Canon 1D MarkIV

[Kebabselector]

Actually, it looks that Canon does not consider any camera to be pro by itself.

To qualify for Professional Services, you must own 2 "pro" Canon bodies and 3 "pro" Canon lenses.

That's probably down to Canon wanting to stop people from buying a single 'pro' camera and thinking Canon's Professional Service will be a personal assistant or free lens rental service.

However, what I am annoyed at is the inclusion of a video camera functionality. I mean if I wanted to take videos I would go and buy a video camera. To me at least it seems like a pointless inclusion of a feature to try and justify the high price tag.

It doesn't cost a lot to stick in viedo, and it's very popular at the moment. If it wasn't there then people would moan. Expect every DSLR to come with a Video mode, it's like sensor cleaning and live view. High price tags are on every DSLR at the moment, though in Europe the listed price is rarely the street price (apart from the initial batch).

 

[peskaa]

That's probably down to the Canon wanting to stop people from buying a single 'pro' camera and thinking Canon's Professional Service will be a personal assistant or free lens rental service.

I love CPN/CPS. In particular, I love the 3 day turn round on repairs, and the endless amounts of free kit loans.


That said, Nikon can be generous too - I had £18k worth off them at one point (D3x, D3, 14-24, 70-200, 100 macro, D700, SB900, R1 flash kit and a pile of other bits), but they're harder to get a contact and hence an arrangement with.

 

[pdxflint]

I would have much preferred to have a lower price point and no video.

Just my opinion.

Speaking of Canon and Nikon, and the video revolution...

I know it's the trend and some people say it doesn't cost much to "add" it to DSLRs, but after really thinking about it I gotta sorta kinda agree with you... If you don't ever plan to use the feature, it becomes superfluous, and an added cost. It doesn't add anything to the purpose of still photography. While I can see people doing better quality video than they might have as they begin to experiment with it, this "dual-purpose" concept could be the beginning of a fork-in-the-road philosophy, where competing purposes and interests face off during future evolutionary priorities. With only so many resources available on a practical level ($ and engineering) I'd like to see it focused on obtaining the best performance and capability for still photography. Some people will argue that this "split" isn't really a split at all, and video and still photography actually complement each other, and to some degree that's true. It always has been. But in a single piece of technological hardware, the "jack of all trades swiss army knife type" tool approach, while handy, never reaches the potential of single-purpose tools. That's true in almost any mechanical or technological field.

Perhaps Canon and Nikon could maintain the option of buying top-level professional cameras without the video add-on capability at a lower price point, and we'll see if the video is a "must have" feature which is worth actually paying for on it's own. It might be interesting to see. No doubt there would be people buying the still-video hybrid version at a higher price, but I bet a lot of photographers would skip the video if they had the option at a lower price. As it is, it looks like they're dragging everyone into buying it if they want the pro models, whether it makes sense for them or not. It works out to almost a "video tax" paid for by everyone so the actual cost of that additional capability doesn't have to be borne strictly by those who want it.

If they kept the retail prices at the same level as before and just added video, I might feel a bit different, but I am still concerned about the future application of development resources and funding which must be siphoned off from ongoing still photography improvement.

 

[John.B]

Actually, it looks that Canon does not consider any camera to be pro by itself.

To qualify for Professional Services, you must own 2 "pro" Canon bodies and 3 "pro" Canon lenses.

There is a difference between a camera being a pro model and the extended services Canon offers to professional photographers. The first criteria is that you have to be a "full-time working professional photographer". A full time photographer with as little as two 20Ds and some EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, and 60mm macro) can qualify for the Silver level. Likewise, there are a couple of relatively inexpensive non-L primes that qualify as CPS "pro lenses" (50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8). It also seems to include the 7D on the Platinum list.

Anyway, CPS is mostly about expedited (and discounted) repairs and equipment loaner programs, and it makes sense that they would offer their best service levels to their best customers.

 

[peskaa]

There is a difference between a camera being a pro model and the extended services Canon offers to professional photographers. The first criteria is that you have to be a "full-time working professional photographer". A full time photographer with as little as two 20Ds and some EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, and 60mm macro) can qualify for the Silver level. Likewise, there are a couple of relatively inexpensive non-L primes that qualify as CPS "pro lenses" (50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8). It also seems to include the 7D on the Platinum list.

Anyway, CPS is mostly about expedited (and discounted) repairs and equipment loaner programs, and it makes sense that they would offer their best service levels to their best customers.

Hold on, CPS in the US has different levels?

Also,

https://pro.canon-europe.com/ProfessionalBodies.aspx

 

[Phrasikleia]

Also,

https://pro.canon-europe.com/ProfessionalBodies.aspx

Could not be more clear. Proves exactly what I said above.

 

[John.B]

Hold on, CPS in the US has different levels?

Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Marketing types can be so unoriginal... CPS USA

Platinum cameras include all of the xD series cameras including the 7D. Silver and gold levels add the xxD cameras.

 

[peskaa]

I'm amazed they want you to pay as well - though the benefits are more laid out than in the EU system. Over here, you just register your bodies/lenses and that's it, you're part of CPS with the same benefits as everybody else.

I'd qualify for Platinum, but I doubt I'd use it enough to warrant it.

 

[TheStrudel]

I agree with most the 102,400 is kind of a waste. What I am excited for is a really usable 6400. Lafloret on his blog said 6400 is the new 800 which for me shooting in a lot of low light situations would be sweet!

This. The way I see it, Canon's move here is to differentiate themselves from Nikon's lineup, rather than compete directly with it. People alternatively laud or complain about the lack of a full frame sensor here. I think that'll actually seal the deal for people on the fence one way or the other, as will some of the other distinguishing features.

They certainly weren't releasing this to compete directly with the D3s. But the options get more and more interesting these days...now if Pentax would catch up to Nikon and Canon, we'd start seeing some real three way competition.

That's kind of a pipe dream, though...they haven't yet released anything for the really high-end market. One can hope.

 

[Phrasikleia]

They certainly weren't releasing this to compete directly with the D3s. But the options get more and more interesting these days...now if Pentax would catch up to Nikon and Canon, we'd start seeing some real three way competition.

That's kind of a pipe dream, though...they haven't yet released anything for the really high-end market. One can hope.

Well, Pentax has got the medium format camera coming out soon, and rumor has it they're slating a full-frame camera for release in just over a year's time.

I'm really rooting for them. I hope they come out with something to put more pressure on Canon and Nikon.

 

[TheStrudel]

At least they are competing. 's competing with nobody and it shows. I'm kind of surprised they've been dropping prices as much as they have on notebooks and iMacs. Mac Minis and Mac Pros are still too expensive for what they are.

 

[akdj]

"Mac Minis and Mac Pros are still too expensive for what they are."

Kinda cool; Apple's new lineup of iMacs, don't ya think?

I really believe the 27" i7 quad core is an easy intermediate choice now...between notebooks/lower end iMacs/Minis vs the spendy Mac Pro choice. The new big daddy iMac is able to get a bunch more RAM inside, 3.5" HDD and a pretty decent graphics card....(as long as we aren't using it for bleeding edge gaming). Lots of real estate on that screen AND the ability to use it as a monitor for your MacBook/MBP. Pretty cool option.

That said, I don't believe the MP is expensive for what it is...certainly not in the early stages of it's release....possilby later in it's life, but a Dell Precision is not cheap (and it's the only real worthy contender, IMO, not counting the boutique custom game machine manufactureres)...and ya still have to use Windoze

Course that's all off topic...kind of...full circle

The new High End lineup of iMacs is a perfect 1d4/5d2/7d photo/video processing computer....if you cannot afford a Mac Pro

J

 

[stagi]

Well, Pentax has got the medium format camera coming out soon, and rumor has it they're slating a full-frame camera for release in just over a year's time.

I'm really rooting for them. I hope they come out with something to put more pressure on Canon and Nikon.

If a good medium format camera catches on with a great dynamic range I think that would put some good pressure on Nikon and Canon to work on dynamic range which I think has a good deal to come along still.

 

[TheStrudel]

They might have more incentive if dynamic range translated more readily into marketing-friendly specs or something that's at least easier to quantify or advertise. Yes, I know people quote it in terms of stops, but I've yet to see it advertised and stops or steps of EV don't necessarily translate well to the average viewer.

 

[Phrasikleia]

They might have more incentive if dynamic range translated more readily into marketing-friendly specs or something that's at least easier to quantify or advertise. Yes, I know people quote it in terms of stops, but I've yet to see it advertised and stops or steps of EV don't necessarily translate well to the average viewer.

Very good point. ISO caught on pretty quickly as the new "number" to watch, so I presume that camera companies will continue to wage war on that front for a while. Then eventually the average consumer will realize that a certain level of ISO is "enough" for them, just as folks are doing now with megapixels. Once that happens, perhaps the marketers will try to sell dynamic range as a quantifiable feature.

 

[FX120]

If a good medium format camera catches on with a great dynamic range I think that would put some good pressure on Nikon and Canon to work on dynamic range which I think has a good deal to come along still.

Isn't the D3x one of the best performing cameras available right now in any digital format? Something like 13.7 stops? I can't recall if this is with or without Nikon's internal expanded DR processing however.

The now two year old 1DmkIII is still no slouch at 12 stops.

The best performing MF backs are still at ~13 stops, albeit at higher resolution.

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, if not mistaken. All DSLRs has about 8 stops of DR while Medium Format has about 12 stops of DR.

And I don't think the Mac Pro is over priced though, cause just look at it. It has loads of thing cramped inside it and it's not easy fitting all those stuffs into a normal desktop sized box (maybe slightly bigger ). And it doesn't have any dangling cables

 

[Ruahrc]

They might have more incentive if dynamic range translated more readily into marketing-friendly specs or something that's at least easier to quantify or advertise. Yes, I know people quote it in terms of stops, but I've yet to see it advertised and stops or steps of EV don't necessarily translate well to the average viewer.

Well on one hand it seems pretty marketing friendly to advertise a new sensor with "3 stops increased dynamic range". On the other hand, if you refer to a top end body you don't really need that much marketing either as the professional crowd who buys the camera will well know the ramifications of a new sensor with 4 stops extra DR.

 

[pdxflint]

From a marketing buzzsword angle, it wouldn't surprise me if the camera companies began to refer to extended dynamic range cameras (>10-11 stops) as "HDR," much like HD became used for video. Maybe they'll call it an HDR setting, or HDR capable, or something similar, and there will be some kind of logo created for this. Or maybe they won't really wait until things really get decent, and just start soon with "HDR" followed by a number. HDR 8.1, or HDR 8.5, or HDR 9.0, etc, and it would give the marketers their selling pitch "number" they could tout, while pointing to a new direction for competing for buyers. At least it would have some benefit now that the pixel wars have begun to become moot in consumer cameras.

 

[Padaung]

From a marketing buzzsword angle, it wouldn't surprise me if the camera companies began to refer to extended dynamic range cameras (>10-11 stops) as "HDR," much like HD became used for video. Maybe they'll call it an HDR setting, or HDR capable, or something similar, and there will be some kind of logo created for this. Or maybe they won't really wait until things really get decent, and just start soon with "HDR" followed by a number. HDR 8.1, or HDR 8.5, or HDR 9.0, etc, and it would give the marketers their selling pitch "number" they could tout, while pointing to a new direction for competing for buyers. At least it would have some benefit now that the pixel wars have begun to become moot in consumer cameras.

Reading this over my morning cup of coffee and it brought a smile to my face. Nothing beats letters with abstract numbers (to the general public at least) afterwards in marketing speak! I can't wait to be in Jessops when one of the assistants tries to explain dynamic range to a customer. I can see it now - "Well sir, it means that if you get the exposure totally wrong, then the camera sensor is still able to record information for you - all you have to do to correct it is brutally murder the file in Photoshop later on using curves."

I do agree this would be a very useful area for the camera manufacturers to focus their efforts in the future now that the megapixel and ISO capabilities have reached the levels they have.

This site is quite useful for bringing up lots of numbers (including dynamic range) about many different cameras and comparing them with other cameras. According to their figures the Fuji S5 still leads the pack regarding dynamic range (beating the Hasselblad H3DII and Nikon D3X).

 

[PimpDaddy]

Isn't the D3x one of the best performing cameras available right now in any digital format? Something like 13.7 stops? I can't recall if this is with or without Nikon's internal expanded DR processing however.

The now two year old 1DmkIII is still no slouch at 12 stops.

The best performing MF backs are still at ~13 stops, albeit at higher resolution.

Yeah, but the 1DmkIII is only on 21st place. Somehow the Nikon D5000 is at 10th place, beating cameras like Sony A900, Nikon D3, D700 and Canon 1DsmkIII and 5DmkII!! Incredible for a camera that costs around 700 dollars.

 

[TheStrudel]

Newer sensor tech. It makes sense, in its odd way. After all, while it has been an area of improvement, it hasn't been counted on as a system seller...yet. As others have pointed out, it's a logical next step from the ISO competitons.

Thanks for the link, Padaung. I like the comparison engine on that site.

 

[John.B]

From a marketing buzzsword angle, it wouldn't surprise me if the camera companies began to refer to extended dynamic range cameras (>10-11 stops) as "HDR," much like HD became used for video. Maybe they'll call it an HDR setting, or HDR capable, or something similar, and there will be some kind of logo created for this. Or maybe they won't really wait until things really get decent, and just start soon with "HDR" followed by a number. HDR 8.1, or HDR 8.5, or HDR 9.0, etc, and it would give the marketers their selling pitch "number" they could tout, while pointing to a new direction for competing for buyers. At least it would have some benefit now that the pixel wars have begun to become moot in consumer cameras.

LOL! Maybe we'll get Canon to offer more than three shots of exposure bracketing for the prosumer models! That'd be a nice change!

 

[toxic]

This site is quite useful for bringing up lots of numbers (including dynamic range) about many different cameras and comparing them with other cameras. According to their figures the Fuji S5 still leads the pack regarding dynamic range (beating the Hasselblad H3DII and Nikon D3X).

that site, frankly, is full of crap.


without recovering shadows or highlights, DSLRs (at base ISO) produce around 8.5 stops of DR by default. you get about 3 stops more if you shoot RAW. MF typically has slightly more. however, this does not mean they cover the same range of grays.

I also think it needs to be made clear that extra DR is not so you can screw up the exposure more and still have a useable photo. negative film has what, 15 stops of DR? no one used that as an excuse to neglect their exposure settings.

the HDR + number idea might catch on, but I don't think "HDR" itself will since it's already being used in the photographic community for something else. the numbers will need some tweaking, though, since gains in DR are usually in tenths of stops, not full stops...

 

[pdxflint]

Well, in my scenario I did suggest numbers like 8.1, 8.5... etc, so I agree that the incremental 'improvements' will be in the tenths of a stop, but it still makes for a possible marketing gimmick/race selling point. Also, sure, HDR is a term being used, often mistakenly, by the photographic community already, but actually because it is a term probably already somewhat familiar to many people who don't really know what it means, it can easily be used and applied by camera manufacturers as a term for the idea of expanded dynamic range. They can sell it as a capability that would allow their camera, at normal exposures, to have better shadow detail while still keeping the highlights from being blown, a common complaint with consumer digital cameras.

Maybe they'll just call it DR, and give it a number, but H for "High" always suggests something good to the consumer, so why not just put a sticker on the box that says, "HDR Capable" or "HDR sensor" or some such marketing BS. Then, with the DR number, a new marketing race can begin.