5D3, 1D5 and 1Ds4 Timeline [CR1]

[DetlevCM]

Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

I'm not sure that everyone can say that. Perhaps for you it's a non-issue. But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max. I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it? Many times it's just not practical.

That being said, I agree with you, that if you're doing a 1-day or afternoon photo shoot, and then come home to a laptop/desktop with TBs of storage space (which isn't all that expensive any more), then having 25mb+ RAW image files is fine. Keep in mind though, if you have to do some batch editing on thousands of those, it will take noticeably longer on larger files than smaller ones. Anyways, just my opinions on the matter. I'm sure I'll be first in line once Canon actually releases these beasts.

So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.

 

[Etienne]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Low light performance really means good high ISO performance. The 5DII is Canon's best high ISO, and I don't think Canon will let Nikon continue to walk away with the high ISO award.

High ISO is important for many things: low light use, ability to shoot at small apertures in moderate light, when very fast shutter speed is required like sports in indoor arenas. I can't think of why anyone would object to good high ISO performance. There is a trade off between pixel count and high ISO, and I hope the 5DIII achieves a good balance. Personally I don't need more pixels, so I favor improvements in ISO performance. Of course in a perfect world I'd get both in one Camera.

 

[DetlevCM]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Does Nikon "walk away"?
Scale down the 5D MK II to Nikon resolutions or scale up the Nikon resolutions to 5D MK II resolutions and they become pretty equal, at least for the D700.

-> Overall noise stays the same, per pixel noise increases with smaller pixels.

Now the current sensors from Sony apparently offer a greater dynamic range, and that might be a plus for the Sony-sensor-buyer Nikon right now.

 

[Flake]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?

Low light performance really means good high ISO performance. The 5DII is Canon's best high ISO, and I don't think Canon will let Nikon continue to walk away with the high ISO award.

High ISO is important for many things: low light use, ability to shoot at small apertures in moderate light, when very fast shutter speed is required like sports in indoor arenas. I can't think of why anyone would object to good high ISO performance. There is a trade off between pixel count and high ISO, and I hope the 5DIII achieves a good balance. Personally I don't need more pixels, so I favor improvements in ISO performance. Of course in a perfect world I'd get both in one Camera.

I think you've missunderstood my point here. By high Iso performance I'm talking about being able to shoot in a dark room where you can barely see at Iso 25600 and still get useable images (Something D3 users claim to be able to do).
High Iso is relevant because it's directly linked to dynamic range, a camera has to have good performance, but in a camera like the 5D MkII/I I don't require class leading performance, I don't want to photograph the black man looking in the dark room for the black cat that isn't there!

BTW I would have said that the ID MkIII was the best camera in the line up for low noise.

As to Nikons answer, well it doens't bother me too much as I'm not a Nikon user, but to me the 12MP sensor looked underpixeled when it was launched, and the high Iso ability might be a plus for it, but other than that it's a bit of a one trick pony, and the half stop between the D700 and the 5D MkII isn't enough for me to lose much sleep over.

 

[Chewy734]

So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.

Well, unfortunately I don't have a netbook. My Macbook Pro weighs at least 6 lbs, and I use Aperture, so I can't buy a cheap windows netbook (assuming I want to use the netbook for more than just a conduit to save files). If I take my current laptop with an external HD, I'm more than doubling my backpack's weight.

 

[DetlevCM]

So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.

Well, unfortunately I don't have a netbook. My Macbook Pro weighs at least 6 lbs, and I use Aperture, so I can't buy a cheap windows netbook (assuming I want to use the netbook for more than just a conduit to save files). If I take my current laptop with an external HD, I'm more than doubling my backpack's weight.

Shouldn't have bought a Mac then my laptop (NOT netbook) weighs 1,73kg + maybe 300g for the power brick, is now soon 3 years old and handles my 5D MK II's RAW files in Adobe Photoshop CS4 without an issue.

 

[EELinneman]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL

 

[DetlevCM]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

 

[Loswr]

But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max. I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it? Many times it's just not practical.

On my most recent trip, I took along some USB thumb drives for image backup. Imation makes a 64 GB thumb drive that's about the size of a AA battery, and three of those were enough for backups of 2 weeks worth of 5DII images (one copy on the internal drive and one copy on a USB thumb drive so I could re-use the CF cards if necessary). I also had along a 96GB ExpressCard SSD, in case I needed more space.

 

[Bob Howland]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.

 

[DetlevCM]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.

You know, a link would help

 

[Bob Howland]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.

You know, a link would help

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

You can download the raw images if you start from the camera review. At ISO12,800+, images need a LOT of noise reduction.

 

[DetlevCM]

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL

Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.

You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.

You know, a link would help

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

You can download the raw images if you start from the camera review. At ISO12,800+, images need a LOT of noise reduction.

Thanks for the link

 

[Chewy734]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. Sadly I still have a 20D, so I don't think I'll be able to hook up any USB devices directly to it.

 

[Admin US West]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. Sadly I still have a 20D, so I don't think I'll be able to hook up any USB devices directly to it.

With a 20D, you can save a lot more images to a given size CF card, so a 16GB Card might be overkill.

Certainly, a photographer should have more than one flash card if going on vacation and wanting to take lots of images. If a card fails, they could be out of luck because they didn't buy a spare or two. 8GB cards are pretty cheap right now. I would take several cards, so if one died, I'd still have images on the other two or three.

 

[Chewy734]

With a 20D, you can save a lot more images to a given size CF card, so a 16GB Card might be overkill.

Certainly, a photographer should have more than one flash card if going on vacation and wanting to take lots of images. If a card fails, they could be out of luck because they didn't buy a spare or two. 8GB cards are pretty cheap right now. I would take several cards, so if one died, I'd still have images on the other two or three.

Yeah, I agree. That's what I do. I was just referring to the situation with a much larger MP count like the proposed 28+ MP 5D3.

 

[Rocky]

Just want to point out that now some European airline limits the carry on weight to be 8 Kg (17.5 lbs). The camera gear alone will be that much weight. There is no allowance left for lap top, power supply, external hard drive etc. A bunch of high capacity CF card (or SD card) is the best way to go, reguardless what camera system that you have.

 

[Admin US West]

[Yeah, I agree. That's what I do. I was just referring to the situation with a much larger MP count like the proposed 28+ MP 5D3.

A larger sensor will likely cause me to get a couple more 16GB cards. I tend to avoid the really big ones, so a loss of a card doesn't lose everything. Of course, my 1D MK III makes a backup to the SD card, so loss there is very unlikely.

I'd like that feature in a new camera, but I've yet to lose any images, so it will only become a big issue on the day I lose them.

 

[DetlevCM]

Just want to point out that now some European airline limits the carry on weight to be 8 Kg (17.5 lbs). The camera gear alone will be that much weight. There is no allowance left for lap top, power supply, external hard drive etc. A bunch of high capacity CF card (or SD card) is the best way to go, reguardless what camera system that you have.

Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.

I think I once had 11 or even 12kg of hand luggage + the full checked in allowance and nobody complained, I'm flying Lufthansa by the way.
-> Also, if you read the Lufthansa terms closely, it says 6kg or 2kg more with a laptop, and a small camera, and, and, and... so that you sort of think that they will not complain if you put anything expensive in your hand luggage.
-> And the cheaper stuff can obviously wonder into the main luggage (e.g. cables)

 

[Rocky]

Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.

Have you ever flown a three letter airline started with 'S" that is based in northern Europe?? It spell out clearly as one peice of carry on with weight limit of 8 Kg. This airline is just as reputable as Lufthansa. Did you check the web site of Lufthansa lately??? It also have the same limit without additional allowance for lap top or camera. You got through without problem may be due to: 1. you are lucky, 2. you did not fly recently. But we should not bet on our luck all the time.