I understand that Canon makes various prototype "concept" cameras and has them field tested. Some actually become production cameras, and some don't. I fully believe that your friend field-tested the camera that you describe. But I also think it's highly possible that it will come into production in a different form.
Edited by Mike Hatam on Feb 14, 2006 at 07:15 PM GMT
Hatam, from what he could see, it was pretty much set for market release. The only thing not set was LCD size and battery voltage, although he could be wrong.
it just amazes me how everyone has a "friend" that works at canon. had one guy on here pm me and tell me it was a 1Ds maxx that did 22mp 8 fps and some other nonsense. and this was from his "friend" who worked at Canon.
Edited by EnCapture on Feb 15, 2006 at 12:12 PM GMT
You said the 1DS RS won't be built as well as the 1Ds2. Do you know what's built "worse"? It seems all of the 1-series bodies are built like a tank. That's strange that they'd not put a solid body around a $6k(?) body.
Thanks for the heads up. If what you say is true, it's nice to see what camera is testing for future bodies. Maybe it's easier to test pellicle mirrors with a 3 stop light loss and they'll put a better mirror in the real body whenever it's released.
EnCapture wrote:
it just amazes me how everyone has a "friend" that works at canon. had one guy on here pm me and tell me it was a 1Ds maxx that did 22mp 8 fps and some other nonsense. and this was from his "friend" who worked at Canon.
Well, Canon is big. Somebody somewhere has to have a friend that works there. That doesn't mean that this rumor is reliable or unreliable. Only time can answer that. But the idea (pellical) has merit, and the other rumors aren't far-fetched.
Myself, I'd be upset if an upgrade path from the 5D occured so soon.
I stand corrected. I just checked with him and he said it's 5 fps on the full 18 mpx. He's not sure if the 8 fps he saw was on a reduced crop or not. The 10fps was the 1n RS, my bad. Oops! The header post is corrected.
SKPhoton wrote:
You said the 1DS RS won't be built as well as the 1Ds2. Do you know what's built "worse"? It seems all of the 1-series bodies are built like a tank. That's strange that they'd not put a solid body around a $6k(?) body.
The camera feels lighter, and the grip feels different. I'm guessing it might be subjective. I'm sure Canon builds them well.
Here is a guy thats been here over 1 year with a few posts under his belt giving a little info...I can't believe how disbelieving so many people are. This is the usual trend at every release, someone gets blasted for sharing some info, and the info is generally pretty close.
I find it amusing to read some of the speculation, and entertaining as well....but this seems to be one of the more realistic posts I have read about this.
We all get so worked up, and people get so emotional about their equipment...
Thanks for the info...we'll see if its true soon enough!
Edited by orthopod on Feb 14, 2006 at 11:56 PM GMT
Thanks orthopod, for the support. Makes me regain some confidence of FMers.
If you think what I said is crap, just close the window and move on along. Why even waste your precious time giving silly replies that I'll simply grin at? :-)
I don't know where anyone got the impression of a 3-stop light loss ... it doesn't make any sense at all (it's actually a 1/3 stop light loss)--but I always thought a pellicle mirror would be perfect for digital technology for the following reasons:
1) Noise: no more mirror moving up and down... all you would hear is the almost inaudible shutter curtains opening and closing (like a rangefinder).
2) Dust: even if dust were to accumulate on the mirror, it would be much easier to clean, and it would be further away from the sensor plane so it would not be visible in photos even when lenses are stopped down.
3) Cleaner High-ISO images: typically pellicle designs only lose about 1/3 to 1/2 stop of light, and they could calibrate the sensors to accomodate for the loss of light (so that we could continue to use light meters) and it wouldn't make much of a difference because bumping up the ISO 1/3 stop doesn't degrade image quality as much as it used to.
4) Eliminates mirror-lockup issues: especially important in macro photography and landscape shots taken around 1/10sec where you can see the mirror slap create a blur in the picture. It's annoying to have to access custom functions to activate mirror lockup, and a pellicle mirror design would make this a non-issue.
I also heard from a friend who deals with Canon, and one of their reps did mention that Digic-3 is due to come out in the Fall. No real specifics, but I'd expect cleaner high ISO and a faster processor meaning a higher bandwidth (i.e. 10D vs 20D which was Digic vs Digic-2).
If the 35D is announced this coming March and it retains Digic-2, I might just hold out for the 35D's replacement with Digic-3.
