Your move Canon

[Jonathan]

But I'm with Sue, what did we used to do before all this technology and would the wedding photgrapher of today have been able to cut it in the past or were wedding photographers just better then. 

Erm, 20 pics in front of a church using 2 rolls of 120?  Maximum group size about 8?  I think I could manage that.

A year or so ago was my parent's golden wedding and I saw their wedding pictures for the first time (apart from the one they have on the wall).  I was amazed.  For the period some really creative stuff including a picture shot during the ceremony.  But the whole game has changed dramatically in the past 3 - 5 years.  We do more now because we can.  I have a client collecting an album today - 70 page storybook including HDR, remote camera work, drag shutter exposures and mixed lighting to give (deliberate) colour casts.  Plus they are gay so I had 2 dresses to worry about   You didn't see any of that 20 years ago.

Though to be fair, not exactly low light.

You're kidding, right?

[picsfor]

i got a horizon indicator by swapping out the matt focusing screen that came with the 5D MkII and swapping for one with a grid.
Whilst i accept that Canon should have had this issue sorted by now - i've also got a clearer focusing screen which in turn allows me to judge the focusing more accurately.

I think ultimately we are back to choice again. But i do wish Canon would add a second cf slot to their cameras - and preferably from the 5D and 7D ranges up. If i've forked out £1500+ for a body i think we can assume i'm a tad more concerned about the outcome of my pictures than a happy snapper - and that includes system redundancy (or does that sound too much like an I.T. geek thing?)

[anglefire]

Though to be fair, not exactly low light.

You're kidding, right?

No I'm not - 1/1600" at f2.8 with a 400mm VR lens taking what appears to be a stationary subject is not what I would call low light!

Assuming that it is a stationary subject, got then ISO1600, 1/400" and f2.8 would have worked too. (If I've got me stops right!)

[Jonathan]

I guess Canon are happy to spend another year on the bench.

1DMkIV.  Summary: like a D3S with a few more pixels, higher res video and a smaller sensor.

I honestly can't see how more pixels + smaller sensor won't = more noise.  Obviously there will be a 1DSIV "soon" but it looks like Canon have surrendered sports and journalism to Nikon.

Oh and there's a new AF system.  Because, you know, the old one didn't work.  This one apparently works with several of their lenses.  And yes, I'm amazed they didn't ask Rob Galbraith to beta it.  Maybe they were afraid of what he'd find......

[picsfor]

Interesting article.

I've always pondered the fact that Canon don't do a FF action camera when Nikon have proven it to be so worthwhile. Though this does have a low mega pixel count by Canons current standards.
Would i rush out and put my deposit down ready for its release? Not a hope. The camera would have to show that all the issues of the Mk III had been cured and no new nasties had been created in resolving the old.

Also, with regards to the high iso, i can understand how they've managed to increase it a stop given the Digic IV does low light extremely well in the 5D MkII and they've got 2 of them in a MkIV - but to up it to 102400 - well that will be interesting. Not confident in what we will actually get myself at the top end. Might see the 12800 and 25600 become 'usable' but 51200 and 102400 will i think just be clutching at straws.
When i say 'usable' i mean that the pros will happily dial up to those settings knowing they will get shots the editors will be happy with that do not require some noise reduction editing first.
I hope to be proven wrong but i'm not getting my hopes up!

[Jonathan]

What's the next big sports event?  Something round May/June in 2010.  Must be some footie or something coming up.

My money says black lenses will outnumber white.

And unless there's some major change then that will be repeated with the next revision for 2012.

[Jonathan]

No I'm not - 1/1600" at f2.8 with a 400mm VR lens taking what appears to be a stationary subject is not what I would call low light!
Assuming that it is a stationary subject, got then ISO1600, 1/400" and f2.8 would have worked too. (If I've got me stops right!)

It's an EV of roughly 7.  Which is light that you'd be just about OK reading a newspaper in.  EV 6 is uncomfortable enough that you'd definitely turn a light on.

BTW is that the exif from the Nikon site?  Looks more like f4 to me.

[Hybridphotog]

Blimey, all those buttons!

Heh... and its main function is the same as this cameras...

[Jonathan]

Well I haven't seen a D3S at 100K ISO yet.  But I'd be very very surprised if it's worse than the 1DIV.  Link - right at the bottom.  Why didn't Canon just say "nah, we can't do 100K ISO".

Almost unbelievably Canon's site is even harder to navigate than Nikon's so I can't actually find the official pics (anybody?) but I hear they are only showing pics up to 3,200.  Which suggests they can't even come close to Nikon.  Unless of course you know different.

[Graham]

  Where's Flake when you need her? 

[Jonathan]

Here you go.  Pics.

Forget the D3S.  Looks like they are battling the D3 right now.

[Hybridphotog]

I guess Canon are happy to spend another year on the bench.

1DMkIV.  Summary: like a D3S with a few more pixels, higher res video and a smaller sensor.

I honestly can't see how more pixels + smaller sensor won't = more noise.  Obviously there will be a 1DSIV "soon" but it looks like Canon have surrendered sports and journalism to Nikon.

Noise can be handled with image processors, but only to a certain degree. If these are updated, or if Canon have found their current image processors can cut the mustard...

Oh and there's a new AF system.  Because, you know, the old one didn't work.

I read that link and 'heard' static hiss... not the once-common "Oh, that's handy" noises in my head.

45-point AF system..? My 350D works fine with just the one AF point in the middle being active. Or am I missing something?

I also read someone's query as to why Canon aren't bothering with two media slots. I can't see much point in those either, to be honest. Media cards not big enough? Buy bigger. And you're going to stop to remove one media card anyway sometime, so...

Nah... I'm definitely missing a point somewhere. Surely it's not a Tweedledum/Tweedledee situation with Canon and Nikon..?

[Oldboy]

  Where's Flake when you need her? 

She's on PhotoRadar and still dishing Nikon cameras. 

[Jonathan]

Nah... I'm definitely missing a point somewhere.

Possibly that some people use their cameras in different ways from you

The dual slot thing is interesting.  Because the 1DIV has dual slots - but in the Canon stupid way.  They acknowledge the need (or at least the benefit of putting it on a spec sheet) but then fail in delivery.  Cos if dual slots means I have to by 2 different sets of cards then it's unlikely I'll bother.  As it is, at the end of a long day I have a pocket full of raw files plus a single card with jpegs of all the day.  Lose a card, corrupt a file, do something stupid and I'll be OK.  It also works well for pro shooters who hand their cards to their magazine immediately after shooting (sports or catwalk fashion or news) but need to keep their own backup.

[picsfor]

Dual card slots definitely a worth while option if you are doing a shoot for which money will be given in return for your efforts.
Even for those once in a life time shots it's worth having a second card slot for.
Did i mention i used to work in I.T. and worry about such things as data back up?

Enough people go onto forums asking about the best way to back their photos - why not have an in camera option as well if it's not gonna cost the earth?

Onto sample picks...

Nice picks from the Mk IV but i was most taken with the shot of the DJ taken with the D3s - 12800, nice pic.
I can comfortably say my 5d MkII can't match that quality at 12800 in that light.

Roll on the 1Ds MkIV - let's see what that brings...