Tentacle wrote:
An AF sensor is a contrast detector. Within the AF area there needs to be a sharp dark/light transition, of a given magnitude (in relation to OOF lack-of-contrast) and then it's done. It makes no difference if that detection is done on one side within the AF area and the next measurement detects a contrast peak elsewhere in the same AF area.
Obviously
Now, this is a concern if you sway so much (super-tele, handheld) that you let your point of contrast drift outside the AF area. But, we've already sort of reached the conclusion that in-body IS isn't good at super-tele stabilisation anyway, so this point is somewhat moot.
Perhaps I and the other guy needed to word it more explicitly so as not to be confused with guys who are clueless. Handheld at long focal lengths shooting a heron alighting across a lake, it is quite easy to move the AF sensor off of the heron and over the background shoreline - causing one to lose AF lock momentarily (assuming you use AI servo for birds in flight). Perhaps you feel that the point is moot because it has already been mentioned that the image in view is shaky. Large shaky images in VF are not really that big of a deal, assuming that you either are not using AI servo OR the target is large enough to keep under the sensor. IMHO that is a different thing, altogether: one is annoying the other is a real problem. Regardless of whether you concluded that immediately and feel it's obvious, that doesn't make it an invalid point.
timbop wrote (excerpt):
Perhaps I and the other guy needed to word it more explicitly so as not to be confused with guys who are clueless.
Amen! I shoot long 95% of the time... 400mm or 500mm/f4(IS) with 1.4x TC used as though it was built into the "700mm" lens... I need AF that works because when I'm handholding I am truly breaking my back just pointing that lens around... Yeah, I'm a good long tele shooter and all that BS but AF is a must when I'm waving the "700" around... I have my hands full!
If in-body IS doesn't aid a good AF lock like lens based IS does, it is little use to me for long lenses... I'm a fan of the concept of in body IS but when I switch off IS using my "700" handholding it is over for me... There might still be a bit of magic in the in-camera IS system but honestly without a monopod/tripod, that lens becomes all but unusable!
Tim Gray wrote:
I agree that Canon would not intentionally show up without a major announcement. But this is why they don't announce until they're ready to ship (unlike some other mfgs). Complications arise.
Yeah, like it Fuji is doing again with S5 announcment today and 2007 delivery - bah!!!!!!!!!!!
Canon's just toying with Nikon and everybody else by making them sweat and go first. The Pentax 645D announcement had no price or solid availability, nor will today's S5 announcment (according to Steve's leak), and Nikon remains silent about any future FF or D3. They all know that if Canon lowers the boom by dropping FF 1 series pricing that anybody else will be in deep ****. They better hope that Canon stays at $8000 and doesn't move to $5000 or even $4000 for FF and $2500 for 1.25x (if it is still in the mix.)
This first september issue shows up products announced in august... new products which may come out in september would then go in the october issue, wouldn't they ? ;-)
And another disappointment: The Fujifilm S5 Pro will not get the 8/8 16 mpixel sensor, but stays with the S3 Pro sensor (6/6 12). They do couple it to a much more powerful image processor, so it will be much faster and offer better NR and ISO 3200.
So, at least from this side there's no added pressure on Canon.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Well, This is the calm before the storm...
The october newsletter will be MUCH more interesting!
You really htink Canon is going to show up with just 7 digicams and 1 low end DSLR??
dont think so
The 1Ds mk3 area is gonna be impressive
Why, yes I do think Canon "show up with just 7 digicams and 1 low end DSLR".
Although I wish I were wrong, I think the fun is over. I think Canon delayed the intro until PMA due to either mfg problems or a rethinking of their product strategy.
They may have decided to modify product specs and add something they weren't going to include at first. Perhaps they've found a way to add dust removal to a FF camera that wasn't possible a year ago when the specs were frozen. Perhaps they've had other advancements they want to include or perhaps they realize that, unfortunately for us all, there really isn't any competition out there and there's no real rush. Why not clear out the pipeline of remaining 1 series and 5 series for the Christmas season and start 07 off with new products?
As one who is perhaps fatally brand loyal, I am tremendously pleased to see that Canon is offering an image storage device.
My only potential source of misgiving is that it would not have the same personal entertainment potential as the P-4000 or Evolution (if that ever happens to come to existence). Furthermore, should I ever find myself shooting with a third-party camera for specialty use, if the Canon M30/80 doesn't support their formats as well, I'd hate to think that I'd need a second "generic" device.
Let's hope that they either open up the supported file types or keep it limited in scope to Canon-specific items with an equivalently limited cost. Oh, and as for the Print button, it might actually make reasonable sense on this device compared to on-camera for anything beyond a D-REB.
At Remford: At a guess, the Canon image tank will be able to store the content of ANY CF card, as long as it has a compatible file system. It would only hamper you in the ((p)re)view department if you have non-Canon RAW files on there.
Epson P3000/5000 looks way more exciting than the Canon. I'll probably get whichever is fastest. Speed is more important than capacity for those things. Dump and go!
