And from my point of view: That body looks like a 7D follow up. Yes, without a flash. And to me it looks FF, too. And why should Canon put a 5D III in a 7D II body? Why not place a FF sensor in the new 7 and merge both lines (I already mentioned 10 pages ago)? They already did with the 1 series. Maybe the "Rate" button does controll internal crop (rate). The explanation it might controll video frame (rate) is nonsense. Who needs to change video framerate from 30 to 25 to 24 while filming? That is what one decides in CF.
Letīs guess we get a D5/7 X!
6fps
32MP
internal crop for the weiners (Nikonians have automatically for their not FF lenses)
100% VF
Iso 25k nativ
45 AF Points & ECF
Ralph Conway wrote:
And from my point of view: That body looks like a 7D follow up. Yes, without a flash. And to me it looks FF, too. And why should Canon put a 5D III in a 7D II body? Why not place a FF sensor in the new 7 and merge both lines (I already mentioned 10 pages ago)? They already did with the 1 series. Maybe the "Rate" button does controll internal crop (rate). The explanation it might controll video frame (rate) is nonsense. Who needs to change video framerate from 30 to 25 to 24 while filming? That is what one decides in CF.
Letīs guess we get a D5/7 X!
6fps
32MP
internal crop for the weiners
100% VF
Iso 25k nativ
45 AF Points & ECF ...Show more →
I'd buy that! Not so sure I will be able to but I'd buy that!
I would not pay additional 6K $ just for getting an in cameras crop, "kewly"
But rate for "crop" rate seems plausible to me. Even it means another useless button imo
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Well Ralph, I don't give much credence to any of your other imagined specs, but this speculation is as plausible as any other I've heard.
My imagined specs where a joke, Jeff. This is my real wish list:
- great center AF at low light (-1 to -2)
- ISO 25K (51K) at 5D IIs ISO 6.400 level
- 18-24 MP
- programmable auto ISO
- 5-6 fps
- working tracking
- 2CF slots
- an additional grip at much less than 10% (or for free like Nikon did with D700) of cameras price
- anyway an affordable price (for me) of course
Ralph Conway wrote:
I would not pay additional 6K $ just for getting an in cameras crop, "kewly"
But rate for "crop" rate seems plausible to me. Even it means another useless button imo
I'm not convinced that a crop button would be labelled "rate". And, bearing in mind that the marking is in blue, it implies to me that it's for playback mode and doesn't influence shooting. I hope I'm wrong but I think all it does is lets you add a star rating to the file's metadata within camera.
coranda wrote:
I'm not convinced that a crop button would be labelled "rate". And, bearing in mind that the marking is in blue, it implies to me that it's for playback mode and doesn't influence shooting. I hope I'm wrong but I think all it does is lets you add a star rating to the file's metadata within camera.
That would be a button without any use. Like direct print. For deciding the worth of a picture I would not trust any display af any camera.
lsuber wrote:
Off you go then. But as you've stated elsewhere: good luck with the lens options.
You are right, Sony has limited lens options.
But I also said that as we move from one format to another (FF to APS-C or m43 or compact), there are certain photography aspects that simply cannot be duplicated. In this case, it's the shallow depth of field which I desire. Because of this, I intend to pick up a couple of fast prime lenses (35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4), mount them on the light-weight and cheap Sony camera and be done with it. This means I get to continue using Canon APS-C most of the time. It's no different from Chez who uses his FF most of the time but turns to his X100 occasionally.
If Canon releases a pentamirror FF camera, I'm all for it too. Anything that cuts costs and reduces weight is attractive to me.
Ralph Conway wrote:
That would be a button without any use. Like direct print. For deciding the worth of a picture I would not trust any display af any camera.
I agree entirely. Here's hoping I'm wrong but so far it's the most plausible explanation I've got for that button.
timbop wrote:
He said one thing was wrong. He mentioned that he would prefer the AF of the 1 series; but didn't include a reference to the 7d being better. He went on to describe AT LENGTH how the canon rep stated that the high resolution crowd would be happy.
"landscape photographers, wedding professionals and other demanding users of our high res full frame cameras wiil appreciate the compact size and features known from the 7D and 5DmkII camera and the new sensor performance"
For all we know, Canon may deem 18 to 21 MP sufficiently HIGH RESOLUTION. As such, we should not be surprised if the 5D3 stays between 18 and 22 MP.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
There doesn't exist any 5D3 and D800 specs So how can you tell him don't buy them then
D4 and 1D X ... I am trying to look in. I do not see anything. For me they seem not to exist jet, too ...
coranda wrote:
It's a Canon manual remember. They don't necessarily make anything clearer.
one of my manuals, not for canon, reads like:
the rate buttons rates
the display change buttons changes display
the A button does A
the on button turns on
the blank modulationator does blank modulationations
the B set quick sets the B quick
the frequency alteration switch alters the frequency
the direct straight button direct straights
the standard button sets standard
the enhancer button enhances things
