digitalbug30d wrote:
pixel wasnt aiming this at you...
IMHO video isnt needed in a ****PRO- DSLR****
what is needed in a DSLR
1. Accurate AF always and lower light AF
2. MP 12-21 with NO-noise at ISOs 800-1600
3. A sensor that is Dust repellant
4. 100 percent VF
5. higher res display 920k isnt high enough
6. weatherized body
whats not needed in a PRO-DSLR
1. video
That's what most of us think, right now. When your competition is using it in creative ways, you'll begin to appreciate it or hate your competition. The profession is changing. You can accept it and ride that wave or hang on like many did with film.
Incorruptible wrote:
OK the moon thing... what do you make of it?
I think that it might just be a 50DA...
The astronomical version of the 50D... with mirror lock up (replaces the direct print button) and robust bulb mode that works with a traditional cable release...
David Baldwin wrote:
Can anyone help me with a bit of history please?
When the 5D came out I was shooting 100% film so didn't pay much attention. Can anyone tell me what happened to the price of 5D when it was new on release, after a few months did the price fall?
Here in the UK for example the cost of a Nikon D700 has already fallen by around 10% since it was first released. Is it realistic to wonder if the same thing might happen to the 5D2?
David,
The price of the 5D has fallen by about 35% - 40% since its introduction (in the U.S.). It started quickly but they weren't big drops, but they've started dropping more and more within the last year.
"EDIT : in the thread, we can learn that Canon will announce for this end of this year a "D700 like" with the main caracteristics of 5Dmk2 but 15 or 16MPix with 6frames/sec. This one will be sold more or less 2000€. Just say goodbye to APS-C and EF-S !!!!"
Hmmmmm, if this were true that would be brilliant. I don't personally hanker after 20+ megapixels, and a lower price point full frame Canon would be very interesting to me indeed.
I only own one DX format lens, and wouldn't much mourn the passing of crop.
i don't remember the exact pricing decreases over the first year, but it did take more than 6 weeks for the 5d price to fall by $300 (i think it was more like 3-4 months before there was a substantial price decrease)...but by the time the first anniversary of the 5d came around, the base price here in the states was between $2700-2800. there was a $300 rebate being offered by canon-usa which doubled if you purchased another rebate qualifying item...this brought the effective price down to somewhere between $2100-$2200 ...at that time, pricing was driven more to get people to buy into "affordable " full frame since the only other ff option was the 1ds2. today, pricing has to take into account the offerings of other similarly full frame priced options....and how aggressively the makers of those bodies market them...
in otherwords, the landscape today is substantially different than it was 3 years ago...
"EDIT : in the thread, we can learn that Canon will announce for this end of this year a "D700 like" with the main caracteristics of 5Dmk2 but 15 or 16MPix with 6frames/sec. This one will be sold more or less 2000€. Just say goodbye to APS-C and EF-S !!!!"
Hmmmmm, if this were true that would be brilliant. I don't personally hanker after 20+ megapixels, and a lower price point full frame Canon would be very interesting to me indeed.
I only own one DX format lens, and wouldn't much mourn the passing of crop.
I think this has been inevitable for a long time. Canon invested a lot in developing its own full frame sensors. First it got kudos and market share in the pro market. Then it revolutionised the mid market with the 5D, and frankly, nobody else could compete (I switched for the 5D). Now Nikon is trying to compete in the mid market with the D700, and probably making a loss doing so. But Canon has such a head start that it can afford to put something like the 5D sensor in a really cheap camera. Canon's low-priced full frame camera is coming, either now, or within the next year. Full frame will revolutionise the $700 DSLR market just as much as it has done higher up the food chain. Apparently cheap DSLR buyers don't want a bigger viewfinder, or better image quality, or usable higher ISO's, or just more megapixels for the same image quality. I don't believe that.
If it really is 24, then let's hope Canon has made massive improvements in photosite technology. (which is certainly possible) Otherwise, the new camera may not have the IQ of the old one.
No chip is going to replace actual dynamic range and S/N ratio.
Also no mention of an articulating LCD.
- I may be using my 5D for a little longer than I planned. -but with Zeiss ZE glass!!!!!
Edited by Cableaddict on Sep 11, 2008 at 08:30 AM GMT
digitalbug30d wrote:
whats not needed in a PRO-DSLR
1. video
2 things:
1) don't underestimate the appeal of this. Photojournalists are going to lap it up. Amateur photographers are going to lap it up. I am an event shooter and my clients sometimes say "Can you shoot video too?" Now the answer can be yes.
2) where's the downside? Your camera already has the lens, sensor, image processor, Liveview monitor and huge storage capacity. All that needs to be added is some clever and nearly weightless/costless electronics, and a microphone (already in the 1 series) and the job is done. The cost in weight, retail price, and loss of other features (?) is probably less than adding a pop-up flash. Or just nothing. Look at the price of the D90: it isn't going to hurt your new DSLR in any way to add high quality video recording.
Great new features, useful to many, at no significant cost. WE MUST STOP THIS ROT! Get a Leica.
Still, you are in good company:
"I never use 800 iso or higher."
"I would never use a pop-up flash."
"I never use apertures wider than f4."
"I never use zooms."
"I never use MLU."
"I would never use Liveview."
"I would never use the joystick to move an AF point when the London to New York via Delhi method is so much more professional."
"I would never use a self timer."
"I would never use JPEG."
"I would never use flash."
"I would never use manual focus."
"I would never use a built-in light meter."
"I would never use film on a roll."
"I would never forego the convenience of oil on canvas."
Edited by brainiac on Sep 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM GMT
I'm all for the video thang. There will probably be an easy way to hook up an external drive for storage. Having one cam do both duties has one very significant advantage:
You can use the same lenses for both, thus you can spend twice as much on any one lens.
brainiac wrote: digitalbug30d wrote:
whats not needed in a PRO-DSLR
Still, you are in good company:
"I never use 800 iso or higher."
"I would never use a pop-up flash."
"I never use apertures wider than f4."
"I never use zooms."
"I never use MLU."
"I would never use Liveview."
"I would never use the joystick to move an AF point when the London to New York via Delhi method is so much more professional."
"I would never use a self timer."
"I would never use JPEG."
"I would never use flash."
"I would never use manual focus."
"I would never use a built-in light meter."
"I would never use film on a roll."
"I would never forego the convenience of oil on canvas." ...Show more →
Except for the film on roll, all other specs/no-needs are already met by my first camera: A Kodak Instamatic, that is still somewhere at home.
" ... it can afford to put something like the 5D sensor in a really cheap camera"
That would be seriously good news for me. Makes me think that I should hold off on the 5D2 until early next year. By then we should know more about Canon's roadmap for affordable full frame, and if I decide to buy the 5D2 anyway, well it should be a bit cheaper by then.
Things are really looking up for me personally, I've been frustrated by the extreme cost of top-of-the-line Canon pro full frame cameras, and feel severely constrained creatively by the cheaper small sensors (my fast wides have been crippled to behave like standard lenses by the crop). Existing 5D doesn't have live view, a technology I simply use for all of my static tripod based work.
Looks like my kit frustrations will end one way or another early 2009!
By the way, I would love video, it would be great for family videos, and would be practically free of charge! What's there not to like?
I see the point, but many people don't need that, and don't want to pay for all that crap. They're willing to pay for the features that matter. If they put video in the new camera, but no new AF system, I know many people will be irate. Similarly, if it has pop up flash, but no weather sealing... what a shame.
Those features would be nice if at no cost, but everything has a cost, whether it be added price, or at the expense of other features. brainiac wrote:
2 things:
1) don't underestimate the appeal of this. Photojournalists are going to lap it up. Amateur photographers are going to lap it up. I am an event shooter and my clients sometimes say "Can you shoot video too?" Now the answer can be yes.
2) where's the downside? Your camera already has the lens, sensor, image processor, Liveview monitor and huge storage capacity. All that needs to be added is some clever and nearly weightless/costless electronics, and a microphone (already in the 1 series) and the job is done. The cost in weight, retail price, and loss of other features (?) is probably less than adding a pop-up flash. Or just nothing. Look at the price of the D90: it isn't going to hurt your new DSLR in any way to add high quality video recording.
Great new features, useful to many, at no significant cost. WE MUST STOP THIS ROT! Get a Leica.
Still, you are in good company:
"I never use 800 iso or higher."
"I would never use a pop-up flash."
"I never use apertures wider than f4."
"I never use zooms."
"I never use MLU."
"I would never use Liveview."
"I would never use the joystick to move an AF point when the London to New York via Delhi method is so much more professional."
"I would never use a self timer."
"I would never use JPEG."
"I would never use flash."
"I would never use manual focus."
"I would never use a built-in light meter."
"I would never use film on a roll."
"I would never forego the convenience of oil on canvas."
Edited by brainiac on Sep 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM GMT...Show more →
!