Canon Just announced the EOS-1D Mark III

On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:

I'm going to have a hard time not purchasing the new 1D when it becomes available...

Like you, I was mopping up drool after reading about all the improved
features and specs of the 1DMKIII. After seeing the sample images on
dpreview, however, I feel I can hold off the jones.

The sample shots were good, but they weren't "sell the car, I gotta
have that camera!" good.

Always ask yourself this: "What pics can I get with the new camera
that I can't get with my current equipment?" In my case, I'd gain
some speed but I'd lose on the telephoto end with the 1.3x crop factor
instead of my current 1.6x. But if I shot a lot of sports, the new
camera is a no-brainer.

And you know that when Canon upgrades the 1DsMKII, that model is gonna
be the daddy! Also, the timing of the release of the new 16-35 f/2.8L
II is interesting. Since most of the improvement is reported to be at
the edges of the images (and the corners), one wonders if a new FF
body announcement isn't in the works.

"Skip" wrote in message
...
Trigger for what?

The trigger for me to buy it.

Ah, probably not a major consideration for Canon :-)

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Skip" wrote in message
...
Trigger for what?

The trigger for me to buy it.

Ah, probably not a major consideration for Canon :-)

MrT.


Probably not. But this part of the thread was a conversation between myself
and "Rita." Not between myself and Canon. Also, it might be indicative of
what it would take for someone, such as myself, to upgrade from the present
16-35 to the new one, if they already had the present iteration, which I do.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Skip" wrote in message
...
Also, it might be indicative of
what it would take for someone, such as myself, to upgrade from the
present
16-35 to the new one, if they already had the present iteration, which I
do.

In fact the only things you would need to consider in that case is how much
EXTRA you would need to pay after you sold your current lens, and whether
the improvements would justify that extra expense, for YOU.
I seriously doubt Canon expects the majority of buyers to be current owners
though.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Skip" wrote in message
...
Also, it might be indicative of
what it would take for someone, such as myself, to upgrade from the
present
16-35 to the new one, if they already had the present iteration, which I
do.

In fact the only things you would need to consider in that case is how
much
EXTRA you would need to pay after you sold your current lens, and whether
the improvements would justify that extra expense, for YOU.
I seriously doubt Canon expects the majority of buyers to be current
owners
though.

MrT.




That, my friend, was the point to what I said.
While Canon may not expect the majority of buyers to be current owners, I'll
contend that they are betting on a considerable number of them moving from
one to the other.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Annika1980 wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:

I'm going to have a hard time not purchasing the new 1D when it becomes available...

Like you, I was mopping up drool after reading about all the improved
features and specs of the 1DMKIII. After seeing the sample images on
dpreview, however, I feel I can hold off the jones.

That's the way I feel. The MKIII is not good enough to have me sell the
MKII and get the MKIII.


The sample shots were good, but they weren't "sell the car, I gotta
have that camera!" good.

The same thought crossed my mind too.


Always ask yourself this: "What pics can I get with the new camera
that I can't get with my current equipment?" In my case, I'd gain
some speed but I'd lose on the telephoto end with the 1.3x crop factor
instead of my current 1.6x. But if I shot a lot of sports, the new
camera is a no-brainer.

I have use of both x factors, the 1.3x and the 1.6x. Though I use the
1.3x MKII more than I use the 1.6x 30D I like having the 30D to fall
back on when I need it. I think of the 1.6x as a means of doubling my
lens inventory.


And you know that when Canon upgrades the 1DsMKII, that model is gonna
be the daddy!

That's the camera that has me salivating.

Also, the timing of the release of the new 16-35 f/2.8L
II is interesting. Since most of the improvement is reported to be at
the edges of the images (and the corners), one wonders if a new FF
body announcement isn't in the works.

I'm inclined to think a new FF is in the works.

ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:04:54 -0800, nick c wrote:

About half the battery weight...much smaller size...and about double the
shot capacity...
. . .

Thanks for the info., Mark. With such an improvement in the power
source, I would agree, it would be tough to complain about the
difference in battery design which will, no doubt, change again. But
I'm still happy to keep using my 1.3x 1DMKII and can see no reason for
me trade it off for an improved 1.3x MKIII. A change in camera body
equipment won't cause a drastic improvement in my present technical
photographic skills (which may stand some improving, as I'm open to
new ideas and techniques) nor in the type subject matter I like to
photograph.

The new battery is certainly lighter but the large NP-E3 is almost
certainly using *old* NiMH AA cells that were never replaced as
battery technology improved. They're rated at 1650mAh and if an
NP-E3b used the latest 2,700mAh cells the weight would remain the
same but the battery life would nearly double.

I haven't had any problems with any of the NP-E3 batteries that I have.
Neither have I had a condition where I wished I had more battery life
so I could continue taking pictures. If I have a full day planned for
picture taking, I generally take two fully charged batteries, one in the
camera and one spare. Rarely have I needed to use the spare. If I'm
using the 30D, I take generally four fully charged batteries; two in the
camera and two spares. Batteries and/or battery life has not been a
problem for me.

I read someone's
recent comment (yours?) that they were still using a bunch of NP-E3
batteries, some 7 years old.

Wasn't me. But I am still using the original battery that came with the
1DMKII when it first hit the open market and that's when I bought it. I
can't recall how many times it has been charged but I can say it darn
sure has seen a lot of use and it's still going strong. For that matter,
so has the 1DMKII seen a lot of use with nary a problem.

You can do that with NiMH but Li-Ion
batteries will probably have to be replaced at least a couple of
times if the MKIII is used for seven years. Not that I'm a big fan
of battery packs that use so many cells. If you're not careful
they're easy to be mistreated, and then they'll not last anywhere
near seven years.

I have six NP-E3 batteries and I have no doubt the 1DMKII camera fill
wear out before the batteries fail to function properly.

My interest, aside from lenses, is in a FF camera like the 1DsMKII.
However, I must say that I think the ideal camera is one that has the
APS-H sensor with a 1.3x crop factor.

Mark² wrote:
nick c wrote:
Mark² wrote:
nick c wrote:
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Details are up on my site along with the other Canon releases just
coming through:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=893

Cheers,

Wayne

I received Canon's notice of the camera this morning and I read it
uses an E4 battery instead of the E3 battery presently used in the
1DMKII. Since I'm not unhappy using the 1DMKII and have quite a few
E3 batteries, I'm not too interested in the MKIII but I'm almost
always interested in new lenses.
About half the battery weight...much smaller size...and about double
the shot capacity...

Tough to complain.

Thanks for the info., Mark. With such an improvement in the power
source, I would agree, it would be tough to complain about the
difference in battery design which will, no doubt, change again. But
I'm still happy to keep using my 1.3x 1DMKII and can see no reason for
me trade it off for an improved 1.3x MKIII. A change in camera body
equipment won't cause a drastic improvement in my present technical
photographic skills (which may stand some improving, as I'm open to
new ideas and techniques) nor in the type subject matter I like to
photograph.

To be honest, there have been times when I miss film, especially slide
film. Not too often, but there have been times. :-)

I do understand your thinking, though. My 10D and 5D use my very old D30
batteries quite happily (they're coming up on 7 years old!), and I've always
appreciated never having to carry a different battery type. I noticed that
the new Rebel series is using a smaller battery now, so I'm wondering if
this new size will migrate upward into the mid-level series (20/30D etc.)
I've had the impression that the batteries for the 1 series are rather old
tech, and from the specs listed for the new batteries, it appears the
complaints were true.

If my NP-E3 batteries are old tech, I couldn't care less. Reason being,
I haven't yet encountered any problems using them. When problems arise,
then it's time to think of solutions. It's my thought that NP-E3
batteries will be readily available for a long time and so will the
BP-511 batteries. Nope, I don't think batteries, or the lack thereof,
will be or become a problem.


-When they can manage more than doublethe
capacity...smart battery-level indicators...and only about half the size and
weight, I have to concede that it's probably time to change.

I have good battery life now, so battery life or a better battery life
is not an issue with me. I avoid cameras that require special batteries
that are unique to the camera; batteries that are not commonly used in
other cameras. Cameras that use common batteries interest me.

Frankly, with
the amazing number of improvements presented in the latest 1D...I'd bet many
will try to sell theirs, meaning they won't long care about the size/shape
of their old batteries...

Well, one of those many will not include me. Not enough there for me to
cough up a couple of thousand plus buckaroos, sell my MKII and jump from
my MKII to a MKIII.


I'm going to have a hard time not purchasing the new 1D when it becomes
available... At that point, I'll be stuck dealing with different batteries
for my 5D...but I can deal with that. One could have worse problems...

If that's what you want, Mark, then I wish you the best and when you get
the camera I hope the camera serves you well. I just don't see a MKIII
in my future. I'm as content using either of my cameras, the 1DMKII or
the 30D, as a brown cow would be if it gave chocolate milk.


Mark²

"Skip" wrote in message
...
That, my friend, was the point to what I said.
While Canon may not expect the majority of buyers to be current owners,
I'll
contend that they are betting on a considerable number of them moving from
one to the other.

And that's where we disagree.
(for any normal definition of "considerable" anyway)

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Skip" wrote in message
...
That, my friend, was the point to what I said.
While Canon may not expect the majority of buyers to be current owners,
I'll
contend that they are betting on a considerable number of them moving
from
one to the other.

And that's where we disagree.
(for any normal definition of "considerable" anyway)

MrT.


If they expected the overwhelming majority of purchasers to be new buyers,
then the upgrade wasn't really necessary. If you want a fast WA zoom that
AFs on a Canon body, the 16-35 was the only game in town, anyway. In order
to get people who already have that lens to buy a new one, they needed to
address shortcomings, real or imagined, in the older lens.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm