Reading mode: Light Dark

When will there be a digital Eos 3?

Go to last post
Mr Majestyk said:
... Just think, all those that won't get a
10D, all those that bought a 10D only because that's what they
could afford or 1D was too big and heavy or dear, and all those 1D
users that also could do with something lighter and cheaper would
all jump at a $2500 3D that was 90% of the 1D mK II.

If it doesn't eventuate then I will buy a 1D MK II for sure unless
the next 10D is upgraded a fair bit.
Click to expand...
Herein lies the problem. I don't think anyone would argue with you. I mean if I'm not a professional and I can either pay $4500 for the 1DMkII or I can pay $2500 for a camera that is, as you describe, 90% of the 1DMkII, of course I'm going to pick the cheaper camera. Don't get me wrong, I like to dream about the mythical 3D as much as the rest of us. But if such a beast is ever released by Canon, I'm afraid that my guess would be that it will have to be more like 60% of the 1DMkII in order to be priced at $2500.

The other problem with this theory is you last statement, where you admit you will end up forking over $4500 for the 1DMkII unless the next 10D is upgraded. I'm not at all questioning your decision. I find myself seriously considering a 1DMkII and I have mountains to learn yet with my 10D. But if you are willing to pay $4500 now, what motivation would Canon have for giving you 90% of the same camera for $2500?

-Dan
 
Dan in Texas said:
Herein lies the problem. I don't think anyone would argue with
you. I mean if I'm not a professional and I can either pay $4500
for the 1DMkII or I can pay $2500 for a camera that is, as you
describe, 90% of the 1DMkII, of course I'm going to pick the
cheaper camera. Don't get me wrong, I like to dream about the
mythical 3D as much as the rest of us. But if such a beast is ever
released by Canon, I'm afraid that my guess would be that it will
have to be more like 60% of the 1DMkII in order to be priced at
$2500.
Click to expand...
I'm going on the relationship of EOS 3 to EOS 1V. EOS 3 is 95% the camera 1V is and sold for 50% of the price. By slowing camera down, using slightly smaller pentaprism, smaller, lighter less rugged body, lesser sealing, lower rated shutter life, removal of SD card support and Personal Functions, USB2 and no FireWire, slightly lower quality AA filter and Microlens array, I'm sure you can see a big price reduction in order but camera would still be a killer.
Dan in Texas said:
The other problem with this theory is you last statement, where you
admit you will end up forking over $4500 for the 1DMkII unless the
next 10D is upgraded. I'm not at all questioning your decision. I
find myself seriously considering a 1DMkII and I have mountains to
learn yet with my 10D. But if you are willing to pay $4500 now,
what motivation would Canon have for giving you 90% of the same
camera for $2500?
Click to expand...
Ah but Canon don't know what I'm thinking. Forking out $4500 is a last resort, and in 6 months when I have the money maybe I'll be forking out $4000. I think there is plenty of noise for a 3D and Canon must be aware of it to some extent. Also as has been mentioned before many women are put off by the sheer size and weight of the 1D yet desire most of it's features; surely Canon should be aware that there are many serious female photographers.
 
CPS Swedens representative Per Karlsson have asked to tje japaneese for a a lighter pro-body. Many female pro's have problems with their hands while shooting with 1D/1Ds and prefer 10D.

A pro-body positioned between 1Dmk II and 10D (30D might be the 10D replacement) is likely, but the model won't be high priority like many other models.

I think we'll se the sensor from 1D mk II in a 3D in a year. The 3D will be lighter and not as fast as the 1d mk II

Per Karlsson told me that the present need for 12V power is the problem which have to be solved.

--
Magnus Fröderberg
Photojournalist
http://www.froderberg.com
 
Mr Majestyk said:
I'm going on the relationship of EOS 3 to EOS 1V. EOS 3 is 95% the
camera 1V is and sold for 50% of the price. By slowing camera down,
using slightly smaller pentaprism, smaller, lighter less rugged
body, lesser sealing, lower rated shutter life, removal of SD card
support and Personal Functions, USB2 and no FireWire, slightly
lower quality AA filter and Microlens array, I'm sure you can see a
big price reduction in order but camera would still be a killer.
Click to expand...
Based on the difference between the EOS 3 and EOS 1V, the only thing you'd have to change is the casing, weather sealing, and FPS in order to knock $1K off the price. Without the FPS, you wouldn't need SD card support, so there's some more hardware you can forego saving a bit more. But I doubt excluding the software support and Personal Functions would make a difference in production.

Knock a grand off the price, and knock a pound off the weight, and this Digital EOS 3 would be a killer guaranteed.

Those that need the ruggedness or FPS will buy the 1DII whether the 3D exists or not. If you need it, you need it! But for those of us that don't need/want the price/weight of the 1DII, the 3D would be an excellent camera.

--
JCDoss
 
At some point you have to factor in the benefits of not having to buy film, process it, and get the additional benefits of digital over film.

I wouldn't base justifying a return on investment to your current film use as it will increase greatly. Its as if all the flim and processing comes free with the camera.

So if you were to invest into a imaging tool that gave you immediate processing, viewability, provided you an unlimited number of film rolls, ability to change ISO by frame, provided all of your images as digital files so you didnt have to scan, run neat image dealing with film grain, etc., gave you word class autofocus, fps, in a sealed body. How much more would you pay? Remember the additional cost of free film and processing, extended dynamic range of the film you used, immediate processed image is worth something too. To think it wouldnt be worth a fixed value at double the camera price is hard to understand.

I can say that justifies $1500 in additional cost over a 3. 1D prices are dropping fast too. There will be some quality used bodies hitting the market too!

Compare a 1D to a EOS3 with free film and processing for life at the same price I'd buy the 1D.

The size and weight is such a non actor. I have small hands and wrist...my body has adapted to it easily... you'd learn to like the solidness of this body, and how fast and responsive this body is over the 3.

Fact is if Canon or Nikon offered a free film and processing package with their pro bodies at the same prices as DSLRS digital would still be adopted by pros and serious amatures alike. All the benefits of digital outway film even if they gave you free film, proessing and digital hi res images in 5 days.

Getting that and the 1D is a huge value... and many will still tell you if chose to shoot still 180 images per month and 360 images on a vacation the 10D is an incredible value to enable one to bridge between film and digital. But the price between a 10D and a 1D will not be that much.

Its More Than Pictures
 
Mr Majestyk said:
Mr Majestyk said:
Herein lies the problem. I don't think anyone would argue with
you. I mean if I'm not a professional and I can either pay $4500
for the 1DMkII or I can pay $2500 for a camera that is, as you
describe, 90% of the 1DMkII, of course I'm going to pick the
cheaper camera. Don't get me wrong, I like to dream about the
mythical 3D as much as the rest of us. But if such a beast is ever
released by Canon, I'm afraid that my guess would be that it will
have to be more like 60% of the 1DMkII in order to be priced at
$2500.
Click to expand...
I'm going on the relationship of EOS 3 to EOS 1V. EOS 3 is 95% the
camera 1V is and sold for 50% of the price. By slowing camera down,
using slightly smaller pentaprism, smaller, lighter less rugged
body, lesser sealing, lower rated shutter life, removal of SD card
support and Personal Functions, USB2 and no FireWire, slightly
lower quality AA filter and Microlens array, I'm sure you can see a
big price reduction in order but camera would still be a killer.
Click to expand...
I hear you. And I want to believe. :) My fear is that when people list the features they'd remove from the 1DMkII to make it a 3D, they rarely remove the more valuable features. If Canon really squeezed the 1DMkII into a EOS 3 sized body, wouldn't it be possible that they:

-- remove the second RISC processor used for focusing to cut down on cost, heat and power requirements?

-- because of the more limited room, push the electronics closer to the sensor and therefore loose the long-exposure capability?
-- with reduced processing power, maybe start-up time would increase?

-- not use the 1-series AF--doesn't the EOS 3 have a different AF system?

-- not include any professional image processing software

Don't get me wrong--I hope you are correct. If Canon announced a 3D that has the 1DMkII's sensor, ISO performance, AF, long-exposure capability, something greater than the 10D's 3 fps for $2500, I'd preorder it in a heartbeat, before reading a single review.

Time will tell, but what do people think the odds of such a beast showing up in the fall?

-Dan
 
Dan in Texas said:
Mr Majestyk said:
Dan in Texas said:
Herein lies the problem. I don't think anyone would argue with
you. I mean if I'm not a professional and I can either pay $4500
for the 1DMkII or I can pay $2500 for a camera that is, as you
describe, 90% of the 1DMkII, of course I'm going to pick the
cheaper camera. Don't get me wrong, I like to dream about the
mythical 3D as much as the rest of us. But if such a beast is ever
released by Canon, I'm afraid that my guess would be that it will
have to be more like 60% of the 1DMkII in order to be priced at
$2500.
Click to expand...
I'm going on the relationship of EOS 3 to EOS 1V. EOS 3 is 95% the
camera 1V is and sold for 50% of the price. By slowing camera down,
using slightly smaller pentaprism, smaller, lighter less rugged
body, lesser sealing, lower rated shutter life, removal of SD card
support and Personal Functions, USB2 and no FireWire, slightly
lower quality AA filter and Microlens array, I'm sure you can see a
big price reduction in order but camera would still be a killer.
Click to expand...
I hear you. And I want to believe. :) My fear is that when people
list the features they'd remove from the 1DMkII to make it a 3D,
they rarely remove the more valuable features. If Canon really
squeezed the 1DMkII into a EOS 3 sized body, wouldn't it be
possible that they:

-- remove the second RISC processor used for focusing to cut down
on cost, heat and power requirements?
-- because of the more limited room, push the electronics closer to
the sensor and therefore loose the long-exposure capability?
-- with reduced processing power, maybe start-up time would increase?

-- not use the 1-series AF--doesn't the EOS 3 have a different AF
system?

-- not include any professional image processing software

Don't get me wrong--I hope you are correct. If Canon announced a
3D that has the 1DMkII's sensor, ISO performance, AF, long-exposure
capability, something greater than the 10D's 3 fps for $2500, I'd
preorder it in a heartbeat, before reading a single review.

Time will tell, but what do people think the odds of such a beast
showing up in the fall?

-Dan
Click to expand...
Dan EOS 3 has the 45 pt AF system that 1 series still use. This was where it made its debut. EOS 1V only has faster CPU, better sealing, magnesium body, PF's, bigger pentaprism, data recording and more durable shutter and improved flash and AF exposure algorithms.

EOS 3D even without second AF CPU will still be excellent as current 1D shows and will blow away 10D especially in low light. I agree it's a balancing act and it's easy to say this and that, but I'm sure Canon are smart enough to do it. Heck EOS 3D should actually be a camera with many new features that will find their way into 1D mk III, just like EOS 3 was test bed for 1V.
 
RRICHARDSON said:
The size and weight is such a non actor. I have small hands and
wrist...my body has adapted to it easily... you'd learn to like the
solidness of this body, and how fast and responsive this body is
over the 3.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with the size and weight of a 1D either but many do, especially women and it is still a lot of money if you are not a pro. Digtal costs vs film costs aren't as simple as saving on film and printing. CF cards cost money, HDD space costs money, DVD burners cost money, a fast PC costs money. You don't even need a PC if you use film.
 
I'm sure, the 3D is the most discussed non-existent camera by far since one or two years.I guess Canon could sell them like crazy.And they should be aware of that demand.
I for one would get one for sure.IMO Canon would be nuts not to produce a "3D".

Stefan
Mr Majestyk said:
Mr Majestyk said:
The size and weight is such a non actor. I have small hands and
wrist...my body has adapted to it easily... you'd learn to like the
solidness of this body, and how fast and responsive this body is
over the 3.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with the size and weight of a 1D either but
many do, especially women and it is still a lot of money if you are
not a pro. Digtal costs vs film costs aren't as simple as saving on
film and printing. CF cards cost money, HDD space costs money, DVD
burners cost money, a fast PC costs money. You don't even need a PC
if you use film.
Click to expand...
 
Yes its true... Those are valid points.. but when you add up all the benefits for the serious amature or part time pro most of us have found its well worth investment when spread out over time.

Images for the most part are never at their best until after the lab, and print work is done. Bringing that in house and having control of the finished product has been a real boon to many of us.

I evaluated the film scanning method as a "bridge to digital" but I found it was more "expensive" than just "biting the bullet" and getting a loan and getting all I need then paying it off.. Especially with the interest rates and home re-fis then writing it off as a business expense. Had to make it a business... but why not I love it so much. It was for the most part a fixed price investment. Oh by the way it took me less than 6 mo to pay off everything I bought..not counting lenses finding photo revenue opportunities. I guess if you really want to you will find a way instead of finding excuses. Thats what made the USA.

Its More Than Pictures
 
I've had a 1D for nearly two years and a 1v (without a grip thank God) for long before that and no one at Canon asked for my PJ card before they took my money. But OK, give me an "amature" 3D with a 1.3x chip and decent autofocus. You can continue to lug around your big PJ brick and we'll both be happy.
studio18 said:
The vertical grip is great, I love it.
i couldnt live without it, it not the pro PJ's fault that people
other dont know what its true purpose is for. So why should we lose
something we rely on and use every day for a couple amatures who
just want a 10 body.

besides, it allows for a better battery than that the pathertic 10D
has.

so why complain?

--
Memory for a lifetime...
Life moves fast, capture it, and relive it forever.
Click to expand...
 
RRICHARDSON said:
Yes its true... Those are valid points.. but when you add up all
the benefits for the serious amature or part time pro most of us
have found its well worth investment when spread out over time.

Images for the most part are never at their best until after the
lab, and print work is done. Bringing that in house and having
control of the finished product has been a real boon to many of us.

I evaluated the film scanning method as a "bridge to digital" but I
found it was more "expensive" than just "biting the bullet" and
getting a loan and getting all I need then paying it off..
Especially with the interest rates and home re-fis then writing it
off as a business expense. Had to make it a business... but why
not I love it so much. It was for the most part a fixed price
investment. Oh by the way it took me less than 6 mo to pay off
everything I bought..not counting lenses finding photo revenue
opportunities. I guess if you really want to you will find a way
instead of finding excuses. Thats what made the USA.

Its More Than Pictures
Click to expand...
I agree entirely, but was just making the point that digital is not a cheap as many people make out. I can't wait for either a 1D Mk II or possibly a 10D Mk II.
 
when thinking of using a scanner as a bridge to digital. The biggest reason was that I have 30 years of slides and negatives that I wanted to digitize. Buying a scanner allowed me to postpone purchase of a digital camera by a couple years.

Also, I only shoot about 100 rolls of film/year. If I shot 1000, I'd have bought a 1D when they came out.

--
Bob
 
Bob Howland said:
when thinking of using a scanner as a bridge to digital. The
biggest reason was that I have 30 years of slides and negatives
that I wanted to digitize. Buying a scanner allowed me to postpone
purchase of a digital camera by a couple years.

Also, I only shoot about 100 rolls of film/year. If I shot 1000,
I'd have bought a 1D when they came out.

--
Bob
Click to expand...
If you shoot a lot of slide film > 100 rolls are year, then digital will pay for itself very quickly. In Australia it costs about $20-25 per roll of pro slide film and good developing costs $18-20. I have to even by my slide film from the USA it's so dear here. Even if you shoot print film, it will cost on average $15-20 for film and developing.
 
You can see my earlier post for the reasons why I'd prefer a digital EOS 3 over the 1d MkII or the 10D. Just a few random thoughts I've had while reading the posts since then:

I for one do think that the size and weight of the 1D class bodies (all 3) are important considerations for many. In the film days, many pros specifically chose to shoot with an EOS 3 or Nikon F100 over the EOS 1V or F5 because of the size and weight savings. If I were buying a film body today and money were no object I'd buy an EOS 3 over a 1V for the same reasons and that it has all the features I need and would use in a camera. Why pay more for features I don't need/want and end up with a heavier body to boot? In fact in backpacking, there's a whole slew of lighter weight gear which actually costs more than it's heavier equivalent (ever heard of the titanium spork?). For some, light weight and smaller size IS a determining factor.

As for the costs of film vs. digital, I shoot about 150 rolls/yr which adds up fast. That's about CDN$3000 which would pay for the 1D Mk II in about 2 yrs. But there's other costs with digital. Memory cards, extra batteries, battery rechargers, portable storage devices, upgrades to computer hardware, costs to store the files (extra harddrives, backup media) etc. Also the biggest factor to date for many is upgraditis. This is because this is still an early technology and the advances are great every few months. I know that if I'd bought a D30, I'd have already upgraded it for at least the 10D and I'd now be itching for a 1DMkII. My film bodies don't require upgrading quite so fast, just more film. It took me 13 years to upgrade from my EOS 650 to the Elan 7E and they're both capable of producing the same images. Try saying that about a D30 and a 1DMkII. The costs to upgrade old DSLRs is fairly considerable.

Often I see the argument that digital allows you to shoot more. Not really convincing to me. If I see something I wish to take a picture of I do. My limiting factors for not taking more pictures are: not having the camera with me (DSLR no help here) and not enough time to go out taking pictures (DSLR no help here either). Over the years I've learned to be more selective with the shutter button not because of "not wanting to waste one frame of film" but after filling a filing cabinet with heavily edited slides, I don't need another so-so picture filed in storage. I only press the shutter button when there is the promise of a good picture.

Further to the above, this past summer I went on a photo trip with 3 other photographers. One travelled with a 4x5 view camera, one with a medium format camera, one with a Nikon 5700 and myself with my 35mm gear. The photographer with the view camera took 18 photos (if I recall correctly) on T-Max 100 over the weekend and commented that this was about 3x his normal photographic output. I shot about 6 rolls. The MF chap was somewhere in between. The digital shooter of course came home with the most photos. The photographer with the view camera had only one photo that wasn't of portfolio grade; all the rest were spectacular. The MF guy and I had about a dozen each that we were really, really pleased with. The digital photographer didn't feel he had any photos worth sharing with us. The point I'm trying to make is that volume doesn't necessarily guarantee good results. I've always found that slowing down, learning to see, pre-visualization and really working to get the image are far more important. After all that, I just don't have time to take more photos. I shoot as fast as I can with film and can't see where more pictures would be of much help. Thinking like that about what you are doing is also likely far more instructive than just snapping away with the shutter release.

It's fairly obvious to me that at this time Canon has elected to go after the pro market with the 1D series and the consumer market with the 10D and eventually the 300D cameras. Makes perfect sense to me. Get the pros on board and it enhances the brand and image of the company. Also these are the one's who are least likely to complain about the price as it is a cost of business and a required tool to remain competitive. I think nothing of a $50,000 piece of equipment for my business if it will allow me to provide a better service to my customers and thereby increase my competitive edge. Finally the pro bodies are where the leading edge technology has a home. The fruits of this R&D will eventually seep down into lower lines.

The reason for the 10D and the 300D cameras is this is where the money is to be made in volumes sold. I'm sure Canon realized that to sell a lot of digital cameras to those that couldn't justify the costs of the pro bodies, they'd have to make the DSLRs as affordable as possible. Just like they probably sold considerably more film Rebels than Elans or EOS 3 bodies, they know that it would be more profitable to chase the digital Rebel group than the digital Elan or EOS 3 group. I'm sure the reason the D30/D60/10D came out before the digital Rebel isn't because they wanted to make a digital Elan first, its just that they couldn't figure out how to make the digital Rebel cheap enough to have mass-marked appeal back in the days of the D30 and D60 so they aimed a little higher. That is to say the Elan-like features on the body didn't jack up the price much compared to what the sensor, screen and electronics cost.

I'm sure we aren't the only ones who realize there's a hole between these two levels of cameras. It's just that Canon's resources are probably maxed out going after these two markets which are likely the most important to them. Things in the DSLR market are happening too fast right now for them to ignore these segments and concentrate on the middle ground. I liken it to a photographer who has a 17-40/4L and a 70-200/2.8L IS and realizes there's a hole in the middle, but just hasn't the resources or desire to fill it yet. Maybe someday...
 
bpjod, thanks for your thoughtful reply! I think we are on the same page. While your and others' arguments are convincing about why Canon won't produce a 3D for a while, I hope they will surprise us. I certainly believe there is a market for the 3D and I presume Canon would want to lead in this mid-range segment rather than let Nikon steal the advantage.

Your point about quality vs quantity is well made and well taken. For me the switch to digital is certainly not because of the zero marginal cost of a picture. Indeed it is not a cost argument at all. Although I take the points others have made about film+processing costs, digital is likely to be more expensive for me for the forseeable future due to the hardware costs. Rather, I see 2 key advantages:

First, the immediacy of the feedback - either real time on the LCD or within hours via a laptop. Often when travelling I find myself taking shots in somewhat unfamiliar conditions. On film I find myself deliberating, bracketing, shooting with various film speeds etc. The result of this is that a) I spend less time thinking about composition or really capturing the 'moment', and b) sometimes I just plain get it wrong. Of course, a pro is likely to avoid all this through experience, but I suspect I am not alone in the amateur field. I am confident that digital will make a significant difference.

Second, the ease of sorting, filing and editing and primarily the dramatic reduction in overhead from the moment of taking the shot to viewing the image in Photoshop. This would definitely mean that more of my decent work ends up at the final output stage rather than as slides that I plan to scan sometime.

So, why haven't I taken the digital plunge. Basically because I am worried that I'll be disappointed if I go the 10D route and will revert to film for important shots. Despite my preference for a 3D, I am tempted by the 1DII, but struggle with the price tag. Maybe it's time to 'just do it'...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top