danmitchell wrote:
Jeff wrote: "'jwil', please don't embed links to copyrighted material."
There is no reason for such a restriction. In fact, every photograph that does not explicitly declare itself to be public domain is automatically "copyrighted" by the author...
The thing was: the material was embedded, or in other words, hot-linked. That practice is generally frowned upon. Netiquette says it's a No No. Sure, it's ok to link, not to hot-link/directly embed. Jwil replaced the images with links to the review and all was fine again.
Apparently spotted: Fujifilm Finepix S5 Pro, but I haven't seen a direct source on this, only a comment in a Photokina speculation thread on another forum.
Specs: Fujifilm SuperCCD SR with 16.7 mpixel combined (2x 8.35 Mpixel) with an improved DR over the S3, xD and CF slot and F-mount.
Remember, this is as shaky as it gets: I've read this elsewhere and haven't seen any confirmation or even duplication yet.
[edit] Yes, I do realise this is the Canon mount photokina speculation topic, but since this might influence the ways of Canon in terms of what to introduce, I leave this here. And I'll clone the message on the alternate mounts photokina speculation topic. [/]
Tentacle wrote:
Apparently spotted: Fujifilm Finepix S5 Pro, but I haven't seen a direct source on this, only a comment in a Photokina speculation thread on another forum.
Specs: Fujifilm SuperCCD SR with 16.7 mpixel combined (2x 8.35 Mpixel) with an improved DR over the S3, xD and CF slot and F-mount.
Remember, this is as shaky as it gets: I've read this elsewhere and haven't seen any confirmation or even duplication yet.
[edit] Yes, I do realise this is the Canon mount photokina speculation topic, but since this might influence the ways of Canon in terms of what to introduce, I leave this here. And I'll clone the message on the alternate mounts photokina speculation topic. [/]...Show more →
It's solid that there will be an S5 in a D200 body (source: Thom Hogan)
What is not known, and Fuji probably haven't even decided yet, is what they are going to put in the sensor - it will be the high DR version, but how many pixels is up in the air.
Regards,
DaveMart
I really hope that Fuji rumour (with 16.7MP) is real.
I also hope Nikon releases a new top of the line pro body in the near future, and Sony too.
The more competition, the better.
Canon's prices are way too way high!
The 1DMIIN is VERY expensive, the 1DsMII is outrageous.
Why do they price them so high?
Because they can, since people (specially pros) will still buy them because they are the best...
What is not known, and Fuji probably haven't even decided yet, is what they are going to put in the sensor - it will be the high DR version, but how many pixels is up in the air.
Hmmm, the same Mr Hogan mentions a "development announcement of the S5 Pro on 25 Sept, preceding Photokina.". What on earth is meant by a development annoucement exactly? A "yes, we're working on it" type of thing? I fail to see the use in that. Obviously Fujifilm isn't sitting on their proverbial hands, doing nothing.
"Ah, so you are working on something? Geee, that's surprising!" [/mild sarcasm]
If they announce a day before Photokina, I'd expect them to have decided on sensor specs. But maybe that's just me in Wishful Thinking Mode™
Tentacle wrote:
Hmmm, the same Mr Hogan mentions a "development announcement of the S5 Pro on 25 Sept, preceding Photokina.". What on earth is meant by a development annoucement exactly? A "yes, we're working on it" type of thing? I fail to see the use in that. Obviously Fujifilm isn't sitting on their proverbial hands, doing nothing.
"Ah, so you are working on something? Geee, that's surprising!" [/mild sarcasm]
If they announce a day before Photokina, I'd expect them to have decided on sensor specs. But maybe that's just me in Wishful Thinking Mode™
Looks like Fujistas have some time to wait, as usual.
Regards,
DaveMart
I asked the guy who posted the S5 Pro resolution numbers (dual mode high DR 2x 8.35 mpixel, 16.7 combined). He got them through the word-of-mouth protocol, so no websites to point at, nor other forms of confirmation. So these numbers keep their "rumour" status.
Canon 40D announced on page 16 of the german magazine "Color Foto". The magazine has been sent to subscribers via mail already - the magazine will be sold in shops starting the 20th.
In the 400D review it is reported to say :
".....auch eine EOS 40D mit 10 Megapixeln ist von Canon angekündigt."
which translates to :
".....an EOS 40D with 10 Megapixels is also announced by Canon."
Tentacle wrote:
The thing was: the material was embedded, or in other words, hot-linked. That practice is generally frowned upon. Netiquette says it's a No No. Sure, it's ok to link, not to hot-link/directly embed. Jwil replaced the images with links to the review and all was fine again.
Unfortunately my original intention had been for them to be linked. On other forums pasting a the URL of an image without [ img ] tags creates a link, apparently not so on this forum.
Then a certain over-anxious moderater jumped on it while I was making an edit to just reference the HTML page. I'd PM'd him to explain, but apparently he's left his admonishment up for all to see and be confused by.
I think maybe someone had a bit too much caffiene that day. ;-)
Regarding a post about embedding links to copyright info, I wrote: "There is no reason for such a restriction. In fact, every photograph that does not explicitly declare itself to be public domain is automatically "copyrighted" by the author..."
To which Tentacle replied: "The thing was: the material was embedded, or in other words, hot-linked. That practice is generally frowned upon. Netiquette says it's a No No. Sure, it's ok to link, not to hot-link/directly embed. Jwil replaced the images with links to the review and all was fine again."
In that case, my bad. I missed the original post that actually included the copyright material and that, indeed, would raise questions. (Apparently the original post had been edited by the time I saw this thread and the links had replaced the embedded content.)
(In my slightly weak defense, the post to which I responded spoke of embedding links to copyright material rather than embedding copyright material. I was pointing out that the former is not a problem, though I agree that the latter could be.)
So, bottom line... while it is OK to include links to copyright material, it is much more problematic (and likely illegal and bad netiquette) to embed the actual copyright material without first getting permission.
No, the 400D is old news. The reference to the 40 is not. I am not sure I believe it, though. As for the 40 being a toy, you guys are just a little too high and mighty. It's not a 1Dm3, but it ain't a P&S either!
I would question the 40D specs in this rumor / announcement. What is there to differentiate the proposed 40D from the XTi? Specs are identical with maybe the exception of Digic III and a magnesium body... I would think Canon would want a little more to separate the 2 models, seeing as the 40D (assuming 30D price points) would be nearly twice as much.
FLORIDAG8R wrote:
I would question the 40D specs in this rumor / announcement. What is there to differentiate the proposed 40D from the XTi? Specs are identical with maybe the exception of Digic III and a magnesium body... I would think Canon would want a little more to separate the 2 models, seeing as the 40D (assuming 30D price points) would be nearly twice as much.
So...what are your comments on canon current line up: 18/9/2006, the 30D compared to the 400D?
FLORIDAG8R wrote:
I would question the 40D specs in this rumor / announcement. What is there to differentiate the proposed 40D from the XTi? Specs are identical with maybe the exception of Digic III and a magnesium body... [...]
I made the same mistake in expecting a considerable difference. Lets see...
300D vs 10D: 2.5 fps vs 3 fps, plastic vs magnesium, non wheel vs wheel. Same mpx. 10D had some more functionality, which the 300D could get in hacked firmware.
350D vs 20D/30D: 3 fps vs 5 fps plastic vs magnesium, non wheel vs wheel. Same mpx. Same thing with hacked firmware functionality. (Well, not the 30D spot metering or the 3 v 5 fps burst setting)
40D will have the same pixelcount, but do better with the scrollwheel, magnesium body, more fps and more processing speed (assuming DIGIC III is quite a bit faster than DIGIC II.)
Do you spot the trend here?
danmitchell put it like this:
For some buyers, it appears to be enough to simply give it a different model number, make the body larger, and charge more...
And this observation, ladies and gentlemen, is as apt as it is cynical
