7D, 1D Mark III or 1D MarkIV

Wow, is it even legal to collect a deposit on something that doesn't exist yet or at least hasn't even been announced yet? That's the first I've heard of that practice.

In that vein of thought, maybe if enough people put deposits on something that doesn't exist, it WILL exist! More people should have put deposits on the EOS 3D....

E.J. Peiker wrote:Wow, is it even legal to collect a deposit on something that doesn't exist yet or at least hasn't even been announced yet? That's the first I've heard of that practice.

Hunt's is a reputable dealer. Sounds like the camera does exist to me, announcement to follow shortly, my guess (like tomorrow ?).

Yeah I know they are but still! It seems to me they are jumping the gun. Remember the EOS 1Ds Mark II was to be announced and one day prior to the announcement, canon delayed it for several months. I believe something similar occurred on the 5D Mark II but I don't remember by how much the intro was delayed.

I get the same feeling as Chris.
Gary said fully refundable if we decide against it... hell if it gives him some cashflow for a few weeks

Except that in futures trading you are betting on the price of something in the future that already exists today. Here you are putting money down on something that doesn't even exist yet. Don't know if it's actually legal but then what do I know?

Anytime I've put a deposit on something that wasn't immediately available they never charged my CC until they shipped the actual product.
I'd be very reluctant to let them charge my CC for something that wasn't even officially announced.

You're right EJ... I was editing that out whenyou commented after I thought about it.
Lou

Interesting new version of DPP(3.7.2) has just been released, maybe it's for a new camera??

interesting. perhaps they are skipping mark 4 and calling it Mark V (5)
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09 ... e.1080p60/

Interesting teaser on this blog, tune in at midnight EST!
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/10/ ... k-tonight/

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller ... TypeID=125

Two Mk IV videos on features.

Thank you so much to all of you again.
I have given a lot of thoughts, based on your advices and my reasoning.
One thing is clear; I cannot afford the Mark IV. ( I thought it was going to be cheaper.)
The other option of buying a used Mark III would be risky. Lot of people had problem with it.
The remaining options are: buying a 7D (new technology, relatively cheap) or buying a new Mark III especially if they lower the price from $ 3700 to $ 3000 before they faze it out.

I'm unsure of where you are getting this perception that a used Mark III would be risky. All indications are that new Mark IIIs perform the same as fixed Mark IIIs. In the off chance you were to pick up a Mark III that hasn't been sent for the latest fixes, you could just do so, Canon will still fix it. Furthermore, if it bothers you that much, you could simply buy a used Mark III with a more recent serial number.

Karl--I would come up with as much spare cash as possible and take a loan for the rest and go for the MarkIV if at all possible. You have been doing this stuff for a while so your ready for a top notch camera. The only thing is you might want to wait till you hear peoples user reports once they get their hands on one, or put a deposit down(refundable at hunt's) and at least you'll be inline, then while your waiting for your no. to come up you can gather in all the reports that are bound to be flooding the internet. If the Auto focus works as advertised--and I personally have a hunch it will--you'll be quite happy with the camera

And also consider this--at 16 mp and iso capabilites that are excellent even at 800, 10frames a second, excellent dynamic range, you'll be able to stick with this camera for many years instead of the usual upgrade in two. If you buy the Mark III you'll be wanting to replace it as soon as you can after about a year. I chuckle to myself as I type this--but my point is this MarkIV in my eyes is at the level of which you could sit tight for even 5-6 years and not be hurting terribly for something better that just came out in two years to the point it would keep breaking the bank. Digital SLR has matured and come into it's own potential now. So over the long haul, this might be a better strategy. Or do it like this--forgetting money for a minute--which one do you want? Find a way then if at all possible.

Paul

Good points Paul, I think cameras have matured enough now that keeping one for several years is possible. I've spent way too much money on cameras the past 5 years because each model just didn't have all the features or performance that I wanted. Today I think it is different(don't tell Canon though), so keeping one for longer periods of time makes sense.

Scott, Paul, I actually think they got that way, if you bought the highest end, several years ago. My 1Ds mark II was my workhorse from November 2004 to December 2008 so a little over 4 years before I felt there was a camera sufficiently superior enough to it to jsutify athe very expensive upgrade (D3x). Similarly I kept my 1 D Mark IIn for 4 years before replacing it with a D300. I don't plan to upgrade the D300 to a D300s so I think I'm pretty much in the every other generation camp now which moved me from a 2 year upgrade cycle to a 4 year upgrade cycle.

At this point I think we should stop with increasing megapixels, except maybe one iteration for Nikon on the action body now that Canon is at 16MP. I think in these form factors, 24 and 16 are fine for a very long time. Lets focus instead on things like lower noise electronics, dynamic range, sensor design to maximize light collection and possibly even getting away from the bayer sensor, AF performance, etc - none of these are bad today but they could be further improved. I draw similarities to the computer industry. The GHz race basically ended in 2004 yet computing performance is approximately 10x today of what it was then by focusing on different ways to improve performance. Similarly I would like to see the manufacturers focus on different ways to improve image quality than cramming more and smaller pixels into a fixed space. Lets get lenses that can actually use all of those pixels to their fullest. Lets do real time on chip lens correction for CA, and linear distortion rather than using the Image processors to process more pixels. Lets leave the pixel density alone and use the ever increasing processing power to do better things with those pixels.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Except that in futures trading you are betting on the price of something in the future that already exists today. Here you are putting money down on something that doesn't even exist yet. Don't know if it's actually legal but then what do I know?

Some people just have too much. If that is the case send your deposit to the Red Cross for the Earthquake strifed regions. By the time the MkIV does come out I'm sure you would have raised another $6000

E.J. Peiker wrote:At this point I think we should stop with increasing megapixels, except maybe one iteration for Nikon on the action body now that Canon is at 16MP. I think in these form factors, 24 and 16 are fine for a very long time. Lets focus instead on things like lower noise electronics, dynamic range, sensor design to maximize light collection

Amen!

thedigitalbean wrote:I'm unsure of where you are getting this perception that a used Mark III would be risky. All indications are that new Mark IIIs perform the same as fixed Mark IIIs. In the off chance you were to pick up a Mark III that hasn't been sent for the latest fixes, you could just do so, Canon will still fix it. Furthermore, if it bothers you that much, you could simply buy a used Mark III with a more recent serial number.

Canon factory refurbished 1d3 is being sold at $2999.00( Adorama & B&H) and that could be a good option if you do not want used one.