Aside from aliasing issues, poor sound capture, and smarter focusing these cameras have a long ways to go.

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20

To some ‘photographers” that means very little, as in the wedding industry the last thing some “photographers” care about is getting great and interesting photos in camera. Bigger albums, prettier studios, more technology without a single mention about the actual photography. Like wrapping a turd. Unfortunately alot of the general public get hoodwinked by it and fall for it.

We are exactly the same page. Just like the over reliance of photographers that DO NOT have an natural eye for a great photo, or for composition, or can sense a decisive moment take very average images in camera and work them in photoshop for 3 months to turn it into an illustration in order to “make it” an interesting photo.

They just offer more and more and more to deflect the fact they have no natural talent for a photo and need to use technology to book clients.

Agreed. Thing is, there are different fields and some people doesn’t understand it. Being a great guitarist doesn’t make you a great dancer and both use music; even if you’re great at both, you can’t do it at the same time. Period, it’s a fact of life.
As photographers, one example is a wedding; video and still can’t go hand to hand. You can’t do both without compromising one. Too many megapixels have pamper us taking sloppy pictures and cropping in post, but sometimes is not the best route. A good photographer knows his trade and will try to get a great composition in field, so how can you move that fast taking the video?
Or if you’re doing video, how can you suddenly remove all the attached devices (used for a real good video) to take a weird position to get that great angle for the picture?
I respect people who does video and I’m glad they can use any of this cameras, and they should respect still photography as well. It’s not fighting, it’s simply different trades. And I’m sorry if I’m missing something, but despite this cameras has video, I still see all manufacturers saying “for professional photographers” while the camcorders, despite some having the capability to take stills are “for professional videographers”.

Agree 100%.

These guys that say they are stills & video in one. I can shoot video while do stills etc. Wow, they must be really putting some effort in composition and being creative with their stills while trying to juggle video and stills at the same time, lol, it’s a gimmick to book the general public, who just don’t know any better.

We all know the type, they type of photogs that will offer anything to potential clients to distract them fro the fact they are crap photographers with no eye whatsoever, which is very prevalent in the wedding industry unfortunately. It is like, ‘sure the photography is crap but look at my pretty studio, and pretty albums and i can do video as well as stills at the same time etc ‘

If you a good stills photographer you should be putting all your effort into your stills work and not trying to offer the world in order to out bid other photographers with ‘what i can give you’.

“they are releasing a camera without the proper preparation in advance”

The camera is not shipping yet, as in not yet released. I’m sure it will ship with the proper RAW decoding in DPP and firmware in the 1D4. The point is as of right now, only pre-production cameras are out in testing, so any criticism of it is premature, and it would be inappropriate to release RAW files at this stage.

First, Canon used to have the best all around DSLR; in the latest years, low light and AF were (are) better in nikon FF (for some use, giving no more than 12 Mp are needed); in the zoom department, Nikon again surpass the old canons (expected due new technology, so we need to wait for canon updates). I do not cheer for any company, to me, it’s business. My relationship with Canon is simple, I pay for a product/service and they deliver it. Up to now, I don’t have anything bad to say about them, they’ve been very accommodating to my needs (up to the limit a business shall be) and I’ve been paying them. Now, since using more low light conditions, I’m using my 5D2 with the ST-E2 for proper and good focusing but I received some complains about the “red light” so I want something good for the task. I tried a D3 for a few minutes, and for that task, it was better (I’m not saying better camera, I’m saying better at that specific task). So, of course, being invested in Canon gear, I want a product that deliver the same.

Think global, I know, you can’t make everybody happy, but a company should try. What they are doing now, is breaking deeper the confidence in them; plus, many pros (not the big deal people, but the ones who make a living out of photography) are anxious because many have been waiting for this camera at this specific time to buy new gear and do what’s needed for taxes purposes; some, will have to buy something else and burn the money just to wait for the camera.

Second, if is right what you’re saying about the RAW converters, that breaks deeper the confidence, because they are releasing a camera without the proper preparation in advance. I don’t care the reason, but it points that they wanted to compete with Nikon, Why? If canon were really way better than Nikon, nobody would mind what Nikon or anybody else do. See that nobody make a big deal out of any other vendor’s releases.

Canon has DPP, they should have by now the right decoding. Are we to buy a 5 grand camera blindly out of faith? At least, I cannot do it. I’m more in the league of a hobbyist with some paying jobs, who had to work over time for two years to save the money for the “toy” without compromising my budget.

I see your point and I don’t criticize it, I embrace it with the understanding of your needs and requirements, perhaps you can see mine and other people circumstances/desires/needs.

As for the 1D4, most likely the reason there are not a lot of samples of still quality is Canon is probably still not done with the RAW conversion software, and they do not want moronic Nikon-loving reviewers trashinig the camera for not being sharp like some did with the 7D when they tested beta cameras with beta software. If Canon is smart, they will not allow any low light still samples until the proper RAW decoding can be done.

The main point is that as per marketing, design and history, this is a photographic camera, a camera designed for still pictures WITH a video capability.
If Canon now wants to switch and have Video cameras with still capability, then it’s all good; I (and many others) want to know the “revolution” in our main interest and get the best tool for our purpose.

Right now, with the 1D4 it’s the same, there are only videos around and no real life, low light pictures at ISO 6,400 or 12,800. It looks to be a Video Camera and not a still camera as used (and intended) to be.

Be honest, the video capabilities are good for someone with great knowledge in videography or the average Joe (as I am) to take a quick video for personal use; because to create something professional (or good enough), you need several accessories (starting from a powered good mic) which I won’t need, require nor willing to carry along my lenses.

So my point, easy, sorry, not a “revolution” in the still camera department, they gave me more pixels, a step up in technology (ISO) and nothing else. Revolutionary would be a better AF for low light, two or three stops better and real weather sealing.