1D mkIV & 1DmkIII no longer available on canon website?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14654305
They make a 500mm f/4

Pretty sure agencies and major publications have them or can get them easily from CPS.

Pretty sure photographers didn't rely on "crop factor" before digital took over. There are many epic sports images taken in the film days.

Yep--and pretty sure there is a reason they pay a lot more for a fast lens--the difference between a 300 f4 and a 300 F2.8 is a factor of 5x the price.

Most epic photos from "back in the day" wouldn't make first pass in today's market,

umphotography wrote in post #14650037
This is a stupid arrogant move on canons part. For the past 5 yrs the 1.3 format has given the professional market reach in a professional body at a slightly better price point than the full frame counterpart 1D series. The current MKIV is probably canons best camera to date prior to the 1Dx release. It allows people to get to 400MM with a 300MM F/2.8 lens and get one of the best optical set ups and AF systems on the market.

All canon is doing by eliminating the MKIV is forcing the professional market to buy more expensive Telephotos to get the same FOV. Not only does it cost $1800.00 additional for the 1Dx (which does not let you use F/8 and some extender combinations ) But the costs for a 400MM F/2.8 lens is $4500.00 additional expense. This means it costs $5900.00 additional dollars to use the 1Dx to get the same FOV as the current MKIV with a 300MM F/2.8 lens.

Total horses$!t move on canons part to increase their bottom line. It costs them nothing to leave the MKIV on the market except potential 1Dx sales. I think we are all going to find out that IQ wise, The 1Dx will have nothing over the MKIV. Im seeing a 1 Stop ISO Improvement and 2FPS over the MKIV if you dont count a newer AF system. BTW, The MKIV is no slouch in the AF department.

I'm waiting to see if Canon will introduce a new body or try to force everyone to take an upgraded 1.6 format 7D11 in place of the MKIV. This move on canons part really ticks me off. And if Nikon steps up and fills the void, depending on what canon decided to do here, I will probably jump to Nikon. You spend years with a company and invest in the products and then have these morons pull the plug on one of the best cameras they have put out in years to force people to buy more expensive telephotos Im not going for it one bit. Ill be putting shutters in this MKIV until hell freezes over..........Dumb move on canons part.

Well ... Canon is stupid and arrogrant but so are Canon's Gearheads !
You might recall ...
when Canon said APS is not going away because long glass is too costly.
You might recall ...
when Canon said FF is going to replace APS because bigger images are better.

Either way the gearheads bent over and bought.

dave kadolph wrote in post #14654334
Yep--and pretty sure there is a reason they pay a lot more for a fast lens--the difference between a 300 f4 and a 300 F2.8 is a factor of 5x the price.

Most epic photos from "back in the day" wouldn't make first pass in today's market,

Yeah, you're right...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14654375
Yeah, you're right...

Hereis a link to every Sports Illustrated cover--take a look at the 60's and 70's stuff--pretty craptacular by today's standards.

dave kadolph wrote in post #14654406
Hereis a link to every Sports Illustrated cover--take a look at the 60's and 70's stuff--pretty craptacular by today's standards.

Well yeah, when you put out 52 or so issues a year, for almost a hundred years, you're gonna have some that are better than others. To say they're 'craptacular' is a stretch in order to make your (invalid IMO) point.

dave kadolph wrote in post #14654334
Yep--and pretty sure there is a reason they pay a lot more for a fast lens--the difference between a 300 f4 and a 300 F2.8 is a factor of 5x the price.

Most epic photos from "back in the day" wouldn't make first pass in today's market,

You are forgetting the fact that with the new technology and advancements, a 500 f4 on a 1Dx can easily replace a 400 2.8 on a 1DmkIV since the FF will balance the loss of a stop for the dof and the better ISO will take care of the loss of the stop in light. Also, people keep talking about the loss of reach but in most cases the higher MP of the FF can be cropped to almost the same size and pixels of the 1.3. A 5DmkIII cropped to 1.3 gives you 13 MP which is almost the same as the 1DmkIV...

blonde wrote in post #14654474
You are forgetting the fact that with the new technology and advancements, a 500 f4 on a 1Dx can easily replace a 400 2.8 on a 1DmkIV since the FF will balance the loss of a stop for the dof and the better ISO will take care of the loss of the stop in light. Also, people keep talking about the loss of reach but in most cases the higher MP of the FF can be cropped to almost the same size and pixels of the 1.3. A 5DmkIII cropped to 1.3 gives you 13 MP which is almost the same as the 1DmkIV...

Ding Ding Ding...

We have a winner!

3Rotor wrote in post #14649804
I'd gladly take an obsolete 1DIV off someone's hands as well, .

I personally consider the camera to be worth 3200 now.

Im still deciding between getting a nikon D3s, a 1D4, a 1Ds2, or maybe even just get a RZ67 and a scanner.

interestingly enough i find myself thinking exactly the opposite,i look at some of the great pictures of the past 50 years and marvel as to how these guys were able to get such stunning pictures using equipment we all would laugh at today...in fact i saw some pictures from the early 20th century and i was amazed how good they actually were....noisy etc but still great photos

dave kadolph wrote in post #14654334
...Most epic photos from "back in the day" wouldn't make first pass in today's market,

If this is remotely true, then what a staggeringly pathetic piece of crap market demands have become...but then again, given the continued popularity of 'reality TV' for more than a decade now, I shouldn't be surprised…regression.

Don't get me wrong, a number of of excellent sports photos being published these days, but so to in the past.

This is not only one of my favorite sports photographs, but also one of my favorite photos in general (technical flaws and all). In regards to the NFL, a historically important one to boot. From the 1958 NFL Championship between the Colts and Giants:

http://sacrosanctgospe​l.files.wordpress.com/​2008/06/greatest-game.jpg

Also, the above Ali shot really couldn't get better; and I don't want to hear any moronic "could be sharper" comments. Talk about criminally missing the point.

Besides, the discussion is centered on focal length and field of view (the loss of the Mark IV & III, right?), and to suggest that photos of the past were inferior because of the lack of super-telephotos is ludicrous. Yes, we have a whole new style or type of photography because of telephoto or frames-per-second capabilities, but this is a separate issue from quality---and I'm not referring to technically-oriented image quality.

If a photo is considered, in general, to be "epic," it is so, because it is widely regarded as a remarkably good photograph, and no amount of newly introduced technology suddenly precludes or alters this, lest we start pissing on anything created by paints or pianos due to their 'archaic' characteristics.

But yeah, as a quick run through Flicker proves, today's standards put the likes of Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson to shame, or for that matter Walter Iooss.

I think too many people judge the quality of the photo by its sharpness soley. I have been caught in the trap "is this sharp enough". But in reality some of the best photos I have seen where the best because of the subject, composition and the story or mood it tells. Not he sharpness. Anyone of These cameras whether it be the mkiv, 5d mkiii or 1dx are going to take amazing photos, so much so I bet most couldnt tell he difference between them. So to say photos in the past are crap now is kinda silly. Sometimes I think the grain from the film era is also what makes some of the photos so great.

sjones wrote in post #14654706
If this is remotely true, then what a staggeringly pathetic piece of crap market demands have become...but then again, given the continued popularity of 'reality TV' for more than a decade now, I shouldn't be surprised…regression.

Don't get me wrong, a number of of excellent sports photos being published these days, but so to in the past.

This is not only one of my favorite sports photographs, but also one of my favorite photos in general (technical flaws and all). In regards to the NFL, a historically important one to boot. From the 1958 NFL Championship between the Colts and Giants:

http://sacrosanctgospe​l.files.wordpress.com/​2008/06/greatest-game.jpg

Also, the above Ali shot really couldn't get better; and I don't want to hear any moronic "could be sharper" comments. Talk about criminally missing the point.

Besides, the discussion is centered on focal length and field of view (the loss of the Mark IV & III, right?), and to suggest that photos of the past were inferior because of the lack of super-telephotos is ludicrous. Yes, we have a whole new style or type of photography because of telephoto or frames-per-second capabilities, but this is a separate issue from quality---and I'm not referring to technically-oriented image quality.

If a photo is considered, in general, to be "epic," it is so, because it is widely regarded as a remarkably good photograph, and no amount of newly introduced technology suddenly precludes or alters this, lest we start pissing on anything created by paints or pianos due to their 'archaic' characteristics.

But yeah, as a quick run through Flicker proves, today's standards put the likes of Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson to shame, or for that matter Walter Iooss.

blonde wrote in post #14654474
You are forgetting the fact that with the new technology and advancements, a 500 f4 on a 1Dx can easily replace a 400 2.8 on a 1DmkIV since the FF will balance the loss of a stop for the dof and the better ISO will take care of the loss of the stop in light. Also, people keep talking about the loss of reach but in most cases the higher MP of the FF can be cropped to almost the same size and pixels of the 1.3. A 5DmkIII cropped to 1.3 gives you 13 MP which is almost the same as the 1DmkIV...

Check my math:

1D4 has a pixel density of 33,000/square mm as opposed to 22k on the 1Dx, which is nearly identical to the 1D3 @10.1mp--then crop away another factor of 1.3 if you are unable to fill the frame.

10.1mp equivalent to start divided by a factor of 1.3 = a pixel density equivalent of 7.76mp on an APS-H body--The 1D4 delivers more than twice that number of pixels on target unless I missed something.

dave kadolph wrote in post #14655865
Check my math:

1D4 has a pixel density of 33,000/square mm as opposed to 22k on the 1Dx, which is nearly identical to the 1D3 @10.1mp--then crop away another factor of 1.3 if you are unable to fill the frame.

10.1mp equivalent to start divided by a factor of 1.3 = a pixel density equivalent of 7.76mp on an APS-H body--The 1D4 delivers more than twice that number of pixels on target unless I missed something.

And there are times I have to crop my 1DIV because my lens was too short. This changes nothing. By you argument the 7D is a better camera because of pixels on target. All things being equal you would be correct. However all things aren't equal. The per pixel noise camera to camera can very significantly at a given ISO. The problem is theory doesn't always match reality.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14650070
I love my MkIVs as much as the next guy (and my MkIII) but I'd dump them all in a second if I could afford to replace them with 1DXs!

If someone else were paying my gear bills I'd go along with that statement. But, seeing as everything purchased comes out of my own pocket, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to jump at that much more expensive of a camera unless there were something it did that I absolutely HAD to have and that my current lineup of MkIV, MkIII and 7D simply weren't capable of doing.

Just because tech is constantly evolving doesn't necessarily mean everyone HAS to rush out and buy the latest, greatest, and most expensive there is. If the 1DX kept the same price point that the current 1D line does, it might well be on my list of considerations when the time to replace a body comes due. But, at almost another $2k over the current list price of the MkIV I just don't see the value for what I need in a camera.

I think Canon is turning their back on a segment of their customer base, and I'm not sure I follow their logic. Every new L lens that has been released in the past couple years has been signifigantly more expensive than the model it replaced. And now the same is coming true with the camera bodies, witness the 5D3 and the 1DX. Yes, they're improvements of their predecessors but at what cost, and is what they bring in the way of improvement really necessary for everyone who needs to replace a lens or body?

dave kadolph wrote in post #14654334
Most epic photos from "back in the day" wouldn't make first pass in today's market,

Wow, what an arrogant and so terribly untrue statement.

What determines the "value" of a photograph? If its only its techincal attributes then photography has become something that any current state-of-the-art machine can do.

What about the emotion of the moment, the capture of that instant in time that can never be re-created or re-lived? To me that's what a truly memorable photograph is. Yes, we all strive for the best techincal quality that we can achieve, but a pefectly exposed and sharp enough to cut steel with photograph without meaningful subject matter or emotion is just a nice technical exercise, not the capture of a moment in time that really makes an "epic" image.