EB-1 wrote:
Since the Euro guy is using a 2x TC I suspect it may be a low-res body.
EBH
Milan Hutera wrote:
I take it you didn't see any "full res" agency photos. Vast majority of them are from in camera JPEGs with in camera noise reduction and in camera sharpening, that usually has very large sharpening radius applied. The photos look like they have a petroleum jelly smeared on them and the details are gritty with very little fine details visible. Thank the "need" for super fast delivery over quality mentality for that.
This thread is so long I don't recall half of it now so maybe I missed the link to the 1DX III files.
There seem to be conflicting rumors from the latest CR post about the Mark III. If indeed they've tested 5.9K video output, then a 3:2 still image FF sensor at ~6000 pixels wide would be 24MP.
EB-1 wrote:
This thread is so long I don't recall half of it now so maybe I missed the link to the 1DX III files.
EBH
You were aruging the guy used a very outdated TC on the field photo of the 1DXIII. I aruge the outdatet TC doesn't matter that much, because pretty much all fine details get destroyed by in camera processing in agency environment.
EB-1 wrote:
Since the Euro guy is using a 2x TC I suspect it may be a low-res body.
EBH
Milan Hutera wrote:
I take it you didn't see any "full res" agency photos. Vast majority of them are from in camera JPEGs with in camera noise reduction and in camera sharpening, that usually has very large sharpening radius applied. The photos look like they have a petroleum jelly smeared on them and the details are gritty with very little fine details visible. Thank the "need" for super fast delivery over quality mentality for that.
EB-1 wrote:
This thread is so long I don't recall half of it now so maybe I missed the link to the 1DX III files.
EBH
Milan Hutera wrote:
You were aruging the guy used a very outdated TC on the field photo of the 1DXIII. I aruge the outdatet TC doesn't matter that much, because pretty much all fine details get destroyed by in camera processing in agency environment.
No, my point is that a high-res body would not be so likely to use a TC.
rscheffler wrote:
There seem to be conflicting rumors from the latest CR post about the Mark III. If indeed they've tested 5.9K video output, then a 3:2 still image FF sensor at ~6000 pixels wide would be 24MP.
Good catch...so my bet is there is no 6K....but I'm just overly pessimistic about this camera....mostly because if they do make it good, I'm going to want one, but I don't even have a long lens to mount on it, and that then is going to cost me way too much $$$ and either make my bank account sad from buying the camera and a long lens or make me sad when I don't buy it
Do you think Canon will bundle this with a "free" CFExpress Card and Reader to help support having dual slots of an entirely new card format?
They gave a free 64GB Sandisk CFast Card and Reader with the 1DXII for the first while. In fact some stores in Canada never stopped offering the free card and reader for the entire 4 years even though they weren't the official stickered Canon box.
Canon is including a free CFExpress card and reader with the C500 MkII but that is in a bit higher price class. They are giving a huge 512GB card ($600 value) with that camera so maybe another 64 or 128GB card with the 1DXIII would be reasonable at least for the early adopters.
Canon has already released official photos of the camera so odd that they have prototypes looking like that out in the wild. I also can't see them bothering with releasing different color choices for this level of camera. Appears to be just the raw Magnesium shell with grip material attached. Bizarre
I am curious about the lens. To me, it looks stubbier than the current 70-200/2.8 L IS iii, closer to the RF 70-200. With the switches at the back, it resembles the 100-400 but the zoom ring is not deep enough. A 75-300 L perhaps?
Aha, consulting the B&H web site, it appears the lens is the 70-300L.
But also consulting the B&H web site, it appears this camera does not have the plastic dome or roof over the pentaprism area to house the wireless and GPS antennas. Again, with a prototype this is not all too surprising.
The top of the camera where the hot shoe would be appears to be cut off. The lens looks like a 100-400 to me. What is the source of the photo?
arbitrage wrote:
Do you think Canon will bundle this with a "free" CFExpress Card and Reader to help support having dual slots of an entirely new card format?
Thoughts?? Over/Under?
Given it's a new storage format for Canon, I think the odds are in favour of an included card and reader. Hopefully 128GB. CFexpress cards appear to be a bit less costly than CFast, though right now there are some discounts on the latter bringing them down to about par.
In the past I would pick up the new model and move the previous one to back-up/second camera roles. It will be a bit of a hassle juggling three storage formats. Given that the III is strictly CFexpress, it will mean spending ~$800 USD for four 128GB cards at current retail prices. Assuming the camera lands at the non-discounted Mark II price of $6K US, we're looking at a CAD equivalent over $9K (with four cards), which gives me pause. It will probably be a matter of having to try the camera before committing, to determine if the improvements make a significant difference for my needs.
It's a peculiar time, given the incoming RF system and that much money would buy a good chunk of RF gear...
juststeve wrote:
I am curious about the lens. To me, it looks stubbier than the current 70-200/2.8 L IS iii, closer to the RF 70-200. With the switches at the back, it resembles the 100-400 but the zoom ring is not deep enough. A 75-300 L perhaps?
Aha, consulting the B&H web site, it appears the lens is the 70-300L.
But also consulting the B&H web site, it appears this camera does not have the plastic dome or roof over the pentaprism area to house the wireless and GPS antennas. Again, with a prototype this is not all too surprising.
No, based on the tripod foot that is the 100-400II for sure, just looks a little foreshortened with the angle of the shot.
rscheffler wrote:
The top of the camera where the hot shoe would be appears to be cut off. The lens looks like a 100-400 to me. What is the source of the photo?
Given it's a new storage format for Canon, I think the odds are in favour of an included card and reader. Hopefully 128GB. CFexpress cards appear to be a bit less costly than CFast, though right now there are some discounts on the latter bringing them down to about par.
In the past I would pick up the new model and move the previous one to back-up/second camera roles. It will be a bit of a hassle juggling three storage formats. Given that the III is strictly CFexpress, it will mean spending ~$800 USD for four 128GB cards at current retail prices. Assuming the camera lands at the non-discounted Mark II price of $6K US, we're looking at a CAD equivalent over $9K (with four cards), which gives me pause. It will probably be a matter of having to try the camera before committing, to determine if the improvements make a significant difference for my needs.
It's a peculiar time, given the incoming RF system and that much money would buy a good chunk of RF gear......Show more →
Are you CPS Platinum? If so, you should be able to get a demo fairly easily once they are shipping the cameras. I know Pius was planning to go that route to see if it is worth it.
arbitrage wrote:
Do you think Canon will bundle this with a "free" CFExpress Card and Reader to help support having dual slots of an entirely new card format?
Thoughts?? Over/Under?
rscheffler wrote:
The top of the camera where the hot shoe would be appears to be cut off. The lens looks like a 100-400 to me. What is the source of the photo?
Given it's a new storage format for Canon, I think the odds are in favour of an included card and reader. Hopefully 128GB. CFexpress cards appear to be a bit less costly than CFast, though right now there are some discounts on the latter bringing them down to about par.
In the past I would pick up the new model and move the previous one to back-up/second camera roles. It will be a bit of a hassle juggling three storage formats. Given that the III is strictly CFexpress, it will mean spending ~$800 USD for four 128GB cards at current retail prices. Assuming the camera lands at the non-discounted Mark II price of $6K US, we're looking at a CAD equivalent over $9K (with four cards), which gives me pause. It will probably be a matter of having to try the camera before committing, to determine if the improvements make a significant difference for my needs.
It's a peculiar time, given the incoming RF system and that much money would buy a good chunk of RF gear... ...Show more → arbitrage wrote:
Are you CPS Platinum? If so, you should be able to get a demo fairly easily once they are shipping the cameras. I know Pius was planning to go that route to see if it is worth it.
Yes, I am. Good point. Question will be when will the camera be released and if it's before the Olympics, if any will even be available for loan. Most loaner gear is packed up and shipped over for that event, from past experience... But given it's in Japan, maybe Canon HQ will supply the stockpile. I really wouldn't need it until the fall, therefore could wait to try it and in the meantime learn from the experiences of earlier adopters.
I am interested in this camera but it will necessitate me upgrading and updating a few other things. I'll need to upgrade from LR5 to whatever the current is. I'll likely update my PS at that point as well. I'm still shooting 1DXs so I'm using CF, not CFast or whatever the other new stuff is. Double whammy. I'll likely need two readers too because when I'm in the field, I take a reader with me, and doing my baseball work- being able to turn files over immediately is critical.
The good news is, my 1DXs have 70kish on each and are considered "low" miles, so I'll be able to offset some of the cost. The bad news is, that cost is still significant. I'm not a fan of the other company options because I don't want to change my lenses out at all. The other body Canon body options don't interest me at all. So if I want new tech, my only real option is the 1DXIII, or wait another however many years and get the next release.
so maybe I missed the link to the 1DX III files.
