| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Rob Galbraith article on Canon EOS 1-D Mark IV
Darrell Walker, Photographer
|
Darrell Walker, Photographer
 |
Smyrna (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 11:44 AM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> I meant to say "I hope the images at high ISO work (are usable for large prints) as advertised" This would be a godsend for high school gyms and youth baseball parks. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> Here's what stood out to me from that piece:
"If you're an EOS-1D Mark III owner who has struggled with the tracking difficulties that camera presents, you're probably far less interested in the EOS-1D Mark IV's new AF system features and far more interested in whether the darned camera can keep a moving subject in focus. Because we've not been involved in beta testing the EOS-1D Mark IV, we can't give an opinion about this."
So it's probably wise to hold judgement on the camera until they get some camera bodies to test. |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 1:33 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> That quote stood out for me as well Michael. It'll be wait and see for a while. I hope to get my hands on one at the PDN show this week in NYC. I assume Canon will have them there.
I noticed in reading the previews that the camera is almost indistinguishable from the Mk III. It seems then that Canon put all their efforts into the sensor, the processors and the AF system. It all reads very nice but we all know how much they have riding on this camera.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... hello Nikon. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 1:33 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> I won't even consider buying a IV until Rob oks the AF. Sorta surprised Canon didn't ship him a camera to test right away.
Maybe they are terrified it won't get his approval. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 1:35 PM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> I'm still suffering the acid reflux from the $20,000+ conversion I ate when I switched over from Nikon for the Mark III POS that still doesn't focus right. Now they want me to take this $5,000 dollar pill? |
|
Christian del Rosario, Photographer
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> Hmmm, interesting that:
"EF 500mm f/4L IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) + Extender EF 1.4x II, will not have the benefit of cross-type operation from all 39 AF points."
I wonder why that is? |
|
Ivan Pierre Aguirre, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
El Paso | TX | United States | Posted: 2:19 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> I am little disappointed ....why cant it be full frame AND have a high fps unit...,
why canon, why.....
not sure the video and 2 more fps than the 7D is worth spending an extra $3300....
my trivial take.. |
|
Christian del Rosario, Photographer
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:22 PM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> Ivan, the 1DsmkIV (full frame) is probably going to come later... |
|
Christian del Rosario, Photographer
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:28 PM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> Sorry, meant to say the full frame 1Ds mkIV will probably come later as the 1D (cropped sensor) usually gets released first. With this new processing power, hopefully the new 1Ds will have a higher frame rate as you mention. That would indeed be cool. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 6:13 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> 2 thoughts:
1) Will canon try to make it up to the disgruntled MkIII owners by offering some kind of exchange plus cash program? Doubt it, but it would be nice. MkIII plus $1500 or something gets you the MkIV. The value of a MkIII is gonna drop like crazy now, not that it had an incredible high value before...
2) How much of the changes inside the MkIV are physical? Is there anything that can be incorporated in a final firmware update on the MkIII?
Ivan, one does not buy a camera like this based on features alone. One of the reasons I love my 1 series bodies is the construction, the built in grips, the better functioning AF (in a perfect world), the larger sensor (1.3 crop vs 1.6) and so on. It's not just the motor drive. |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 7:21 PM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> +1 for a fixed autofocus...irrespective, after my experience with the Mark III, I won't be an early adopter... |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 7:55 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> Michael, I hear you; I was soooo tempted to switch over to a 1D Mk III setup from my D2X's when they came out - would have cost me a pretty penny to do so.
As much as I felt I "doged a bullet", I also had genuine sympathy for all those photographers who ended up frustrated by the Mk III's AF troubles.
Fingers crossed that the Mk IV is 'as advertised' because it's plain to see that Canon has a lot of "once bitten, twice shy" to overcome. |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 8:15 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> Christian del Rosario writes: ">> Hmmm, interesting that:
"EF 500mm f/4L IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) + Extender EF 1.4x II, will not have the benefit of cross-type operation from all 39 AF points."
I wonder why that is?"
I'm speculating that there's just not enough light transmission to the sensor with those lenses/combinations.....
f/4 isn't always exactly f/4 --- there's some rounding involved. This is almost always seen with macro lenses, which do effectively stop down (transmit less light) at a constant f/2.8 as you approach the minimum focus distance...
I can remember the sensor days of old when only the center was a cross-type, and when it only worked with f/2.8.... |
|
August Miller, Photo Editor
|
Farmington | UT | USA | Posted: 8:56 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> Canon, If you are reading this message board, newspapers and magazines are not doing that well in todays economy..layoffs etc. What makes you think that photo managers are even able to plunk down $5000 for a camera that has not yet proven it will work. We already did that once when we bought Mark III's for each of our staff and have spent tons of time and money shipping them back to Canon for multiple fixes that really haven't "fixed" anything. What Canon should do is offer a major re-bate for those of us who bought the Mark III. Then and only then would any shred of credibility come back into the Canon brand.
Beuhler, Hello, anybody there? Beuhler? |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:05 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> August, I hope you and others get their wish and Canon does the right thing and offers a trade in.
But, the lawyers have run this thing from the get go and I'm afraid that by doing so they may be admitting there's a problem. I'm guessing.. I'm not a lawyer.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting..
Michael |
|
Mike Zarrilli, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 10:15 PM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> "Cash for Canon Clunkers". Seems like a perfect customer retention program to me..... |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 10.20.09 |
->> Canon has an Implemented program, it's called the Canon Loyalty Program. Users can send their defective 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, Or any Rebel Bodies for a trade for a Refurbished 50D, this will cost $629.00 + Shipping and Local Sales Taxes.
So, this might be a spossibility |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 10:47 PM on 10.20.09 |
| ->> Doesn't the loyalty program only use refurbished cameras? It would be hard to have a refurbished Mark IV already... |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:32 AM on 10.21.09 |
->> Most likely cameras from Shows and whatever bodies are taken as loaners to the Winter Olympics, returned to the US, Refurbished and then passed along to the MKIII Loaners. Just saying ;)
This would be a good think to do, given the fact that some MKIII users are a little miffed at Canon at this moment. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 2:18 AM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> Yamil... SOME Canon users? That's like saying that Niagra Falls is a slight leak! |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 3:14 AM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> Quite frankly I think the autofocus for me was fixed by the last update. I really do not care about Galbraith feelings the camera has been great for me. Sometimes a man with a lowered rep will do anything to make up for it . Anyone remember the huge hit Galbraith took in credibility at the end of his days of having the forums. Banning people left and right who ripped his advertisers. |
|
Daniel Putz, Photographer
|
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 8:16 AM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> And the plot thickens. |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:22 AM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> They should offer a sweet deal to Mk III owners. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:26 AM on 10.21.09 |
->> Nick, I was trying to be polite ;)
David, IMHO, they better take care of everyone that ever purchased a 1DMKIII, whether they kept it or sold it!! I think the ones who sold their gear lost the most money! They took a huge bath in the deal. Most MKIII owners that sold their gear did so at a considerable loss, $1K and more!! Now that sucks!!
Did any of you get the CPS letter announcing the 1DMKIV? They keep repeating over and over how good the AF is on the 1DMKIV.... I wonder why??? Like there was something wrong with the AF on the 1DMKIII??? ;) |
|
Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
|
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 11:31 AM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> I'm waitin' for the Mark V! ;) |
|
Peter Buehner, Photographer
|
Orono | ME | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> I would love to see a survey of the number of Mark III bodies sold compared to the number of users who have had AF problems. Is it a very vocal minority or is it a very prevalent issue with it? |
|
Steven Ickes, Photographer
|
Mechanicsburg | PA | USA | Posted: 1:15 PM on 10.21.09 |
| ->> I wish Canon and all users the best. I for one have not looked back since moving from the MK III to Nikon D3. Beautiful pixels, full frame goodness, and sweet Nikon ergonomics. While I didn't necessarily experience the gross AF issues that many did, I did have problems with intermittently soft images which started to drive me crazy. |
|
David Stluka, Photographer
|
Oregon | WI | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 10.22.09 |
| ->> for the record, I've been very happy with both of my EOS 1-D Mark III cameras. I am miffed at all the photographers that keep complaining about this camera. I can't imagine having to go back to my Mark II cameras. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:47 AM on 10.22.09 |
| ->> Mark III's still kickin it after 18 months.....just saying....but I agree with the Mr. Miller above..in this day and time most of the newspapers I know of will be hard pressed to even think about buying a $5000 camera. Budgets are being cut faster than employees at most places.... |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:59 AM on 10.22.09 |
->> David, Being Miffed at all of us that used the MKIII and had problems won't make the problems disappear. That is the problem with the 1DMKIII, inconsistency!! Some were good, some were so-so and some were terrible!!
And I agree with August and Chuck, they know how bad the budgets are. You guys are lucky that your papers had budgets for 1DMKIII's, good or bad, you have them!! Some other papers are working with MKII's, that are at the ends of their life.
Like Eric, I want the MKIV to be a hit!! That way there will be more lower priced Nikon Gear available ;) |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 4:40 PM on 10.22.09 |
->> " I think the ones who sold their gear lost the most money! They took a huge bath in the deal. Most MKIII owners that sold their gear did so at a considerable loss, $1K and more!! Now that sucks!!"
It would really suck if they sold those cameras without disclosing the problems the body was having. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 7:51 PM on 10.22.09 |
->> I couldn't tell you Jeff, I never purchased one.
I tested four and had issues with all of the ones I tested. So I avoided the 1DMKIII. I have seen tons of them sold here, Ebay and FM and they seem to be selling, soo..... |
|
Robert Redmond, Photographer
|
Foster City | CA | USA | Posted: 9:46 PM on 10.22.09 |
->> I've still got my fleet of Mark II's humming along just fine... but I went ahead and pre-ordered a single Mark IV. My gut tells me that Canon worked out the Mark III issues but the fix was too extensive to incorporate in the III and they have put all their know-how into this new body. I can totally appreciate Mark III users being a bit bitter on this topic but I would certainly give the mIV its due (which it sounds like most of you are).
As for Canon demanding big money for the body and the newspaper business struggling - all true but is that the target audience? A portion of it to be sure but I think the audience has widened quite a bit with the inclusion of the HD Video Capability. Sure the 7D or 5mII have the video but as we all know the 1D bodies are pretty next level in fit, finish, customization and capability. |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 10:01 PM on 10.22.09 |
->> I want one a Mark IV...
When do you think they're available for a bottom feeder like myself? |
|
David Croxford, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 5:40 AM on 10.23.09 |
->> Tim Snow asked ...
"1) Will canon try to make it up to the disgruntled MkIII owners by offering some kind of exchange plus cash program? Doubt it, but it would be nice. MkIII plus $1500 or something gets you the MkIV."
I've been using 2 Mk III's since the beginning. Canon's been good in handling all the updates but it's cost me personally and the company for whom I shoot, quite a bit to stay ahead of the curve, both in time and dollars spent. Not to mention the lost images due to the minor focus issues that I have seen on our equipment.
I'd love to see something come of Tim's suggestion ... so at the risk of alienating the folks at Canon- here's the idea I propose ...
Send an email with "Petition" as the subject and your name and email address, in the message body to petition@croxie.com.
On Monday evening, Hawaii time, I'll put a list together and send the results to Canon with a request that they make some kind of offer to those of us who have stuck it out.
The email is already set up and ready to go, spread the word and let's see what happens!
Perhaps a unified voice on the subject might get some kind of response.
I'll also add this as another thread here ... |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:23 AM on 10.23.09 |
->> While I understand the call for a trade in program, I'll take the under on the bet it's anything like a mkIII and 1,500 for a few reasons.
First off, Canon would embed a $500+ loss in each body that went out the door vs. a sale. Since those with mkIII's are still with Canon it's not like they're expecting additional sales of lenses like they would if they offered such a program to those who trade in other brands. For whatever reason you stayed - you're not likely to switch now until you see if the IV is a success. If it is, the savings from not having to sell all of your gear and turn around and buy Nikon lenses will be enough of an incentive to keep you around given that the IV and the D3 are at the same price point. If the IV is a dud it doesn't matter. You likely won't be an early adopter having been "burned" once and thus incentive or not, you won't be upgrading.
Also, the retail vendors would likely not be happy about losing out on those sales - not just the bodies, but all of the impulse buys that are generated from upselling in store or through suggested accessories on line. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:45 AM on 10.23.09 |
->> So let me get this straight. Canon launches the MkIII and has a couple of problems with it, for which they do two recalls and multiple firmware updates to deal with - free of charge less shipping. A lot of shooters are happy with the AF and everything else about the camera, but some sports shooters feel in certain conditions the autofocus isn't as tight as they need. Everything else about the camera is great, and for a lot of shooters the AF is perfectly fine.
A couple of years later, Canon releases the Mk IV with full 1080p HD video, and they also mention that they've revamped the AF system to provide even better performance than the MkIII. The camera hasn't even shipped yet, which means nobody has had a chance to see if it even works better in the situations some photographers reported as troublesome with the MkIII.
Yet you're calling for Canon to "admit" that they "screwed up" on the MkIII because it had issues with rapid-motion AF tracking in some situations to the point of committing financial and marketing suicide by offering "credit" towards the purchase of a MkIV?
Makes perfect sense.
I know there's a lot of h8tn about the MkIII due to the autofocus, but the reality is there is nothing in the specifications specifically guaranteeing that this camera will perfectly track with xx% accuracy a rapidly approaching target while shooting at a high frame rate. It may be what people want - or even reasonably expect. But there's no specific specification on AF tracking performance that Canon failed to meet, which means legally they aren't even obligated to do the recalls that they did. They have addressed a lot of the issues they found out about, and for a lot of people the fixes took care of the problems to their satisfaction.
The reality is for the past two years you've been able to sell used MkIII's for $2,500 - $3,000 - far more than the $1,500 you're asking for above. If the AF has not been to your liking, you've had more than enough time to recoup a good chunk of your investment. It is not Canon's fault that you held on to your equipment this long.
You could always file a class-action lawsuit if you feel this strongly about it. Of course the fact that tack-sharp front page pictures are made every single day with MkIII's might work against you a little bit, but if you have the time and energy I say go for it. |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 9:49 AM on 10.23.09 |
->> I probably fit in with Mark's assessment. I played with a Mark IV at yesterday's PDN show in NYC. The camera is almost identical to the Mark II in appearance. The back screen reads like my 5D mkII. The images appeared very sharp on the rear LCD screen when blown up. I didn't bring a card with me to take some shots but my friend and I noticed there was just a touch of noise on the screen image when shot at 12,800 ISO. Very usable.
I did have a spirited discussion with a few reps about the new AF. I suppose I vented a bit over my Mark III's inconsistencies. One rep snapped off: "sell it, my friend got $3K for his." I responded that I used mine for two years, not kept it in the box. One rep mentioned that he heard the suggestion by photographers for a trade in program "dozens of times" during the day.
Like Mark said, I'm one of those "burned" people with lots invested in Canon gear. I'm going to wait this one out until there is a thorough test by whomever before I plunk down anther dime.
I'm sure Canon - the corporation - knows they have to have a winner with this new model but I've heard all the hype before. Let's get this camera in the field and see what happens. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:11 AM on 10.23.09 |
->> "Let's get this camera in the field and see what happens."
OK, who's going to be first???
Y |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
