PRESS RELEASE: The world's fastest D-SLR remastered - Canon's EOS-1D Mark III:

[Tannin]

I couldn't agree less with you John. The 1D III has more good things than you can poke a stick at:

Clean high ISO, up to 6400 - huge advance
Much lower noise
Vastly improved ergonomics. (BIG change.)
More dynamic range with 14-bit colour
The extra speed will be handy
Higher resolution - now has the same pixel pitch as a 1Ds II, i.e., better than a 12Dm not as high as a 30D. Notie that there is a trade-off here: the higher the pixel pitch, the finer the detail, but the worse the noise. 10MP in a 1.3 sensor is getting pretty close to ideal.
Live view promises to be great for macro and remote tethered shooting with a laptop.
The new AF system looks awesome ....

There is a great deal to like about this camera. I've 95% decided to buy one. Price is $6500 in Australia: it's quite a bit, but what price do I put on accurate autofocus for flying birds?

Of course, it all depends on what you shoot. If you are a landscape or a wedding photographer, then a 5D would suit you better. But for me, as a nature man, the 1D III looks just about perfect.

[NickR]

Originally Posted by Roy C

Someone on BF has ordered one and was quoted £3,050. In the states it is $4,000 which would convert to just over £2,100 at current exchange rates but then everything photographic is more expensive here than in the states.

Roy / Christine, I have looked at the prices of Canon EOS-1D Mark II N in the US at B & H New York the price is $4000 at Warehouse Express £2149 which is very similar.

You would think that the MKIII would be parallel to the MKII ?

Perhaps the UK dealers are jumping the gun? or can see an opportunity to RIP us off

Cheers

[Joe]

I'm just supprised Canon haven't made any inroads back into the pellix design as seen on some film Eos cameras and more than a few other makes (tho Canon were always better at it).
Somehow the even higher mega high speed drives possible without a mirror design (or even an LCD 'shutter' replacing a mechanical which was reportedly experimented back in the early 90s) would make much more sense now you don't have to stop every 36 exposures to change a film.

[miketoll]

I was looking for a 40D but my wife is happy it has not been announced!

[Tannin]

You make a very interesting point, Joe. On the face of things, a pellicle mirror has obvious advantages: no mirror slap, no mechanical movement to waste battery power and wear out and blow the dust around, frame rate limited only by the shutter iteself and (of course) the electronics, live view very easy to achieve .... there is a lot to be said for it.

One imagines that it is (relatively speaking) a simple task. (Surely it's easier to make a 50% reflective mirror than it is to do the near-impossible they already do with moving mirrors.)

On first sight, the cost seems excessive: only half as much light falls on the sensor, and slightly more than half of the available light goes to the viewfinder. (Less than a 50% drop to the VF because we already lose a bit because the existing mirror isn't 100% efficient. Too small a difference to worry about though.)

But half as much light is only one stop. Thinking about the viewfinder first, sure, your lenses would all be darker, but a single stop would be quite bearable in most cases: a 50mm f/1.8 would be as bright as an f/2.5 lens is through your current camera, a 24-105 f/4 would "look like" an f/5.6 unit. But using something like a 400/5.6 with a 1.4 converter (f/8 native) would be pretty dark at an effective f/11. Still, the advantages are probably worth it.

But there is a second factor to consider: focus. Auto-focus systems love light. Would we really want to live with a 1 stop degradation in our auto-focus? It make a very noticable difference. For example, when I put a 1.4 converter on my 500/4 (making it effectively a 700/5.6) it takes about 60% longer to focus. I'm not sure I would want to use a camera that did that to all my lenses, all the time.

And finally, there is the loss of 50% of the light hitting the sensor. Again, it's only one stop, but that turns your 50mm f/1.4 into an f/2, your 100mm f/2.8 into an f/4, your 400 f/5.6 into an f/8 .... pretty scary stuff. Better and better high ISO performance will help, of course, but then we all want to press that advance into service to shoot in lower light or gain faster shutter speeds.

So: some big trade-offs. On the whole, I think I'd rather stay with the mechanical mirror. But it may be different for you, and different again for the next person. It would be nice to have the choice. Will any of the SLR makers offer it to us anytime soon?

[miketoll]

Canon did a pellicle mirror SLR years ago (I can't remember the model designation off the top of my head) which was presumably aimed at sport and action photographers but can't have sold in sufficient numbers for Canon to do a follow up model and the idea has just faded away. With the speed and reliability of the present set up it is just not worth it I guess.

[Saphire]

Here is link to a write up on the camera. Its a shame they never continued to make improvements and add the features to the latest DSLR. Just think no-more mirror failures.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...S-RT/index.htm

[miketoll]

Yep, thats it and it obviously had no trouble with autofocus. The AP write up, if I remember, said the screen darkening was barely noticable. With a full size sensor and modern coatings the loss of light would not be a problem but as I said it must not have sold enough for Canon to continue with the idea.

[Joe]

The design first came about in the mid sixties, was repeated in the 80's with the Canon F1 and Nikon F3 variants, then again in the 90's with a couple of Eos film models.
By the very nature of the design it had massive advantages for action photographers, but like many specialist kit, it also had major dissadvantages.
A pure guess on my part is if this design ever surfaces again we're more likely to see it on mid then top end model rather than entry level models.
I can't much see a pelix design becoming a big seller for any manufacturer for reasons above...in the past they were only made in small numbers, but manufacturers don't make as much profit from any top flight models to purely justify there own existence....The likes of 300,350 and 400D for canon have enabled that investment and in some cases features to be implimented into their mid and top end models. By pure economics the 400d's will make more money for a company than any 1d's will.
I suspect that as mirrors have got much smaller, drives faster anyway, the pros for a pellicle design dim very slightly too. a shame really as it'd have advantages with a good processor and high capacity memory card
Incidentally the EOS RT sold out in no time at all...can't get one at the right price for love or money then!...in my view the demand was higher than production at the time
The posting I made earlier first mentioning it was just an idea.......most of us will never know the reasons and decisions in the boardrooms of the major camera manufacturers..........
Maybe we shall see a gold plated Eos camera one day too?!! (hell knows ...Contax kept pushing those pieces of jewellery out in the past! LOL)

[miketoll]

For any one who would like to hear the camera at full 10fps go to

http://bobatkins.com/photography/dig...I/shutter2.mp3

Amazing!