Canon 1d mk IV Released
Discussion
Time to start writing my letter to Santa!
At last the rumors have stopped and we can all dribble for real!
At last the rumors have stopped and we can all dribble for real!
As a long standing working professional the cost cameras these days is now forcing pro to use cheaper models.
I currently use Canon 1Ds Mk111's. when I was on film cameras it was costing £ 1,450.00 for a top pro spec'ed camera body that would last you up to ten years. Now you pay about £ 5,000 for the top pro camera and you have replace them every two years.
OK the quality is improving with every release, but I find that it gets harder and hard to justify the constant outlay for such overpriced equipment. I would understand it if Canon or Nikon knew it would be ten year before you buy a new camera. but when you constantly have to upgrade. It certainly make you feel ripped off. Especially with all the issues on the 1D Mk111
I currently use Canon 1Ds Mk111's. when I was on film cameras it was costing £ 1,450.00 for a top pro spec'ed camera body that would last you up to ten years. Now you pay about £ 5,000 for the top pro camera and you have replace them every two years.
OK the quality is improving with every release, but I find that it gets harder and hard to justify the constant outlay for such overpriced equipment. I would understand it if Canon or Nikon knew it would be ten year before you buy a new camera. but when you constantly have to upgrade. It certainly make you feel ripped off. Especially with all the issues on the 1D Mk111
Edited by Snapper7 on Tuesday 20th October 12:53
Just some thoughts Big Dub...
How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 20th October 13:49
GetCarter said:
Just some thoughts Big Dub...
How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
I have been noticing that price drop in D3's recently, may have to purchase one next year.How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 20th October 13:49
Edited by ...Mole... on Tuesday 20th October 14:05
...Mole... said:
GetCarter said:
Just some thoughts Big Dub...
How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
I have been noticing that price drop in D3's recently, may have to purchase one next year.How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 20th October 13:49
Edited by ...Mole... on Tuesday 20th October 14:05
GetCarter said:
...Mole... said:
GetCarter said:
Just some thoughts Big Dub...
How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
I have been noticing that price drop in D3's recently, may have to purchase one next year.How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 20th October 13:49
Edited by ...Mole... on Tuesday 20th October 14:05
GetCarter said:
Just some thoughts Big Dub...
How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
I understand what you're saying.How many people need more than 16 mp?
Do you think the Sony will take better photos because it has more pixels?
Is the sensor in the Sony bigger than the Canon?
If not... why is it trying to fit more pixels on?
...so it looks like it's a better deal perhaps!
Anyway... You can now pick up a D3 for £2799... this new Canon seems very expensive!
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 20th October 13:49
The Sony site gives the spec of the A900 sensor as:
Image sensor type - Exmor CMOS sensor
Image sensor colour filter - R, G, B, Primary color
Size (mm) - 35.9 x 24
Not sure how that compares to the Canon. That said, I could never afford the Sony, let alone the Canon!
big dub said:
Surely for £4.5k you should be getting more than 16mp?!
While Sony's A900 gives 24.6mp for just over £2k. I think I'd buy the Sony and spend the money I saved on extra lenses.
If its purely about number of pixels then canon make the 5DmkII and 1DsIII and IV on the way.While Sony's A900 gives 24.6mp for just over £2k. I think I'd buy the Sony and spend the money I saved on extra lenses.
1D is all about speed, frames per second, focusing, getting the shot and getting it to getty or your news desk ASAP.
JohnS said:
£4.5k
As snapper7 said, too many pros (myself included) just cannot afford or justify these huge prices for cameras every few years. Rates are falling all the time, clients want it all for less. Tabloid newspapers pay about £50 for a typical shot of Premier league football - how many freelance photographers can justify a £4500 hard-core "sports" camera at rates like that?
Snapper7 said:
Now you pay about £ 5,000 for the top pro camera and you have replace them every two years
Why do you have to replace? Doesn't the shutter last for at least 150000 actuations so for 90 working weeks that's 1700 shots a week. About a picture a minute every working day! That's not accounting for battery charging, setting up, travel, workflow processing etc etc. Data storage for 150,000 20MB files ...Whats really lifing the camera?
Isn't the pressure for the working pro the fact that someone else will upgrade?
The publishers want the best image and only that one gets paid. The pace of improvement in images, especially at the high ISO end of the scale has been hugely impressive over the last 5-10 years. Therefore all others being equal the nice grain free ISO 640 football image from a D3 will win over the more grainy ISO 640 version from a D2. The key phrase I used was all else being equal, a great photogrpaher still produces great images, IMHO this more than compensates for the latest kit.
I expect now that the top line cameras are so good in terms of AF speed, motor drive speed and low light ISO that the pace of change may slow down and so ease the pressure on the working pros
Chris
The publishers want the best image and only that one gets paid. The pace of improvement in images, especially at the high ISO end of the scale has been hugely impressive over the last 5-10 years. Therefore all others being equal the nice grain free ISO 640 football image from a D3 will win over the more grainy ISO 640 version from a D2. The key phrase I used was all else being equal, a great photogrpaher still produces great images, IMHO this more than compensates for the latest kit.
I expect now that the top line cameras are so good in terms of AF speed, motor drive speed and low light ISO that the pace of change may slow down and so ease the pressure on the working pros
Chris
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff