No, not grateful. And you are right. I buy based on actual offerings, too.
For now I do not buy anything. The equipment I want to use right now is what I use: 5D II, 24-105 L IS and 70-200 4.0 L IS .
The camera I would like to test and maybe use in the future is the 5D MK III because of better IQ in raw and jpeg at higher ISO and the new AF system.
I am not happy about it. But again nothing has changed (for me). I really hope it will with Nikons next camera generation (or maybe the D600 - hopefully at 5D IIs price?).
Most people on the forum have little idea of the magnitude of technology that goes into a DSLR. We have been told by some that Canon could whomp up a high MPx camera in a couple of months after the 36 MPx Nikon was announced.
Monito wrote:
The translation said $8 billion for two facilities. Could be right. New Intel semiconductor plant is going to cost $5 billion.
Most people on the forum have little idea of the magnitude of technology that goes into a DSLR. We have been told by some that Canon could whomp up a high MPx camera in a couple of months after the 36 MPx Nikon was announced.
I agree. It seems as the technology progresses, the magnitude of investment substantially increases in order to remain competitive. I wonder at what point a company says 'screw it' and outsources? Seems like Canon has always been really keen on producing as much in-house as possible. I guess there is a certain pride attached to this, but is it logical? At the moment it doesn't seem to damage Nikon's rep, or Olympus's by using Sony sensors. But I suppose it could remove some independence and control over future product specifications.
Without doubt Canon saw this coming - a competitor offering a very high MP camera, and IMO the did the right move by 'fixing' their top-end AF system first. Without that, accurate AF with a high-rez sensor would be futile. As we've seen from their various sensor prototypes, including the 100+MP APS-H from a couple years ago, Canon is definitely expecting the MP race to continue.
BTW, I recently came across an interesting, if perhaps old website http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html discussing 'apparent image quality' (a relative numeric scale - it's not MP value, etc.) of various sensor formats and vs. film... 35mm Velvia 50 has a value of 14; medium format 6x7 Velvia 50 is 70; the Canon 1DsII 16MP camera is 76; 39MP MF-DB is 185... but 4x5 film is 220 and 8x10 is 860... so it would seem there is still room to go in the MP race.
surf monkey wrote:
I wonder what is the original source for this info?
If it's true, then at least they're trying to build new sensors.
Maybe they've had a setback waiting for production of the needed fluorite optics for their new generation of DUV steppers... had to get all those new super-teles ready in time for the Olympics first.
The majority of people on sites like this already own gear that has the capacity to generate great images in the right hands.......for most people an upgrade in skill is probably a better investment than upgrading their kit.
PS: Bit of a coincidence the earlier comment on the eye control EOS3 as I have just got mine out for a shoot in a studio tomorrow....the eye control works well (not that I use it)....as I can select the focus points quicker manually.....maybe this is the problem. But technology has advanced........
It could be that with a dense 45 or 61 point AF system, there's just not enough certainty/repeatability that the camera will select the correct point. The A2/EOS-5 was only 5 points. Not sure about the Elan 7E. I also still have the EOS-3 and never really got in the groove with ECF. My feeling is EOS iTR AF, as found in the 1DX, which uses the color sensitive metering system to track object movement, or allow face-detect AF, will be a faster, more consistent solution.
rscheffler wrote:
It could be that with a dense 45 or 61 point AF system, there's just not enough certainty/repeatability that the camera will select the correct point. The A2/EOS-5 was only 5 points. Not sure about the Elan 7E. I also still have the EOS-3 and never really got in the groove with ECF. My feeling is EOS iTR AF, as found in the 1DX, which uses the color sensitive metering system to track object movement, or allow face-detect AF, will be a faster, more consistent solution.
The problem is that many people are being seduced by technology but the real brain is behind the camera not in it.......people need to use it.
Funny how, back in the day, National Geographic published so many amazing action images (of animals) by photographers who only had MF and film!!
anthonygh wrote:
The problem is that many people are being seduced by technology but the real brain is behind the camera not in it.......people need to use it.
I think about this a lot when I read threads on the shortcomings of AF systems. In some ways the basic function these systems perform can be very simple - with a nice flat, high contrast target sitting still in the center of the frame. But the real world is awfully complicated and there are situations in which the AF system, even when actiing correctly, won't be able to instantly make the decision you want it to make. Imagine a scene full of various possible targets, at different distances, and in motion - say a football game or a flock of birds. The system has so many targets that it has to either have some guidance from the operator (choose a larger aperture to allow a bit more margin of error, choose a single AF point and place on subject, etc) or else it is going to have to make some sort of algorithmic guess. It can do that just fine, but it cannot read your mind to know that its guess did not correspond to the different idea that you had about the shot.
We have very powerful AF systems today and they let us shoot subjects that would have been very difficult to shoot without them, and to shoot them in ways and in conditions that would have been darned near impossible in the past. But they are not perfect, and we cannot expect them to be.
Most people on the forum have little idea of the magnitude of technology that goes into a DSLR. We have been told by some that Canon could whomp up a high MPx camera in a couple of months after the 36 MPx Nikon was announced.
The original text says 8 billion SEK. The google translation just replaced 'SEK' with 'USD'.
rscheffler wrote:
As we've seen from their various sensor prototypes, including the 100+MP APS-H from a couple years ago, Canon is definitely expecting the MP race to continue.
Yup. In 2007 Canon had a 50mp prototype and in 2010 they had the 100mp prototype.
Also consider that the S100 sensor, a Canon-made sensor, has performance that's impossible to achieve with the technology on which the current DSLRs (1DX, 5DIII, T4i) are based.
So, Canon actually has a new sensor tech in production already.
The question is, when are they going to scale it to larger sizes (FF and 1.6x).
The 1DX and the 5DIII will last for at least three more years.
This is a very long time, so it's quite possible that the new sensor tech will first appear in the 70D.
Or, in a new high megapixel FF camera, of course.
jorkata wrote:
Yup. In 2007 Canon had a 50mp prototype and in 2010 they had the 100mp prototype.
Also consider that the S100 sensor, a Canon-made sensor, has performance that's impossible to achieve with the technology on which the current DSLRs (1DX, 5DIII, T4i) are based.
So, Canon actually has a new sensor tech in production already.
The question is, when are they going to scale it to larger sizes (FF and 1.6x).
The 1DX and the 5DIII will last for at least three more years.
This is a very long time, so it's quite possible that the new sensor tech will first appear in the 70D.
Or, in a new high megapixel FF camera, of course. ...Show more →
More of less follows Moore's Law in their ability to double their megapixels every 2 years. Though of course, unlike CPU chips, they don't have to release new cameras with double the MP every 2 years.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think about this a lot when I read threads on the shortcomings of AF systems. In some ways the basic function these systems perform can be very simple - with a nice flat, high contrast target sitting still in the center of the frame. But the real world is awfully complicated and there are situations in which the AF system, even when actiing correctly, won't be able to instantly make the decision you want it to make. Imagine a scene full of various possible targets, at different distances, and in motion - say a football game or a flock of birds. The system has so many targets that it has to either have some guidance from the operator (choose a larger aperture to allow a bit more margin of error, choose a single AF point and place on subject, etc) or else it is going to have to make some sort of algorithmic guess. It can do that just fine, but it cannot read your mind to know that its guess did not correspond to the different idea that you had about the shot.
We have very powerful AF systems today and they let us shoot subjects that would have been very difficult to shoot without them, and to shoot them in ways and in conditions that would have been darned near impossible in the past. But they are not perfect, and we cannot expect them to be.
Thank you, Dan. + 100.
So sad it is, to miss a shot based on (e. g.) "not visible" AF points, there is an easy solution: MF. It worked well the last 100 years and still is an offered option in any usable DSLR.
Aug 25, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
n0b0 wrote:
More of less follows Moore's Law in their ability to double their megapixels every 2 years. Though of course, unlike CPU chips, they don't have to release new cameras with double the MP every 2 years.
The 1Ds came out 2002 with 11MP. Ten years later we have the 1DX with 18MP. Double every two years
retrofocus wrote:
I believe it will be sorted into the top of the pyramid next to the 1Dx. 1Dx comes with FF 18MP and faster fps rate, the new rumored 3Dx comes very likely with FF 46 MP and slower fps rate. So you can choose between speed and resolution. It might unfortunately take a while (another 6 months?) for the 3Dx sensor technology to make its way down to 5D IV. I hoped that it would be instantly there as real competition against the D800, but after this rumor appearance I am not so sure anymore.
Both those options suck, but IMO the 3DX specs are pure fantasy. Until Canon can demonstrate truly improved sensor tech I won't be jumping on a 46MP FF and certainly not with a piss poor 3.5fps.
With current tech if a 3D were released I'd rather a 20MP 1.3x or 32MP FF, with 8fps, 1DX AF, dual CF cards.
. 