Canon 1D Mark III Press Release

picworx wrote in post #2771262
More Mega Pixels, why only 10? This is bizarre?

Care to explain why? 10 mp sounds ideal to me.

I think Canon has recognized that we've reached a point where quantity of pixels is less important that quality of pixels. That is what allows them to be able to push this sensor to 6400 ISO. This is the best CMOS sensor that they have ever produced. If they made the sensor larger, FF for example it would have been at the expense of frame rate. And frame rate was for Canon one of the most important features they were trying to improve with this model. Nobody can touch this, especially with the quality this will produce.

Framerate -- undeniably fast...and the sensor is to be envied. But MP does play a role in composition allowance and print quality -- for those who want to step out of the 8x10 print sandbox. With the 14bit upgrade, Im curious to see the tonal gradation and how this plays into the lower MP=better quality theory. Depending on subject matter the extra MP is desired in post-production.

Found this on another site, take it for what it's worth:

* 10.1 effective Megapixel APS-H size CMOS sensor; 1.3x focal length conversion
* ISO range of 50 to 6400, with Canon calling the latter "highly usable"
* Live view on a 3.0" LCD display; image can be enlarged 5X or 10X, just like on Olympus and Panasonic's live view cameras
* Dual DIGIC III image processors allow for shooting at a whopping 10 frames/second, for up to 30 RAW or 110 JPEG images
* Ultrasonic dust removal system (just like on the Rebel XTi)
* Upgraded shutter can handle 300,000 cycles
* Full manual controls (obviously) and 57 custom functions
* 45-point autofocus system
* New sRAW format produces smaller files with less resolution; don't worry, regular RAW iss till there
* Camera can be controlled remotely from a Mac or PC using USB or Wi-Fi. Apparently the live view works too.
* CompactFlash and SD/SDHC memory card slots (same as other 1D series cameras)
* Improved software package includes Digital Photo Professional 3.0 and EOS Utility 2.0
* Optional Wi-Fi via WFT-E2A adapter
* Uses new lithium-ion battery; 2200 shots per charge
* Ships this spring for $3999 (body only)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

If Canon tried to appeal to every market segment with a single camera, they would fail.

cgratti wrote in post #2779389
Found this on another site, take it for what it's worth:

What do you mean? That info is accurate?

Atlasman wrote in post #2779853
If Canon tried to appeal to every market segment with a single camera, they would fail.

The new camera sounds great and I will definitely buy one, but I would have preferred full frame with dynamic crop (not digital zoom, I mean changing the pixels involved and affecting RAW size and frame rate). I think 12 or more MP (FF) which could be cropped back to say 1.3, like the old camera, would have been fantastic. Nikon have done this so it is feasible. You would be able to get more quality when you need it, or more speed when you need that. FF would also make some lenses much more affective, such as wides and certain zooms (I find a 70 to 200mm a bit tight at the wide end on a 1Dii).

12 MP full frame is lower pixel density than the MkIII's 10MP on 1.3X
In fact 12MP full frame is the same pixel density as the MkII, so 12 MP full frame would be a step backwards compared to the new MkIII for current 1.3X shooters.

To get the same Pixel density as the MkIII's 10MP, in a full frame you need 16MO (aka 1Ds MkII)

What this camera is offering is a 1.3x crop of the 1Ds MkII sensor, giving pros that same density in a much more affordable camera, and with much higher speed and obviously, all those lovely new features.

For FF, we will have to wait for the 1Ds MkIII

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2784096
12 MP full frame is lower pixel density than the MkIII's 10MP on 1.3X
In fact 12MP full frame is the same pixel density as the MkII, so 12 MP full frame would be a step backwards compared to the new MkIII for current 1.3X shooters.

But most PJs are happy with 8 MP for the majority of their work. For me, having FF would be a much bigger step forward as compared to a bit more pulling power with telephoto lenses. Then again, 16 MP with dynamic crop would be the best of both worlds. I could do everything with a couple of bodies. Now I'll probably have to buy two 1Diii and a 1Dsiii body. So more money for Canon. Now I see why they didn't want to introduce dynamic crop.

FF is not always a step forward, especially where speed is concerned. Canon states in their white paper that APS-H (1.3x) is the largest sensor that can be imaged in a single pass, so it might still be a couple of years before we see a full frame sensor that can do 8-10fps. I believe this is the main reason why Canon is not pursing a full frame, selectable crop body at this point. Nikon can do it because the larger size is 1.5x. Now if the MkIII had selectable 1.3x to 1.6-2x instead of the sRAW option, that would be perfect for my needs.

I can't be bothered to search through days of posting on this camera (I've been away for a week or so) so I've just picked a thread and that's it. Jessops in the UK is now showing this camera priced at £3049.99 on their stock system... No trade price as of yet for me to see which would help me give an idea if that price will stick or drop when stock actually gets through. They'd had 11 on order by Sat 24th from various customers.

pcasciola wrote in post #2784849
FF is not always a step forward, especially where speed is concerned. Canon states in their white paper that APS-H (1.3x) is the largest sensor that can be imaged in a single pass, so it might still be a couple of years before we see a full frame sensor that can do 8-10fps. I believe this is the main reason why Canon is not pursing a full frame, selectable crop body at this point. Nikon can do it because the larger size is 1.5x. Now if the MkIII had selectable 1.3x to 1.6-2x instead of the sRAW option, that would be perfect for my needs.

But if you need coverage with certain lenses, FF is a huge step forward. I personally don't need 10 fps at FF, but at 1.3 for news and sport that speed would be very useful. The dynamic crop would give you a choice of FF with lots of MPs and around 5 fps, or dynamically cropped to 1.3 you could have around 10 fps. That's what I'm saying, you would have two cameras in one. Everyone would be a winner - except Canon, so I'm not sure they'll do it.

manipula wrote in post #2786240
I can't be bothered to search through days of posting on this camera (I've been away for a week or so) so I've just picked a thread and that's it. Jessops in the UK is now showing this camera priced at £3049.99 on their stock system...

Welcome to rip-off Britain. Maybe I'll book a flight to my favourite city: NYC.

terry44 wrote in post #2789003
But if you need coverage with certain lenses, FF is a huge step forward. I personally don't need 10 fps at FF, but at 1.3 for news and sport that speed would be very useful. The dynamic crop would give you a choice of FF with lots of MPs and around 5 fps, or dynamically cropped to 1.3 you could have around 10 fps. That's what I'm saying, you would have two cameras in one. Everyone would be a winner - except Canon, so I'm not sure they'll do it.

That's a big IF though. For the rest of us it's a step backward if the frame rate were to drop to say 5fps, a speed that no Canon full frame has been able to achieve. Many don't need super wide angle, and 15-20mm effective plenty wide and doable on a 1.3x sensor with the 12-24, 14mm primes and 16-35L, and we get to keep our speed and extra resolution on the tele end where the higher pixel density helps out.

I'm totally with you on the selectable crop, I just don't think FF to 1.3 selectable is doable right now based on Canon's statement that 1.3x is the largest sensor that can be imaged in a single pass. Since the sensors are not read a pixel at a time, this means a FF shooting at a 1.3x crop would likely still have to be read off the sensor in it's entirety and then the extra pixels thrown away, which would hinder performance.

ok... So which of you 1Ds MKII owners are going to run out and buy the Mark III and sell me your Mark II for a "reasonable price"?!?!