photoisfun
Well-known member
The MF can't do sports, so yes, I would definitely buy a 1D if I didn't already have a D700. I'm on the waiting list for the 5DMKII.
.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
MF price war and Canon's 1D series
- Thread starter jindrich
- Start date
.
Frank Dernie
Forum Enthusiast
How big is your commission?
cityphotographer
Senior Member
logic: how about a fuji F10 (that takes movies too)? you didn't think of that, did you?
(I believe that you mean the pictures it takes, right?): well.. let's talk about the fuji F10 again, then.
the Fuji F10 is as good as a 10D when both get the focus right
but the Fuji F10 is small .. small .. sooo small. it stays in your shirt pocket and shoots at 800ISO like it was born with it.
... so?
why bother with a bigger camera then? can you imagine going around the world with a Fuji F10 instead? Imagine that, dude.
sarcasm OFF
F
Funkmasterta
Guest
The 1D series doesn't just fight on the MP front, it fights on the AF battlefield as well. The 1D also does battle on the FPS battlefield.
It may be disadvantage in one battle, but it hasn't lost the war.
It may be disadvantage in one battle, but it hasn't lost the war.
Those new lower prices have brought HUGE sales increments in MF at the show alone. I know it from first hand (Hassy, Sinar reps). I believe the sector has finally found out they can make much more money by selling 4 times more at half the price.
Prices of top DSLRs were lower just because Canon and Nikon could offset their R&D costs with their consumer sales. On the other hand, MF manufacturers had low sales, trade-in programs and high reseller margins that drove prices to the roof. Now the swedes have changed the game and think they've found a new market strategy to grow.
Anyway as all things go now, I honestly see no point in the 1Ds anymore (at €8k, mind you):
-Every 1Ds owner I know had to go back to primes as the zooms don't cut it at 21MP, and as such one of the advantages of 135 vs MF (versatility and speed) is gone.
-Price difference is gone as well: a 1Ds with a set of primes from 14mm to 135mm is now only €3k less than a Hassy with a set of 28, 50-110, 100 and x1.7, which covers the same focal range at the same f stop and quality of L lenses (actually better). And here, MF's IQ, DR, resolution and colour fidelity are not comparable at all.
-MF cameras used to be slow, fat tanks, but that's no the case anymore. New bodies from Hassy or PhaseOne are very much like DSLRs. They focus VERY fast, handle well, shoot at high ISOs, have big LCDs, reach 1fps, etc.
-Tethered shooting brings the 1Ds to their knees because of its small buffer and USB connection, unlike the limitless buffer and firewire of MFs. This embarrasses the photog in front of the client.
etc, etc.
The 135 format was never used for its IQ but for its flexibility, speed and low cost, and for those tasks one still gets a 1DIII, D3, D700, etc. The typical PJ can get a D700 with grip, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 50, for the cost of a 1Ds body alone. On the ther hand, those looking for quality have now all theMF stuff at a marginal price difference. The 1Ds appears to be standing in an odd territory now.
Competition is always good. Let's see how Canon reacts.
Prices of top DSLRs were lower just because Canon and Nikon could offset their R&D costs with their consumer sales. On the other hand, MF manufacturers had low sales, trade-in programs and high reseller margins that drove prices to the roof. Now the swedes have changed the game and think they've found a new market strategy to grow.
Anyway as all things go now, I honestly see no point in the 1Ds anymore (at €8k, mind you):
-Every 1Ds owner I know had to go back to primes as the zooms don't cut it at 21MP, and as such one of the advantages of 135 vs MF (versatility and speed) is gone.
-Price difference is gone as well: a 1Ds with a set of primes from 14mm to 135mm is now only €3k less than a Hassy with a set of 28, 50-110, 100 and x1.7, which covers the same focal range at the same f stop and quality of L lenses (actually better). And here, MF's IQ, DR, resolution and colour fidelity are not comparable at all.
-MF cameras used to be slow, fat tanks, but that's no the case anymore. New bodies from Hassy or PhaseOne are very much like DSLRs. They focus VERY fast, handle well, shoot at high ISOs, have big LCDs, reach 1fps, etc.
-Tethered shooting brings the 1Ds to their knees because of its small buffer and USB connection, unlike the limitless buffer and firewire of MFs. This embarrasses the photog in front of the client.
etc, etc.
The 135 format was never used for its IQ but for its flexibility, speed and low cost, and for those tasks one still gets a 1DIII, D3, D700, etc. The typical PJ can get a D700 with grip, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 50, for the cost of a 1Ds body alone. On the ther hand, those looking for quality have now all theMF stuff at a marginal price difference. The 1Ds appears to be standing in an odd territory now.
Competition is always good. Let's see how Canon reacts.
cityphotographer
Senior Member
several years later we get the idea about how they (all of them) see us!
I agree (completely) with your analysis but I need to blame somebody LOL
look, Canon started it (we know that) with the absurd price of the first 1Ds when there was NOTHING like it
then I blame Canon for keeping the price because they saw it working.
granted, Canon wanted to make some money with us.
BUT
look at the Swedish guys !
now THAT is "wanting to make some money" for real. And that's some "serious" money.
Hey.. they can do whatever they want.
but now it will be fun to see how much money they'll be able to collect once Sony made a single sharp move into the industry.
and look what happened.. some earthquake
LOL
Sony effect:
1Ds no more (not the camera, I mean the fiction price)
since 25MP is now some serious competition to the bigger sensors quality we have a fall.
boy that was quick
I agree (completely) with your analysis but I need to blame somebody LOL
look, Canon started it (we know that) with the absurd price of the first 1Ds when there was NOTHING like it
then I blame Canon for keeping the price because they saw it working.
granted, Canon wanted to make some money with us.
BUT
look at the Swedish guys !
now THAT is "wanting to make some money" for real. And that's some "serious" money.
Hey.. they can do whatever they want.
but now it will be fun to see how much money they'll be able to collect once Sony made a single sharp move into the industry.
and look what happened.. some earthquake
LOL
Sony effect:
1Ds no more (not the camera, I mean the fiction price)
since 25MP is now some serious competition to the bigger sensors quality we have a fall.
boy that was quick
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
because Canon always makes them too narrowly focused: the orphan 1.3x sensor in the 1DIII, and the unnecessarily high price and relative paucity of features of the 1DsIII. If I'm going to pay more than $4K for a 35mm digital, I expect everything technology has to offer as part of the package: high framing rate, 100% viewfinder, fast precise AF, variable image proportions...everything to make it the most versatile tool possible rather than the most limited, which seems to be Canon's approach. And I don't buy that proposition that in any way the 1DsIII is worth $8K. It isn't now, nor has it ever been. It's price/IQ ratio has always been delicately balanced to reflect much Canon felt it could get away with charging without forcing users to consider medium format digital.
Even with a stable of Canon lensesBuilding a Sony system from scratch around an a900 for the express purpose of meeting high-resolution needs–which invariably require either a studio environment and/or tremendous shot discipline, thus excluding ISO and possible AF performance advantages and leveling the IQ playing field–is, for me, a much better option than forking over $8K for a 1DsIII. Going with a targeted Sony system would probably be cheaper, too!
And if I really need a dramatic increase in IQ over the 12MP cameras I'm already using, I'll bite the bullet and opt for a medium format solution.
My $0.02.
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
Even with a stable of Canon lensesBuilding a Sony system from scratch around an a900 for the express purpose of meeting high-resolution needs–which invariably require either a studio environment and/or tremendous shot discipline, thus excluding ISO and possible AF performance advantages and leveling the IQ playing field–is, for me, a much better option than forking over $8K for a 1DsIII. Going with a targeted Sony system would probably be cheaper, too!
And if I really need a dramatic increase in IQ over the 12MP cameras I'm already using, I'll bite the bullet and opt for a medium format solution.
My $0.02.
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
cityphotographer
Senior Member
this post stays in the history of the DSLR/bigger sensor format new era
and I'm glad to hear a new price-point for excellence pretty much like it used to be in the pre-digital era
it took 7 years to see this happening
and all thanks to Sony
but we are guilty (all of us, myself first) for doing nothing during this nonsense pricing setup by Canon and hasselblad (both)
we were all sleeping and finding excuses for them to charge more and more and more.
well said, kabe luna, very well said and at the right time!
and I'm glad to hear a new price-point for excellence pretty much like it used to be in the pre-digital era
it took 7 years to see this happening
and all thanks to Sony
but we are guilty (all of us, myself first) for doing nothing during this nonsense pricing setup by Canon and hasselblad (both)
we were all sleeping and finding excuses for them to charge more and more and more.
well said, kabe luna, very well said and at the right time!
headofdestiny
Veteran Member
Not to mention that Sony users get to still use zooms in Zeiss form. The 24-70 outresolves some of my primes.
not really .. there's crop factors involved - non of hassy backs are FF medium format (6x4.5) .. to gain it back on the wide end that people were used to in the MF days - you do have to pony up for at least one more lens or more. depending on your choice of backs, you may have more crop factor to take care of (1.3 versus 1.1 crop).
where I can see the 1Ds replacement not sold at a 7999 suggested retail - alot of this also comes from the retailers, if there is no price competition pressure, they'll still continue to sell it for what the market will pay. retailer competition has alot to do with it as well.
I'll probably boldly predict that the 1Ds will come in at around 1K to 1.5 more than the D3x whatever it may be - which would still come in at around the 6.5 to 7.5K mark.
there's simply a level of portability and usability that no matter how good a MF kit is, a MF format system can't match, and nikon and canon stand alone for quality FF imaging and the level of abuse the cameras can take.
IF medium format gets up to 6x4.5 and a reasonable price - and NOT locked in like the hassy system is now, then let's talk.
cityphotographer
Senior Member
consider that we are not really inventing new markets.
before digital we had:
35mm for sport/fast PJ/amateurs
6x7 for everything else
the 35mm segment gives a market of 40,000 professionals (not a big number after all)
but the 6x7 segment (as it used to be) gives a much bigger number
the problem here, like you said and kabe luna made it very clear, is about the prices. Now the prices of digital were indeed invented by the manufacturers , not the markets where to sell.
please take a look at the prices for semi-pro and pro systems before digital.
before digital we had:
35mm for sport/fast PJ/amateurs
6x7 for everything else
the 35mm segment gives a market of 40,000 professionals (not a big number after all)
but the 6x7 segment (as it used to be) gives a much bigger number
the problem here, like you said and kabe luna made it very clear, is about the prices. Now the prices of digital were indeed invented by the manufacturers , not the markets where to sell.
please take a look at the prices for semi-pro and pro systems before digital.
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
If, in fact, it uses Sony's 24MP chip and delivers IQ on par with the D3/D700 through ISO 1600, along with being feature-packed like those cameras and capable of at least 5fps, no way will Canon be able to keep 1Ds prices above those of that hypothetical Nikon–at least not without losing sales. And they can't really push the pixel count too far without releasing more capable lenses, at which point users having to upgrade bodies and lenses may feel obliged to consider the alternatives, and Nikon's latest lenses seem much better equipped to deal with the demands of pixel-dense sensors than do Canon's existing ones, especially at the wide end, meaning in practice a 24MP Nikon may just provide detail on par with a 38MP Canon. And this neglects consideration of Sony and its Zeiss lenses.
Those are my thoughts on the matter.
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
we really have no clue on either camera system how it will look - nikon and canon are rumoured to both be looking to how to define / redefine their top end systems.
however, the market is defined by either canon and nikon offerings - which was really the point I was making - no other vendor has solutions that are close to the level of robustness as these companies. but depending on the nikon release, I would imagine canon already knows something about it - I still see it coming in more than the nikon.
I won't debate features that we have no clue on .. there's really no point in it.
and btw - it can't be the sony sensor unless nikon falls back to 12 bit processing or quad sampling such as the D300 - 1fps at 14 bit probably wouldn't fly.
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
And smaller IC's have much, much lower defect rates.
On the other hand,
And expensive one-on-one "wooing" of potential customers.
Now the swedes have changed
Swedes? You do know the Hasselblad name belongs to a holding company based in Hong Kong, right?
http://www.shriro.com/
Maybe it'll lead them to grow, but the market would have to grow an awful lot (in a faltering economy) for it to pay off. I hope the succeed.
Well that's not going to last, but because of pressure from below, not from MF.
That depends on the individual lens, as always. Some pro grade zooms outperform their fixed focal equivalent.
Same f stop? Really? They make MF equivalents to the 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2 and 135 f/2?
And here, MF's IQ,
So they're comparable to a 5D in handling, minus the 4 fps speed? They can go to ISO 25,800?
Indeed it does, but because of Nikon, Sony and the 5D, not because of MF. The aformentioned Nikkors are stellar lenses, too, other than the 70-200 (which the L smokes on a FF camera).
Indeed it is. Count on the 1Ds dropping in price.
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Absolutely.
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell
SF Bay Area
Blog: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3/
cityphotographer
Senior Member
I thought that Hasselblad bought imacon but it was Shriro instead. but now kodak gives the sensors to both hasselblad and leica, and Shriro is the major shareholder of pentax and (regular shareholder as far as I know) of zeiss too but hasselblad mounts fuji glass while zeiss is smiling at sony (my head hurts now) .. next thing you know will be that barilla pasta owns both canon and nikon ..
LOL
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum