--
"Passion will make you crazy, but is there any other way to live?" —Kara Saun
 
If the Nikon D700X/D800 and FF Sony are $3500 and 24MP, is Canon
going to drop the 1DsMkIII price by $3000 when those two models start
shipping?
I personally that given sufficient competition, that the 1DsIII will settle in around $5500. I also think $3500 for the above cameras is a bit optimistic, but who knows. If Sony pulls a "top shelf" flagship out of the bag, my guess is that it will cost over $4000. As for a D800, who knows?
If I owned a 1DMkIII and/or 5D (I do own a 40D and 5D),
unless I absolutely had to have the 21MP immediately, there is no way
I'd buy a 1DsMkIII before at least September.
Yep!
The 1DMkIII is only a year old model. It was announced last fall, 3
days before the Nikon D3. Supposedly, Nikon management "breathed a
huge sigh of relief" when the 1DsMkIII was announced, since it meant
that they probably had 2 years until Canon would meet or beat what
they (Nikon) had planned.

--
Bob
--



Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about sales
Photographers worry about light

http://archive.jmhphoto.net
 
You apparently didn't realize it, but my questions were rhetorical
replies to the posting that I was responding too.
Yes, I got the rhetorical part.

However, continually calling the 1DsMKIII "overpriced" is not rhetorical, it's ignorant.

If and when other FF 20+mp DSLR's hit the market and the 1DsMKIII is still priced at $7800, while the new models (assuming equal or better features & quaility) are $1000 less... THEN it would be considered overpriced and it would cease to sell.
Owning the cheapest 21MP DSLR is only useful if you need 21MP.
You're trying to be funny... right? Or just painfully obvious?

For
lots of 5D owners, 12MP are quite enough.
...again, being funny here?

I think the D3 (with the
recently enlarged buffer) is just about perfect, but I could make do
nicely with a D700 combination, particularly in combination with a
D800. Unfortunately, I own $12,000 in Canon lenses.
Why unfortunately? Don't they work? Oh and BTW do you really own $12,000 in Canon lens - or did you BUY $12,000 of Canon lens? There is a difference.
Instead of smaller, incremental price drops, what would you propose,
a single $3000 price drop when the Nikon and Sony competition becomes
available? Because the 1Ds3 price WILL have to drop.
You are assuming that Canon is still producing the 1DsMKIII and/or there will still be a supply of 1DsMKIII's on the shelves in 4 months.

You can't drop the price of something that doesn't exist.

The few that might still be on the shelves are the dealers problem, and they can sell them at cost or below just to dump them - and there will be more than enough buyers.

What do you bet that Canon knows more about it's industry and it's competitors than anyone here? It is quite possible the production is either stopped or is planned to stop very soon.
It's still a perfectly viable model, although very overpriced for the
marketplace.
You really don't know what "over priced" means, do you?

The 1DsMKIII is the cheapest 21mp FF DLSR on the market today.

And, if it is discontinued, what will it be replaced by?
Or will Canon just abandon that market segment?
Daff.
Canon will not abandon the FF market segment.
What surprises me is that Canon hasn't been reducing its price
regularly since last fall and particularly since PMA.
The prices, as is with all of their DSLR's, are always reduced as
they get older - they just don't do it on your timetable.
Canon will have to either lower the price (unlikely) or quietly
discontinue the 1Ds3 althogether (much more likely, IMO).
--
Bob
--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
--
Bob
--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
 
If the Nikon D700X/D800 and FF Sony are $3500 and 24MP, is Canon
going to drop the 1DsMkIII price by $3000 when those two models start
shipping?
I personally that given sufficient competition, that the 1DsIII will
settle in around $5500. I also think $3500 for the above cameras is
a bit optimistic, but who knows. If Sony pulls a "top shelf"
flagship out of the bag, my guess is that it will cost over $4000.
As for a D800, who knows?
FWIW, the Sony is called "flaghship" and not "professional" for a reason. It's basically going to be a slightly beefed up A700, but with a 24MP sensor, which will put it in a unique segment. It'll have the pro resolution, but nowhere near the 1Ds III build or AF. To add fuel to this thread's fire, the common presumption on the Sony forum is that the camera will be priced less than the Nikon D700, but we'll know in a month or so.
 
you. Canon, Nikon, Sony....etc. do not owe their customers anything.
In a free market, they can price their products as they please. Since
the only high MP 35mm based DSLR is Canon at this point, they can to
a point, charge what they please. What I'm not sure of, is it the
best strategy for Canon to use. That is assuming that there is the
margin left in the 1DsIII that people (myself included) are assuming.
If Nikon releases (more assumption) a D3 body with a 24MP sensor that
give basically equal performance or better when compared to a 1DsIII,
at let's say for the sake of argument, $6K. Canon, not wanting to
lose business to Nikon will probably match that price or at least
come close. This is liable to annoy some of their top end customers.
They will wonder why Canon is suddenly able to sell that camera for
$2K less. Will that be fatal for Canon? No, of course not. Most
people that have pro-level bodies are also invested fairly heavily in
that system. People also have short attention spans, they'll forget
about it in a few months. I wonder if Canon might better have served
their own interests by dropping the price now, rather than later. It
might take a lot of potential customers off the fence and invested in
Canon. You know what they say "a bird in the hand." One thing I know
for sure. The more competitive players we have, the better it will be
for the consumer. The worst thing that could happen would be for one
of the major players to be left alone in the market. That's the
reason, I am personally hoping the 5DMkII or whatever, is a great
advance over the 5D and priced below the D700. That will keep the fur
flying.
I'm sure I would agree with much of what you had to say, but with the
lack of spacing I gave up reading it.
I don't blame you. Sometimes I'm a little paragraph challenged.
--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
I have that same problem :-)
Open minded people ALWAYS see it my way - but don't ALWAYS agree.
Maybe even "HARDLY EVER" agree.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR
 
And that is my point entirely. canon has been taking advantage of
... an opportunity they created, they've been taking advantage of
their hard work, they've been taking advantage of their ingenuity,
they've been taking advantage of their superiority over their
competitors. Just like a good company should.
Agreed. They've been squeezing more money out of the consumers than
what is necessary. I would probably do the same thing in their
position too. However as a consumer, I'm not exactly thrilled about
it but I have no other choice.
Yes, you do. You can choose to buy or not.
You can choose to buy used.
You can choose to rent.
You can choose to buy for a project, then sell - building in that cost.
There are always choices - you my not like them, but they are there.
its consumers for a lonnnng time with the pricing on its 1Ds.
Hopefully that practice will come to a screeching halt this fall.
And then start up again with the release of the 1DsMKIV. :-D
You act like you want this to happen. I dont get it.
Yes, I do want this to happen, and yes, I know you don't get it. But you don't see what I see. Every time a new model is brought to market, it has more and better features at a cheaper price. Cheaper, even if you only factor in inflation, it's still cheaper. Did you know that Nikon (I think it was Nikon) had a 1mp DSLR that retailed for $15,000? What do you think that would be in todays dollars? The first 1D was $5500. The 11mp 1Ds was $8000 - the 21mp 1DsMKIII, with better everything, retailed - about 5 years later, for the same price!
I personally think that once Canon's "pro, full frame" stranglehold
is broken that the era of $8000 pro 35mm DSLRs will come to an end.
No kidding, welcome to the grown up world. Things change, they are always changing.
I dont know what sales of the 1Ds Mark II were like, but its a
minuscule trickle of what the $2500 5D sold.
Learn to make more money and it won't be an issue - or learn to deal
with life without whining.
Who the hell are you talking about?
Put it into context. You were complaining that the 1DsMKIII is too expensive.
A. Make more money and things that once seemed expensive no longer seem to be.

b. you came off as whining to me - if you claim it wasn't, then I will take you at your word.

You know absolutely nothing
about how much money I make.
True, but if you made more, things would seem less expensive.

Besides that, I wasnt whining at all,
just stating a fact,
I'm sorry, saying the 1DsMKIII is too expensive is not fact - it's opinion.

which you turned around and agreed with. The
only difference is that you seem to ardently support Canon and their
unnecessarily high prices.
Again, unnecessarily high prices, are opinion. Would it be better if they were necessary high prices?

I, myself, welcome the upcoming
competition and look forward to prices falling.
Looking to get a good deal on old technology? I don't blame you, it is sometimes enticing.

Competition drives
innovation and thats never a bad thing.
Hardly ever, except in war, when the enemy is driven to innovate better weapons to wipe out your existence.
Canon is not in business to give you their top camera at a price
you can afford - what about the poor smuck that can't afford what
you've got? Should Canon base their prices on each persons ability to
pay?
No answer for this, heh?
This is a planet of whiners.
And you sound very angry... for whatever reason.
I can help you with this one. The reason is that you are reading anger into my words, where none exists.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
 
The 1DMKIII is a remarkable camera in terms of image quality, but it
is not full frame. And full frame does have advantages even over the
1.3x crop 1DMKIII, especially in wide angles. The 1DMKIII cannot
accept EF-S lenses (except third party EF-S mount lenses), so it is
limited to full frame ultrawide angles, which means it is not wide
angle friendly as the full frame models. For the sports
photographer, who rarely use ultrawide angles, perhaps this
deficiency does not matter. Nevertheless I think Canon should
replace the 1DMKIII with a full frame, with low pixel count to
perserve its speed and high ISO performance. I am guessing a 12-14mp
full frame 1D may be in the pipeline.
I would love to get a copy of that. It will serve all my needs. A fast FF body...for sports. Plus I can also do my landscape shots with it.

But...I think there are 1D3 owners who like the 1.3x crop part of that body.

Danny Tuason :)

PS Why not a 1D4 (1.3x crop) and a 1D4f (FF) released at the same time? I will get the 1D4f version.

--
http://www.scandinavius.com/sweden/sesongs.html#anchor1139692
 
Canon hasn't been working on sensors for the 1Ds series cameras only to stop that line of models. This is just a real dumbed down opinion of mine but, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the next 1Ds Mark xxx line of cameras come equipped with a really nice 50 megapixel medium format sensor. The body may change and the model name may also be different but, Canon are definitely going to continue to produce a camera that will sell for 8000.00 bucks (more likely more than that) and the masses will flock to get in line for them if Canon can figure out a way to use existing lenses and still produce a remarkable medium format image. JMHO.

Mark Megerle

-------------------------
What surprises me is that Canon hasn't been reducing its price
regularly since last fall and particularly since PMA.
Canon will have to either lower the price (unlikely) or quietly
discontinue the 1Ds3 althogether (much more likely, IMO).
--
Bob
--
Mark-M
 
it is called the nikon D3.
--
max
 
Two 14mp 1DMKIV's (1DMKIV - 1DfMKIV) and a 31mp 1DsMKIV?

Doesn't sound a bit crazy to me.
The 1DMKIII is a remarkable camera in terms of image quality, but it
is not full frame. And full frame does have advantages even over the
1.3x crop 1DMKIII, especially in wide angles. The 1DMKIII cannot
accept EF-S lenses (except third party EF-S mount lenses), so it is
limited to full frame ultrawide angles, which means it is not wide
angle friendly as the full frame models. For the sports
photographer, who rarely use ultrawide angles, perhaps this
deficiency does not matter. Nevertheless I think Canon should
replace the 1DMKIII with a full frame, with low pixel count to
perserve its speed and high ISO performance. I am guessing a 12-14mp
full frame 1D may be in the pipeline.
I would love to get a copy of that. It will serve all my needs. A
fast FF body...for sports. Plus I can also do my landscape shots
with it.

But...I think there are 1D3 owners who like the 1.3x crop part of
that body.

Danny Tuason :)

PS Why not a 1D4 (1.3x crop) and a 1D4f (FF) released at the same
time? I will get the 1D4f version.

--
http://www.scandinavius.com/sweden/sesongs.html#anchor1139692
--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top