HD = header detector, automatically perfectly times all headers in soccer, sort of the 1 series green mode
ML= mirror-lockDOWN, everyone complained so much about how hard it was to get to mirror lock-up that canon finally decided to be sensible and listen to their customers, now the mirror is permanently locked-UP in all modes unless you continuously hold the ML button down
Nobody has mentioned HD as in HIGH DEFINITION video? which the Mark4 is almost certainly going to have? And its on the opposite side of the "On" for photos - so one doesn't mistakenly go to the wrong selector.
Ben Horne wrote:
Let's hope the 1DIV is not the Daewoo of cameras like the mkIII was.
It would be interesting to see the labels that would be applied to other cameras that were tested at the same level as the Mark III. With other cameras, users just go out and use the camera as they normally would, but for the Mark III, you have users that have more shots taken trying to expose flaws in the camera than from normal use. I have a feeling that many users here would be much happier with their equipment if they didn't read these forums.
jamesf99 wrote:
Ahem.... I'm sorry, but that's not a reliable way to judge this.. Canon over the last several years has adopted new engineering specifications. Terms such as precision, accurate, correct, and reliable are all "just so out dated" at Canon.
Their engineers now use terms such as "move that over a little", "close enough", "who's gonna know?" and "looks good to me; ship it". These, to illustrate a few, represent Canon's modern terminology.
You see this camera will be 250MP, 16bit and will create 1.5GB RAW files give or take a hundred meg, so you'll need to carry a 500 GB HD around as aminimum for a days shoot.
jamesf99 wrote:
Ahem.... I'm sorry, but that's not a reliable way to judge this.. Canon over the last several years has adopted new engineering specifications. Terms such as precision, accurate, correct, and reliable are all "just so out dated" at Canon.
Their engineers now use terms such as "move that over a little", "close enough", "who's gonna know?" and "looks good to me; ship it". These, to illustrate a few, represent Canon's modern terminology.
freaklikeme wrote:
If that actually happens, then Nikon will only have the second ugliest camera on the market. And only by virtue of having straight lettering.
I agree, the Nikon D3(x) are butt ugly, only beaten by the a900 for the crown.
Who cares what a camera looks like? Results are what counts! I suppose you would appalled at an old Technika V until you saw what it can produce with a fine lens.
EB-1 wrote:
Who cares what a camera looks like? Results are what counts! I suppose you would appalled at an old Technika V until you saw what it can produce with a fine lens.
EBH
The D3x may be the finest piece of photographic equipment ever produced. If so, that only deepens the irony that it lacks any visual appeal itself.
EB-1 wrote:
Who cares what a camera looks like? Results are what counts! I suppose you would appalled at an old Technika V until you saw what it can produce with a fine lens.
EBH
We're just stating facts. Didn't say they weren't good cameras, just damn fugly. Wouldn't stop me buying one if the output and features were what I needed.
EB-1 wrote:
Who cares what a camera looks like? Results are what counts! I suppose you would appalled at an old Technika V until you saw what it can produce with a fine lens.
