Interesting, higher res than a 1DX - be interested to see how close it might be to the 5D III sensor and how it performs.....
How many 1DX pre-owners might have second thoughts??
How many 1DX pre-owners might have second thoughts??
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I actually do not think its game over or I need to switch.I shoot with a pair of 1Ds MK IIIs, so no, not surprised at all :-)
In fact I don't think there would ever be any reason for me to ever sell and change
to another brand, save for maybe if Canon goes bankrupt -- which will not happen.
I just find it absolutely ridiculous that any sort of comment made that does not fall along
the lines of "oh Canon is so great" gets bashed. I mean... why? If one doesn't criticize oneself,
how will one improve? I simply mentioned a need that I have and that the current Canon
offering will not fulfil, so I will simply keep on waiting until it does get fulfilled, that is all.
The overwhelming hostility and brand affiliation on this site is almost as bad as POTN, and
probably is a predominate Canon-user trait. None of my Nikon friends exhibit this behavior.
The minute anyone criticizes Canon... or perhaps even Apple, someone immediately
jumps to a conclusion and starts being ultra defensive of their views. I thought forums were
for discussions? Clearly not.
By the way, I shoot with two 1D Mark 3s, surprised?
Since you're not in a rush, and since you're considering spending over five figures on a lens...I'd suggest budgeting an extra grand (total) to rent each before you buy (based on a guesstimate of a few hundred each for a four-day rental). Or, at least, go to your local pro camera shop (if you have one) and play with them in person.I take mine (500mm IS) in a Lowepro bag and the only time I use the (original) case is when I'm at home.... Oh and for the 500mm, could not fit one of my laptops in there - can't speak for the 400 / 600mm versions
Either that, or figure out how much of a hit you'd take to sell one and factor that into your budget. Buy the one you think you're most likely to want, but don't worry about selling it and buying the second on your list if you're not happy (because you've already set that money aside); think of the loss for selling it as the rental price.
And, I gotta tell you...the 400 and the 600 most emphatically are not the sorts of lenses you just toss in a bag with the rest of your gear. They come with hard-shell cases big enough to fit at least a couple dozen laptops, and I wouldn't recommend transporting the lens outside the case. Think of them as watermelon-sized faberge eggs, though their fragility is more like that of the watermelon than the egg.
Frankly, there's no way I'd even think of taking my 400 anywhere unless I knew I was going to be shooting with it, and I doubt I'd be shooting with it on my lunch breaks unless it was part of a paying gig. Don't get me worng -- it's a hella fun lens, and I'm always looking forward to using it. But, at the same time, it's not something to take lightly (so to speak).
Thank you for all the replies. The 400/2.8 II is definitely another strong option that I should consider. Interestingly my main concern was that the 400/2.8 II + 2x extender would be considerably less sharp than the 600/4 + 1.4x but at least with the current 600 that does not appear to be the case - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=741&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0 One advantage that the 600/4 II does have though is it makes a nice 1200/8 - which perhaps will be more useful in the future when Canon releases a 1 series body again capable of focusing at F8.If birding priority has a significant gap over wildlife, then the 600mm is your choice. Not sure why you would sell the 7D unless you were considering a 1D IV, as the effective reach is better.
Note that I currently own a 300/4 and a 70-200/2.8 II. I plan to sell the 300/4 to help fund whatever I buy. However, the earliest I will purchase something is the end of the year as I have quite a bit of saving to do (the 5D3 did not help here
In terms of lugging gear to work, I already lug a bag with a 7D, 5D3, 70-200/2.8 II, and six other L lenses to work every day. I will need a bigger bag for either lens, but it isn't a big deal.
Canon delivered what most of their users indicated they wanted, and where they thought the market was going. Whether there was some technical reasoning behind that we can't tell.QuoteThe problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.
Medium Format cameras are made and used such neccessities. Most of he commercial ads I have been involved with or have witnessed were produced using medium format cameras.
Yes, this is the industry standard.
Most if not all 400ppi prints on commercial design work are using
photos shot with a MF camera.
But you do realize that smaller studios do not have that sort of budget
to be spending $20-40k on a back alone and upgrading it every few years.
High mp 35mm cameras are definitely feasible as shown by the D800,
I really dont see why there cannot be a shift away from shooting medium format.
Photo equipment is severely overpriced, whose to say that it cannot get cheaper?
The world should move forward, not sit back on
existing business models "that works."
+5+4+3+2+1EF 14-24 2.8LThis.
I think the other point to make, be it Nikon, Canon or whoever, is that they should open up the operations of both video and stills in their cameras, rather than have the tech community have to hack them to make changes. If Nikon & Canon differentiated their products based on the HW capability, and left the software features to software devs, then we would have a far richer feature set to leverage....I don't find this review to be accurate, and some of the information in it is actual false. Also, it is very emotional - why? It's just a camera review for goodness sake.
The review is comparing a 5D3 out of the box to a GH2 that has been hacked... great review (i hope my sarcasm is coming through) ;-).
It seems like the author is mostly upset about the price (as are lots of people). He is mainly stating that, for the money, there are a bunch of different features that you can get on different cameras. IE - Uncompressed 4:2:2 via HDMI. I'm not saying I wouldn't want that in my 5D3, but add another $3000 to your GH2 set up for the AJA. *Oh, you'll also be needing a rail support system and some Anton Bauer batteries to power the external recorder.
Also, he makes no statement as to the lenses he is using for the GH2/5D3 comparison.
I'm not going to lie, I personally would love a 1.6X crop from the sensor like on the Nikon. That is a bummer. But if that means I have to use Nikon glass... for get it.
Furthermore, as someone who used the 5D2 a lot for macro videography for the last 3 1/2 years... I can say without a doubt that the "jello" rolling shutter issue is vastly VASTLY improved on the camera.
And shooting super clean 6400iso footage with the CineStyle gamma setting is great!
i agree, but I'm also talking about the other review, i was so surprised how he jumped all over the 5D with out of the box settings and all. to get what we are getting today from the 5D and GH2 they are both essentially hacked, the 5D with the technicolor picture setting and the RGB transcoding software is the standard for professional use, do we forget that camera was delivered to us with no manual video settings and no 24p! and the GH2, well we all know how bad that delivery was, bottom line is it takes US to make them perform well, what we do with them and and what we make of them. out of the box no dslr is going to perform great, you have to know what do with all the settings for you particular application. seems to me he deliberately set off to write a bad review and purposely shot an out of the box factory settings dslr against a completely hacked camera. my first response is yeah i see that too, but i turn this off, disable this, customize my personal settings and the video seemed much better than any of the 30ish projects i shot on the previous version,no moire either... and stills, with HDR and 61 point auto focus, simply an amazing upgrade.
Surely every owner of Canon who has invested a lot in lenses needs to look at the long term, not the short? By that I mean where do you think both Nikon and Canon will be in 5+ years. If you think that Nikon will continue with their "lead" over Canon then the lens investment should not be a barrier if you migrate over time. And by "lead" I mean whatever features you value in a dSLR, be that video, high fps, AF, sensor res, low light capabilities etc.there is no question the D800 is an awesome camera. I am still waiting for the side by side comparison with the 5DIII. I think all of us professional photographers are...
Really? Professional photographers waiting for internet reviews on 2 new bodies which will be out of date in 3 years time?
What about the lenses?
If youre invested in Canon lenses and flashes the 5D3 would have to be pretty crap to make you sell all your gear and start again with another system surely?
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7590/first-truly-representative-nikon-d800-video-footage-dxomark-says-sensor-is-best-everI'm curious.... why have you jumped for a MK III if video was a priority for you? Did you order before any reviews came out? If you have a heavy investment in Canon lenses, then would you not wait to see what the 4K video is, or the "other" body which may be released in the Autumn??
EDIT: For all the people blabbing about photographers not needing one more than the other, I ONLY SHOOT VIDEO!
Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?
Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter. I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one. Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens. Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc. Highly recommended for the right person. For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome. I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF). In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did. Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.
Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)
Hope that's useful.