Recent history (Photokina) has proven that die hard gear heads will continue to insist each day of the show, that Canon is waiting, holding the best for last to trump all the other players with a dramatic close to the show.
Eh, ya. Didn't happen.
halie wrote:
Everybody will abandon reading this thread and will switch over to "which lens should I buy" threads.
You bring up an interesting point though, at what point do you start to conclude that there is nothing new to be announced?
Brent Ward wrote:
I've got to quit reading this thread.
Last night I had a dream they released a 200f2 IS at PMA!!!
Yeah, I dreamed the C3 was released.... it was the camera we would call 3D, no idea why it was called C3 in my dream Well, probably because it was a dream
However it had a very cool feature: With a special mechanism built into the camera mount, one could directly connect CZ lenses. Cool isn't it?
OceanView wrote:
If this is true, I wonder what impact it will have on used 1DMarkII(N) prices.
I can't image that there would be a huge rush of people trying to sell their existing ones, unless of course there is a huge improvement in high ISO performance.
But even if so, the differences seem minor.
I was pretty happy with the high ISO on the DII when I had it, and wish my Ds was similar. I really wonder how much better it will be on the DIII, and why the difference and 2 additional fps and mpxls would induce people to trade in their II's and IIN's.
If this 10/10 camera is a reality I don't have an interest, and I start looking for a lightly used DsII when the DsIII shows up. If the DIII is a 12, FF, 8.5 I'd buy that new.
calvillo wrote:
I was pretty happy with the high ISO on the DII when I had it, and wish my Ds was similar. I really wonder how much better it will be on the DIII, and why the difference and 2 additional fps and mpxls would induce people to trade in their II's and IIN's.
If this 10/10 camera is a reality I don't have an interest, and I start looking for a lightly used DsII when the DsIII shows up. If the DIII is a 12, FF, 8.5 I'd buy that new.
Well I would purchase the 1dMIII if it was 1.3 and 10MP and 10 FPS because that would be better the than a 12mp FF at 8.5. Reason I already have full frame and I purchased the 1dmkII for sports and birds. The increase frame rate would benefit me and the pixel density of 10mp would be better than a FF 12mp if I need to crop my pictures. A 12mp FF and 8.5 FPS will basically simlar to my 1dmkII when cropped down to 8mp and the only advantage is Full frame and I already have a full frame camera. So no reason to get it.
Now if it was 16mp and cropped down to 12mp at 8.5 fps then thats a real advantage
This could be accomplished with a pellicle mirror, (which might be necessary anyway to get 10fps.) With a pellicle mirror, and no mechanical shutter, or a mechanical shutter locked open, and presuming Canon has a way to implement an electronic shutter with a CMOS sensor, live preview would be possible simultaneously with the optical viewfinder.
I think the reason some would jump to a 10mp/10fps IDMKIII is that, even though the specs are not a huge jump, if its in a 1V body it would be attractive to many.
Tentacle wrote:
A constant f/2.8 UWA for full frame? A superfast WA full frame prime? Hey, this is the speculation topic, right? Not the dream-on topic. (No offense Art Just a mild wake-up call for you.)
Those two lenses will not happen because of simple rules (and limitations) of optics. Glass with those specs will be huge and extremely expensive because the wider a lens is, the more difficult it is to give it an optically perfect wide light path.Especially if the glass has to cover the full frame projection circle.
Well, to be precise, the widest they'd have to be would be a touch over 24/2.8 or 20/1.2. At least, that's the widest aperture (in actual size, not relative size). Right?
Dave Ringoen wrote:
Regarding this rumored live preview:
This could be accomplished with a pellicle mirror, (which might be necessary anyway to get 10fps.) [...]
Nope, not necessary. The mechanics of the mirror and shutter are not the limiting entities in the frame rates of the 1D-series, it's the sensor read-out.
The film camera 1V does 10 fps with the booster and battery pack. Since it needs the booster for it, already there the limiting factor is another: the film transport.
Well, to be precise, the widest they'd have to be would be a touch over 24/2.8 or 20/1.2. At least, that's the widest aperture (in actual size, not relative size). Right?
The f-number is the focal length, divided by the effective diameter of the light path. But the closer you get to wide angle, the more difficult it is to maintain the width of the distortion free part of that light path.
The Canon EF-S 10-22 is f/3.5-4.5, and that's not even for full frame. Tokina 12-24, also for crop, is constant f/4. Olympus has the ZUIKO DIGITAL 11-22 f/2.8-3.5. Only that's for the 4/3 mount, so that's not for 1.6x crop but 2x crop.
The only full frame ultra wide, the Sigma 12-24 EX DG, has a massive pop-eye front lens element and only manages f/4.5-5.6. Full frame 12-24L ? Not going to happen at a constant maximum f/2.8 aperture, or it's gonna cost 200/1.8L or 50/1L money.
Less unlikely, but still optically difficult, will be the design for the 20/1.2L. It's a full stop above the existing Sigma 20/1.8, so who knows...
Erik Barzeski wrote:
Well, to be precise, the widest they'd have to be would be a touch over 24/2.8 or 20/1.2. At least, that's the widest aperture (in actual size, not relative size). Right?
No. Wide angles have to be retrofocus designs on SLRs to be able to clear space for the mirror to move up (typically in an arc). So they have to be designed as retrofocus designs, like wide angle elements stuck on front of a telephoto lens. Thus a 20/1.2 would have to be about as wide as a 135mm f/1.2. And more expensive. Consider how expensive the 200 f/1.8 is. A 20/1.2 would probably be twice as expensive, so think about $6000 dollars. If it were made to Zeiss standards, it might be about $20,000 if it could be made.
pcho wrote:
Well I would purchase the 1dMIII if it was 1.3 and 10MP and 10 FPS because that would be better the than a 12mp FF at 8.5. Reason I already have full frame and I purchased the 1dmkII for sports and birds. The increase frame rate would benefit me and the pixel density of 10mp would be better than a FF 12mp if I need to crop my pictures. A 12mp FF and 8.5 FPS will basically simlar to my 1dmkII when cropped down to 8mp and the only advantage is Full frame and I already have a full frame camera. So no reason to get it.
Now if it was 16mp and cropped down to 12mp at 8.5 fps then thats a real advantage
Perry ...Show more →
I can't see why they wouldn't offer 20D pixel density in a 1.3x crop body, unless they really want to offer ISO 6400 and have ISO 3200 one stop cleaner than before and found they can't meet both goals? I'd rather have the pixel density than the high ISO and even if we have expanded ISO, I'd rather a true ISO 50 and and expanded ISO 25. Anyway I'm sure they could offer a 1.3 sensor with 20D pixel density and it would be cleaner than now.
There are a lot of permutations that would be nice, but at the end of the day I want at least one crop camera that has 20D pixel density, but near 1 series performance.
Although a hipo 1.6x would be nice, I prefer the bigger brighter 1.3x VF and would rather a 5D sized body, with about 90% of the specs of the 1D II and 12.8MP, or for the 1D III to be 12.8MP in the same sized sensor. I'm neutral on faster fps, but want improved AI servo, x-type points spread throughout the AF circle, improved matrix metering, support for class 6 cards as in high speed data transfer, bigger histograms, preferably overlay rather than only a small percentage of the LCD
Edited by Pixel Perfect on Feb 22, 2007 at 12:13 PM GMT
I get an e-mail update weekly from Popular Photography and todays update is talking about Nikon and Samsung's new models. But, the interesting thing is a note on the first page that says:
"Pre PMA: Check back tonight for more camera announcements."
If it's only going to be a 1D upgrade, I hope it's at least full frame. That would at least make it attractive to the pros using the 5D if Canon puts off the 1Ds upgrade again.
The article:
Pentax has apparently tapped Kodak to provide its 31.6 megapixel KAF-31600 medium format CCD for the upcoming 645 Digital, which would seem to be the company's highest resolution digital camera to date. So far all that's known from the pre-PMA announcement is that the 645 will sport both SD and CF slots, and will ship with a specially-built 55mm lens that's also compatible with 645-series SLR film cameras. We should find out more about this behemoth in early March -- although possibly not pricing and release info -- but one thing we can say for sure is that if it's priced anything like the Hasselblad H3D-31 whose sensor it shares, expect to pay out well into five figures.
Note the several sessions they have on the EOS 30D (special announcment demonstraiton sessions every day ) intermixed with the new IXUS and Powershot previews... Clealry a placeholder for the new cameras they really are going to show there.. Should be EOSfun
Johnny Blood wrote:
Still nothing much said about weather sealing. I wonder why Canon is avoiding this as a feature.
How long will a weather sealed camera, remain weather sealed? Any kind of seal material will wear after a while, and potentially could start to leak, and then of course your weather sealed camera commits hari-kari. There are not that many weather sealed cameras, so maybe Canon is waiting to see, how long those sealed cameras last, before they introduce the feature. There is also the issue that you need sealed lenses to make a sealed camera body make sense, so I would expect that Canon would introduce sealed lenses before sealed bodies.
Actually you can weather seal ANY camera, with a clear plastic bag, and some clear plastic tape. Cut a hole for the lens, pop the lens through and add a 1A filter tape the plastic to the filter, cut another hole for the eyepiece, and stick it between the eyepiece and a rubber eye cup, wrap the rest around the camera, leaving it loose enough that you can manipulate the controls through the plastic. Tape the plastic so that it's well overlapped, and water can't get in. You now have a weather sealed camera, I think that photographers have been doing this way since the 1950's, the bonus now of course, is that we can get hundreds of images on memory cards, where the older cameras needed a new roll of film every few minutes.
People have been talking about possible new lenses such as a 20mm f/1.2 and a 10-24mm f/2.8. I think that most people recognise these lenses are unrealistic. That said, I certainly think there is a market for premium quality L lenses that are slower than the current lenses.
By reducing the maximum apertures to say f/2.8 of f/3.5 the lens designers can avoid the design compromises necessary to achieve f/1.4 apertures. They should be able to construct these lenses with better performance right out to the corners.
By doing this, Canon will create a new line that costs around the same as the current L version, but trades speed for additional sharpness.
Finally, the prospect of a 12-24mm sounds great to me, but I would expect that any such lens would have a maximum aperture of f/4.5 or so in order to achieve reasonable sharpness and size.
Well, probably because it was a dream 
Just a mild wake-up call for you.)