Ok, the title is there just to catch the eye, but it does have some validity. I almost just posted this in the existing thread here the person is asking some basic questions like which one is better, what is a pixel, etc. I saw the usual answers, one is for landscapes, another for sports or photojournalism, etc. BUT, can a legitimate case now be made that the 1Ds is actually a reasonable crossover platform which could be reasonably be used by pro sports and journalism photogs? Seems like a very good case could be made:
1. Crop factor, 1Ds with higher MP allows one to crop and get a better, "closer" image than a 1.3.
2. Five fps is more than ample for almost any situation in tennis, golf, football and most other sports if one has decent timing. The 10 fps is nice, but how often is it really needed. I'm sure some shots such as getting the ball on the bat in baseball might benefit, but really, is 5 fps not sufficient?
3. Macro, dittos with the post processing and cropping.
4. Landscapes, portraits, other non movement high fps critical shots. Of course, this would be the FF bread and butter and with the extra MP, the choice for sure in those types of photography.
I guess I am convincing myself that by going with the 1Ds I am not losing all that much, and gaining quite a bit in exchange. ****, I don't take enough shots to justify anything more than my Pro1, but that said, if possible, I ant to get the best I can out of my equipment. I don't take a lot of action shots either, but would ant to have the equipment potential if I should choose any given day to hit the sports field for soccer, football, golf and the like, nothing super-fast would be needed.
Dumping the M3 would be a huge load off my mind also as I see this camera becoming the future Edsel of the camera world when it is eventually replaced with a IV or IIIN. Prices are already plummeting and I suspect a $3999 price tag will be seen by some major distributors before Christmas. Even if Canon fixes the **** thing, they have permanently tattooed the scarlet letters AF on it. Canon's PR, or lack of it, will collectively cost all early adapters with hundreds of dollars of devaluation before the M3's time. A III and IIN selling used for the same price in to years, probably not, the IIN price will be higher.
Ok, to be fair, I am coming down harder on the future potential value of the M3 than it will mostly be, but the main idea is accurate, IMHO.
Can anything be done at this point? I think so, a total recall of the camera and brand new ones being distributed, hopefully with an "N" attached, or a firmware that is a NO DOUBT, NO QUESTION fix among the top pros. Anything less will likely lead to the scenarios I have painted, unfortunately.
So, do you think there is a significant loss of shooting ability in some situations with the 1Ds or is the 1Ds built with features that can easily serve as a cross platform which is more than just adequate for the jobs previously filled by the non 1Ds lines? (Mark III, Mark IIN, 1D Mark II)
Thanks for reading. In this post, I have no intention of implying I am worth a **** at any types of photography, but for reply purposes only, please pretend I am a pro level photog who does both sports and studio type work and is just wondering if two cameras are really needed for these jobs now that the 1Ds has bumped up the MP and fps.
I will not have two cameras no matter what, just in case I didn't convey that well enough.