1Ds Replacement Soon?

[AJ]

i'm not entirely sure if there's any strategic value in releasing the 1ds4 before the 5d3.

Anyone in the market who would drop 10k on a camera would most likely wait the extra month or two to see what the 5d3 offers.

Em, no.

If a pro needs a camera, he or she will buy it now. They are not technology-speculating geeks.

A pro will buy the camera for its build, dual card slots, etc. Stuff that the 5D series doesn't offer. 5D = consumer, 1Ds = pro. Completely different markets.

 

[Bob Howland]

A pro will buy the camera for its build, dual card slots, etc. Stuff that the 5D series doesn't offer. 5D = consumer, 1Ds = pro. Completely different markets.

So what are the people making a living using 5D's? There seem to be an awful lot of them.

 

[motorhead]

I know two pro's still happily using the 30D and I have heard of another using a 20D. Why spend a fortune on kit when something cheaper does the job? It's the nut on the end of the shutter button that makes or breaks the image, not the kit. An aquaintance works as a staff 'tog on a UK sailing mag, all his kit is well used, especially the tripod, which is literally held together with brown plastic tape!

However, I fully understand that the 1D series is built like a tank because its designed to be a professional tool, while the 5D is less robust. I admit that I am in the market when the 1Ds mk4 appears, talent, or rather a lack of, will then clearly be my only problem!

 

[tzalmagor]

That would be entirely the wrong camera for me. 21mp is yesterdays news, everyone seems to have cameras with at least that these days. I will also never need the extremely high ISO's already being offered. No I want the 40MP now, with 50 (or more) next time around.

Seems to have, or actually need ? Not everybody buys a DSLR to print posters.

 

[motorhead]

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was referring to camera manufacturers. I agree for the user everthing depends on individual needs.

 

[tzalmagor]

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was referring to camera manufacturers. I agree for the user everthing depends on individual needs.

Canon offers four resolutions - 21MP, 18MP, 16MP (1Dmk4, too expensive for me), and 12MP (1100D).

Which is why I'm keeping an open eye on the Nikon D700 replacement.

 

[Thomas McConnell]

I think there are so many software those can handle raw video, but most of them requires money.

Thomas McConnell

 

[This is the Edge]

This is from Russell James' (Victoria Secret Photographer) assistant Alex in response to a fan's questions about the difference between the 1Ds II and III.

"Raymond- there is a huge difference. The image quality is much better, high resolution, better ISO, but if you think about getting a new one wait a little bit, the new one is on the way "

 

[dr croubie]

I think there are so many software those can handle raw video, but most of them requires money.

and if you can afford a $3000-$10000 camera, and actually need the quality of raw video because you're a pro actually making movies, then you can afford to shell out $a few hundred for editing software.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think there are so many software those can handle raw video, but most of them requires money.

and if you can afford a $3000-$10000 camera, and actually need the quality of raw video because you're a pro actually making movies, then you can afford to shell out $a few hundred for editing software.

$3,000 - $10,000 is nothing compared to the software used to process HDDSLR video for movies. Its mostly done by specislty houses, no one really buys software to process video for a motion picture, its custom software.

The Red Epics that Peter Jackson is using to film "The Hobbit are said to run $58,000 ea as equiped for filming, and there are thirty of them. Processing not included.

http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/peter-jacksons-hobbit-films-to-be-made-on-30-red-epic-cameras-20101129/

The movie business is not about $3,000 or $10,000 cameras and a few hundred dollars worth of software.

 

[UncleFester]

The movie business is not about $3,000 or $10,000 cameras and a few hundred dollars worth of software.

What about independent (no-to-low budget)?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The movie business is not about $3,000 or $10,000 cameras and a few hundred dollars worth of software.

What about independent (no-to-low budget)?

Which no to low budget movies have been released lately? Those filmed with HDDSLR's are not ready for the big screen. They are reprocessed first, and the cost is huge.

If you think that a home video goes straight into a movie, you have been misled.

Remember, this was a answer to someone who claimed that the cost of software to process RAW Video for producing a movie was hundreds of dollars.

Of course, you can make a home movie cheaply, but the cost of getting it ready to release to a big screen is not trivial.

Those independent movie makers sell their production to a company who then invests the big dollars to reprocess it and distribute it to the theaters.

 

[UncleFester]

The movie business is not about $3,000 or $10,000 cameras and a few hundred dollars worth of software.

What about independent (no-to-low budget)?

Which no to low budget movies have been released lately? Those filmed with HDDSLR's are not ready for the big screen. They are reprocessed first, and the cost is huge.

If you think that a home video goes straight into a movie, you have been misled.

Remember, this was a answer to someone who claimed that the cost of software to process RAW Video for producing a movie was hundreds of dollars.

Of course, you can make a home movie cheaply, but the cost of getting it ready to release to a big screen is not trivial.

Those independent movie makers sell their production to a company who then invests the big dollars to reprocess it and distribute it to the theaters.

Well, the reason why I asked my question in that way is because, IMO, big movie business isn't the only movie business. And I'm sure there are a lot of independent no-budget artists who don't get seen, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there making movies - from dslr to FCP to low budget distribution on vhs or dvd or whatever. It's just like the independent music biz. Look at youtube - what a great avenue for shorts and getting your name out.

And no, I can't name anyone as I don't pay that much attention to feature and direct more of my attention to documentary these days.

And yes, I understand movies don't go from dslr to big screen, and the costs of bumping and distribution and all that.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The movie business is not about $3,000 or $10,000 cameras and a few hundred dollars worth of software.

What about independent (no-to-low budget)?

Which no to low budget movies have been released lately? Those filmed with HDDSLR's are not ready for the big screen. They are reprocessed first, and the cost is huge.

If you think that a home video goes straight into a movie, you have been misled.

Remember, this was a answer to someone who claimed that the cost of software to process RAW Video for producing a movie was hundreds of dollars.

Of course, you can make a home movie cheaply, but the cost of getting it ready to release to a big screen is not trivial.

Those independent movie makers sell their production to a company who then invests the big dollars to reprocess it and distribute it to the theaters.

Well, the reason why I asked my question in that way is because, IMO, big movie business isn't the only movie business. And I'm sure there are a lot of independent no-budget artists who don't get seen, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there making movies - from dslr to FCP to low budget distribution on vhs or dvd or whatever. It's just like the independent music biz. Look at youtube - what a great avenue for shorts and getting your name out.

And no, I can't name anyone as I don't pay that much attention to feature and direct more of my attention to documentary these days.

And yes, I understand movies don't go from dslr to big screen, and the costs of bumping and distribution and all that.

Uncle Fester, thanks for your thoughts.

We are on the same page, I just did not want would be film makers to be disillusioned and think that they could actually produce a feature movie ready for distribution with a few hundred dollars worth of software.

Certainly, professional video productions (as opposed to big screen cinema can be done with software like final cut pro or Adobe Production Suite (Preimere Pro, Audition, encore DVD) for a few thousand dollars.

Or amateur productions can be done on a shoestring for utube, etc. Its just terminology, but I think of movies as big screen releases, and videos as DVD type productions for smaller screens like TV sets or pc screens.

Here is a good reference for would be film makers of the cinematography or professional kind)

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/category/workflow-and-production/digital-workflow/

 

[chuckjr]

That's not an accurate blanket statement. Many pro's, especially those of here in los angeles, rent high end bodies and then invoice the client for it. Why spend $8000 on a body that will be worth 30% of that in four years?
My personal gear is different, i own the lenses and a decent body but if a job requires a medium format sensor or the speed and size associated with a 1Ds I'll rent it.

i'm not entirely sure if there's any strategic value in releasing the 1ds4 before the 5d3.

Anyone in the market who would drop 10k on a camera would most likely wait the extra month or two to see what the 5d3 offers.

Em, no.

If a pro needs a camera, he or she will buy it now. They are not technology-speculating geeks.

A pro will buy the camera for its build, dual card slots, etc. Stuff that the 5D series doesn't offer. 5D = consumer, 1Ds = pro. Completely different markets.