All of you who are screaming for a 1.6x camera are driving me crazy. At last count there were approximately 34,935 different 1.6x camera bodies to choose from
foto-z wrote:
All of you who are screaming for a 1.6x camera are driving me crazy. At last count there were approximately 34,935 different 1.6x camera bodies to choose from
Big whoop. It looks like a 20D on steroids, with the same crappy controls and other limitations. Will people really spend more than $3K for such a body?
EB-1 wrote:
Big whoop. It looks like a 20D on steroids, with the same crappy controls and other limitations. Will people really spend more than $3K for such a body?
Alex53 wrote:
Why do I get no match for a whois search on canon5d.com on the internic website?
Whois information for canon5d.com:
Registrant:
JimmyJames, Inc.
901 S Hickory Lane
Kokomo, Indiana 46901
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: CANON5D.COM
Created on: 09-Aug-05
Expires on: 09-Aug-06
Last Updated on: 09-Aug-05
Administrative Contact:
Hunt, James [email protected]
JimmyJames, Inc.
901 S Hickory Lane
Kokomo, Indiana 46901
United States
7654523851 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Hunt, James [email protected]
JimmyJames, Inc.
901 S Hickory Lane
Kokomo, Indiana 46901
United States
7654523851 Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
NS3.HTTPDNS.NET
NS4.HTTPDNS.NET
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But where is my D2X killer. I want speed and pixel density. A 5D maybe a nice companion to a fast camera, but the 1D2 needs a bump to 12.5MP to keep the D2X at bay. I want a 1.3x sensor for now. It will be another 18 monts or so before Canon can release a fast (as in 9fps) FF camera of say 22MP+, that costs < $5K. So a 1D II N would need to be more than a D2Hs revamp.
And how is a $4000 camera a tweener. We still end up with massive gap from 20D to 1D2. I was expectting a $2500 camera. A faster improved 20D or a slower, smaller 1D2. ...Show more →
These threads are so funny. They always generate pages of baseless speculation that eventually lead nowhere, and often ply the same absurd route to get there.
Why does Canon need to keep the D2X at bay? Are there throngs of Canon users ready to dump there multiple thousand dollar investment in L lenses and run over to the Nikon camp for 4 more MP? No. Why? Because they are making good money and generating good images with what they have, and it would be a pain to switch. Hence, Canon need only provide those users with a suitable options within the system to keep them happy, and they do that quite well. As it is, Canon's offerings to date are competent machines that cover a wide range of needs, preferences, and budgets.
We routinely print gorgeous 12x18 and 20x30 files for clients from existing 8MP cameras that many in this thread consider to be inadequate for professional needs. My business associate brings in six-figure revenue with such cameras, and generates great work to boot!
By the end of October, my girlfriend and I will have earned enough business to pay off the majority of our equipment investments; she uses a 20D in preference to a 1D Mark II. She prints fashion and glamour images from the camera at immense sizes and sells them to eager clients who could care less if there is a huge price gap in Canon lineup. I can do the same with my 1D Mark II, and could do even better with a 1Ds Mark II if my needs demanded such a beast. I also needed weather sealing, so I shelled out the extra bucks for the 1D Mark II. My gf didn't, so she stuck with a 20D.
Even if you are a hobbyist, you have great choice within the Canon system. Every new Canon camera is fast, has decent battery life, great high ISO performance, decent AF, and compatibility with all flashes and lenses. They're not all full frame, but if that's your major hang-up, you should either shell out the money for it or stop complaining. I chose the latter option, and could not be happier with what 1.3x does for me.
lordarka wrote:
These threads are so funny. They always generate pages of baseless speculation that eventually lead nowhere, and often ply the same absurd route to get there.
Why does Canon need to keep the D2X at bay? Are there throngs of Canon users ready to dump there multiple thousand dollar investment in L lenses and run over to the Nikon camp for 4 more MP? No. Why? Because they are making good money and generating good images with what they have, and it would be a pain to switch. Hence, Canon need only provide those users with a suitable options within the system to keep them happy, and they do that quite well. As it is, Canon's offerings to date are competent machines that cover a wide range of needs, preferences, and budgets.
We routinely print gorgeous 12x18 and 20x30 files for clients from existing 8MP cameras that many in this thread consider to be inadequate for professional needs. My business associate brings in six-figure revenue with such cameras, and generates great work to boot!
By the end of October, my girlfriend and I will have earned enough business to pay off the majority of our equipment investments; she uses a 20D in preference to a 1D Mark II. She prints fashion and glamour images from the camera at immense sizes and sells them to eager clients who could care less if there is a huge price gap in Canon lineup. I can do the same with my 1D Mark II, and could do even better with a 1Ds Mark II if my needs demanded such a beast. I also needed weather sealing, so I shelled out the extra bucks for the 1D Mark II. My gf didn't, so she stuck with a 20D.
Even if you are a hobbyist, you have great choice within the Canon system. Every new Canon camera is fast, has decent battery life, great high ISO performance, decent AF, and compatibility with all flashes and lenses. They're not all full frame, but if that's your major hang-up, you should either shell out the money for it or stop complaining. I chose the latter option, and could not be happier with what 1.3x does for me.
That's called having fun. You should try it sometimes. Why get uptight. I do actually own a 1D2 MkII, but seeing I am the consumer I can air my opinion of what I'd like to see next.
Can't say that I'm impressed. Similar hit & miss AF of the 20D but with a full frame sensor. Not worth spending the extra money on a bigger sensor when the AF is rubbish as I'd rather have a 1.6x crop camera with terrific AF performance, than a FF camera with rubbish AF performance. Prediction - within a week of the 5D hitting the shelves, the same people now saying how great it is that an "affordable" FF camera is within the budgets of most people, will be complaining as to why their $4000 camera can't produce a correctly focused image.
Can't understand the big deal about full frame myself. Sure, there are advantages in terms of bokeh and aperture and keeping to an EF mount, but not so much as to spend a shed load of bucks more than a 20D. For now, I'll stick to my 20D and wait for the 1DII price to come down. Now THAT is a real camera.
While I'm on the topic, the next 1 series camera won't be called the 1D Mark II N. Think about it - there is NO camera out there called the 1Dn, so why would there be a Mark II version? That said, I'd be interested in the specs of the camera, even though I've got no chance to afford one.
Dr D wrote:
Can't understand the big deal about full frame myself. Sure, there are advantages in terms of bokeh and aperture and keeping to an EF mount....
FF means:
- larger viewfinder, which is essential for manual focussing or just supervising Canon's special 'hit and miss' autofocus
- wider FOV using the same lenses. Canon has great telephoto lenses but their wide angles are woeful. Having a crop factor just makes it worse.
- less noise (compared to undersized sensor with same number of pixels)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But where is my D2X killer. I want speed and pixel density. A 5D maybe a nice companion to a fast camera, but the 1D2 needs a bump to 12.5MP to keep the D2X at bay. I want a 1.3x sensor for now. It will be another 18 monts or so before Canon can release a fast (as in 9fps) FF camera of say 22MP+, that costs < $5K. So a 1D II N would need to be more than a D2Hs revamp.
And how is a $4000 camera a tweener. We still end up with massive gap from 20D to 1D2. I was expectting a $2500 camera. A faster improved 20D or a slower, smaller 1D2. ...Show more →
The D2X is a fine camera but the 1D2 is just as capable.
And what is the massive gap between the 1D2 and 20D you speak of? Having owned both I don't see it. Image quality is nearly identical. The difference in AF speed is far from "massive". The lack of a spot meter on the 20D is not that big a deal, either.
We routinely print gorgeous 12x18 and 20x30 files for clients from existing 8MP cameras that many in this thread consider to be inadequate for professional needs. My business associate brings in six-figure revenue with such cameras, and generates great work to boot!
I think some people spend tens of thousands and obsess over the latest gear for the sake of taking photos of their cats, rulers, and resolution cards.
yeah, i am dead serious. i do research on control of eye and head movements, and let me assure you, the movement of the eye, esp. in terms of reflexive moving, is the fastest muscle response in the body (reflexive motion to body stimulus such as roll, pitch and yaw, or translation can occur from input to output in approx 10-15 milliseconds). the visual system has a latency of about 100miliseconds. imagine, i see where i want to shoot, and my eye gets to the corresponding box in about 100-120milliseconds and let's say (i'm guessing here) it takes another 100milliseconds for the ECF to engage my target. i have successful focal point selection in less than quarter of a second if not [most likely] faster.
now, let's say i move my eye over, then use my fingers/thumbs on the very primitive joystick controller (ever gotten then NW, SW, SE, or SW points repeatedly on the first try?) or using the rotating knob i scroll through till i get to the perfect box. let me assure you, this will take longer than the times stated above.
so yeah, i am dead serious about ECF. why not let my eye do the work since it's what's acquring the target in the first place and the energy requirements to move it are miniscule (it has close to neglible inertia as far as plant dynamics are concerned) compared to arm/hand/finger movements with their added complexities.
i really miss using my elan IIe. it felt perfect in my hands. but then again, so does my bessa r2
foto-z wrote:
FF means:
- larger viewfinder, which is essential for manual focussing or just supervising Canon's special 'hit and miss' autofocus
- wider FOV using the same lenses. Canon has great telephoto lenses but their wide angles are woeful. Having a crop factor just makes it worse.
- less noise (compared to undersized sensor with same number of pixels)
Still not worth the extra $2500 over a 20D or $1000 over a 1DII. To be honest, this new "tweener" makes getting a 1DII or used 1Ds much more value for money.
And I disagree regarding Canon's wide angles. I have no problems with them (other than they don't have a decent EF mount wide suitable for a 1DII) and they are well built with good image quality. That said, I'm a hobbyist and what I demand from my lenses is very little. I notice you're shooting with a 'blad, so it's no wonder you feel the Canon wide angles are rubbish in comparison
