gdanmitchell wrote:
If you do, I expect you'll be ejected through the aperture by which you entered the office at least one stop faster than you entered. But perhaps his reach won't be sufficient and you'll be able to zoom out before he can execute his prime plan...
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you do, I expect you'll be ejected through the aperture by which you entered the office at least one stop faster than you entered. But perhaps his reach won't be sufficient and you'll be able to zoom out before he can execute his prime plan...
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Since when did the stop become the universal measure of well everything?
I'm going to my boss on Monday and demanding a 1 stop pay increase.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you do, I expect you'll be ejected through the aperture by which you entered the office at least one stop faster than you entered. But perhaps his reach won't be sufficient and you'll be able to zoom out before he can execute his prime plan...
RobDickinson wrote:
This is where using 1/3rd stop increments are a valiable tool.
See you work for ISO 400 pay but this is effectivly pushed to ISO 640 by tax!
I'm trying to shake my head at both of you, but am laughing too hard!
When I took my car in for some work this morning I asked for 1/2 stop more braking power. I think the stop should be the natural unit for braking performance at least.
granted CR1 hah but:
"....It was suggested by one person that the AF will actually be a lesser version of the 7D autofocus system. The camera would not have a crazy frame per second rating, something in the 3-4fps range like the current 5D Mark II...."
Wow if they think even the nothing really all that amazing 7D AF is even too much for it and if they won't even bump to a faster mirror box/trigger system after what would be now like 7 years after the original 5D hmmm I'm really almost starting to hope Nikon just destroys them with the D800. Maybe, maybe that could finally wake them up, assuming there are enough people left to care hah.
If the D800 does have 30-306MP and can do 4fps and 6fps with grip (not sure why nikon does the seemingly silly grip games with fps, but at least the option, even only with bulk, is better than nothing, a grip isn't bad when you are actually doing sports necessarily either) and has an improved version of their current top of the line pro AF and vastly improved video (as per rumors) and Canon delivers a 30MP camera with a crippled 7D AF and 3.5fps and long mirror blackout/slow trigger and all sorts of firmware cripplings, then I think they would deserve to get spanked this time.
Canon does not really need to bring a 5D follow up now, even we wish that.
The "crippled" 5D MK II announced 3 years ago offered nothing more then best IQ of all existing cameras, highest ISO and revolutionary video capabilities. It made it the most succesfull body of its range till today, still counting to the best IQ, resolution & high ISO cameras. As we saw in an other thread in high ISO noise only 3Ds beats it at near half the resolution. And only 3DX does in resolution (with stone aged ISO 1600 max). Those are competitors at twice/forth the price.
What would you do, if you where Canon?
If I would be I would go on developing, would wait how Nikons answer looks like and would bring out a mindblowing competitor 1 month after. They did last time. And they where very, very successful (in opposite to forum threads expectations) with it the last three years.
I know, I am special (like everybody else). But like I told before:
If they give me 2 stops better ISO in comparabel IQ and ANY enhancment to 5D II - at a price I can afford (I can not purchase a 1D X now, neither I know when) - means at 5D MK IIs (even start) level ... I guess I will be a customer.
skibum5 wrote:
granted CR1 hah but:
"....It was suggested by one person that the AF will actually be a lesser version of the 7D autofocus system. The camera would not have a crazy frame per second rating, something in the 3-4fps range like the current 5D Mark II...."
Wow if they think even the nothing really all that amazing 7D AF is even too much for it and if they won't even bump to a faster mirror box/trigger system after what would be now like 7 years after the original 5D hmmm I'm really almost starting to hope Nikon just destroys them with the D800. Maybe, maybe that could finally wake them up, assuming there are enough people left to care hah.
If the D800 does have 30-306MP and can do 4fps and 6fps with grip (not sure why nikon does the seemingly silly grip games with fps, but at least the option, even only with bulk, is better than nothing, a grip isn't bad when you are actually doing sports necessarily either) and has an improved version of their current top of the line pro AF and vastly improved video (as per rumors) and Canon delivers a 30MP camera with a crippled 7D AF and 3.5fps and long mirror blackout/slow trigger and all sorts of firmware cripplings, then I think they would deserve to get spanked this time. ...Show more →
Not everyone wants what you want. I think a simple AF system like they have now is best for portrait photographers and would rather see the AF improvements be applied to more cross type sensors and to speed up the AF response. I find the accuracy and simplicity of the existing system perfect. If you want an action camera buy one designed for that purpose.
Sharona wrote:
A sincere, and possibly stupid question for those who want it: why the desire for more megapixels?
I Do not. I like that step back in 1D X to 18MP. I Never needed more. And I do know no landscape photographers who would, too (I only know two, but they where fine with 5D IIs 21).
Trevor Sowers wrote:
Not everyone wants what you want. I think a simple AF system like they have now is best for portrait photographers and would rather see the AF improvements be applied to more cross type sensors and to speed up the AF response. I find the accuracy and simplicity of the existing system perfect. If you want an action camera buy one designed for that purpose.
Trevor Sowers wrote:
Not everyone wants what you want. I think a simple AF system like they have now is best for portrait photographers and would rather see the AF improvements be applied to more cross type sensors and to speed up the AF response. I find the accuracy and simplicity of the existing system perfect. If you want an action camera buy one designed for that purpose.
And what did I say that went against added more cross type and speeding up AF response and accuracy
What small body FF do they have with top AF and at least 40D fps/mirror/shutter/trigger response? WHere do we go get that?
I'm not saying it need to go even 8fps (and if course not 10-12fps, there are also very real costs in making a large mirror move so fast and remain properly damped etc. never mind pure marketing segmentation reasons) but at least get us to old xxD performance levels. If they don't it would mean then most likely more than decade since the 5 series started until they finally accomplish that and this from the company that laughed not so long ago at Nikon for being pathetically behind in every conceivable fashion when it came to FF.
40D levels will bring in the super serious sports/action pros since they will wnat at least 8fps, but it would be just enough to make it a bit of a generalist camera. Who on earth said that the 5 series must be the studio/landscape/tripod camera and absolutely must not dare to be anything else whatsoever?
Canon has become not the company that introduced the pioneering EOS system or cameras like the EOS 3 or even the compnay that came out with the 20D and finally brought high quality digital to all but a too proud on their thrown and to marketing droid driven follow that just sits around and sees what Nikon does and tries to calculate the least they can possibly do and just barely not manage to lose to many customer the other side. Look at Apple (and I don't even like the company and their ironically enough 1984-like view of computing) and look at Kodak and now look their stock values.
Who is say that people won't see a fast 7D2 with improved AF and much better video and lower price than a 5D3 and say ah 21MP is enough and the new one has no speed at all an dnothing other than 9MP and better video and the latter can be gotten to a large extent from teh 7D2 so why pay way over a thousand to upgrade the 5D2 when you'd still need a 7D2 anyway so why not just keep the old 5D2 and replace the 7D instead? Maybe a 30MP, 3.5fps, AF as 5D2 but simply adding x-type to a few outer points, much improved video 5D3 would sell well and maybe they could price it so low that would make up for everything else but otoh maybe more than they think would just stick with their 5D2 and simply grab a 70D or 7D2 to complement it or look at the D800 if it turns out to be 36MP, 6.5fps gripped, high quality video, AF as good or better than the D700?
Anyway just getting in my rants just on the very odd chance these are feelers from Canon marketing about how various feature sets would sit with their customers.
(one saving grace for canon, no matter what they do with bodies, is that they have done nice things with L lenses, nikon really has no answer at all to stuff like 70-200 f/4 IS, 70-300L, etc. although they do seem to have lost the plot when it comes to non-L, their 50mm 1.4 surely could use a simple upgrade to true USM that focuses and doesn't break; they used to have the saving grace that their super-tele entry point used to a lot lower than Nikon but they just lost that big plus)
Trevor Sowers wrote:
Not everyone wants what you want. I think a simple AF system like they have now is best for portrait photographers and would rather see the AF improvements be applied to more cross type sensors and to speed up the AF response. I find the accuracy and simplicity of the existing system perfect. If you want an action camera buy one designed for that purpose.
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this but honesty? A "simple" AF system like they have now is best for portraiture? You may find accuracy as being "perfect" but I know plenty of other people who would gladly disagree. The 5D and 5DII's AF system, apart from the center point, is a complete joke by today's standards. Unless you MF or use the center point to focus and recompose all the time this "simple" AF system is totally unreliable, especially for portraiture. And since you brought up the whole 'buy the right camera for the right job' thing, the 5-series camera was designed for low light and aimed at studio, portrait, landscape and event/pj photographers yet the AF system it's endowed with is useless in most instances where peripheral points are needed, particularly in low light. So Canon is marketing a camera (5DII) as "Designed for low light photography" yet it falls laughably short due to it's handicaps in (and outside) this specific area. I know this because I've been shooting with a 5D for over four years and use a 5DII on occasion. That said I can understand fps and buffer being limited but the lack of a dependable AF system in a $2600 camera makes no sense. I'm not one of those people who thinks they deserve a camera that can do everything for nothing, I'm just one of those people who thinks a 2.6k camera should perform significantly better than a $500 rebel in such a crucial area. There simply is no excuse for that.
M Vers wrote:
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this but honesty? A "simple" AF system like they have now is best for portraiture? You may find accuracy as being "perfect" but I know plenty of other people who would gladly disagree. The 5D and 5DII's AF system, apart from the center point, is a complete joke by today's standards. Unless you MF or use the center point to focus and recompose all the time this "simple" AF system is totally unreliable, especially for portraiture. And since you brought up the whole 'buy the right camera for the right job' thing, the 5-series camera was designed for low light and aimed at studio, portrait, landscape and event/pj photographers yet the AF system it's endowed with is useless in most instances where peripheral points are needed, particularly in low light. So Canon is marketing a camera (5DII) as "Designed for low light photography" yet it falls laughably short due to it's handicaps in (and outside) this specific area. I know this because I've been shooting with a 5D for over four years and use a 5DII on occasion. That said I can understand fps and buffer being limited but the lack of a dependable AF system in a $2600 camera makes no sense. I'm not one of those people who thinks they deserve a camera that can do everything for nothing, I'm just one of those people who thinks a 2.6k camera should perform significantly better than a $500 rebel in such a crucial area. There simply is no excuse for that....Show more →
I didn't want to get involved either (but in case Canon is listening ;-)), I agree here. I've been following but not commenting on most of these threads and I don't understand the need for more megapixels. I am most open to hearing the argument for this, however!
Personally I think it needs no more megapixels, just a more reliable focusing system. Of course, that is just me....
thank you. But It is not new. It is from yesterday. 
