Monito wrote:
I am fully aware of the difference in the marketing of the 1D and 1Ds, but your sneering doesn't advance the discussion. You are new here (four posts) and I suggest you get with the program here, which is a little more civil than most internet forums and chat rooms you may be familiar with.
I don't think you've done much studio fashion photography at all. I haven't, but I know that the photographers want as little to get in the way of the shoot as possible. When you've got three 600 dollar an hour models and you have assistants and overhead and two art directors and a hair stylist and a makeup artist and a wardrobe wrangler and a set decorator and office staff and an accountant breathing down your neck, you don't want to wait around for flash or camera for hundreds of shots. Remember the 0.8 frames per second is the fastest they offer. Before that they were proud of 0.7 per second. ...Show more →
I thought the fastest H3D 31 was 1.4 per second?
I care more about the buffer than anything, I get tired waiting on my 1Ds II so I can take a photo.
Geoff Costello wrote:
Easy - emerging "consensus" is:
>> New 4 channel sensor with 10.x MP (different from 400D)
>> Still 1.6 crop
>> Antidust (as per the 400D)
>> Improved Viewfinder
>> 1 stop improvement in high ISO (3200 similar to current 1600)
>> Improved Autofocus (most likely the 5Ds 6 extra invisble AF points)
>> DIGIC III image processing - but with SLR level NR not the agressive P&S style in the initial DIGIC III release
>> 5 FPS
>> Probably slightly ligher (1 1/2 ounces or 35g)
>> Better rear LCD (may be 3 inch, but clearer / brighter)
>> Some are expecting / hoping for improved weather sealing (like the Pentax K10D and Nikon D200)
>> Minor interface tweaks. E.g programable direct print button and one or two new buttons to provide direct access to frequently used menu options
>> Still CF memory...Show more →
Yakim Peled wrote:
And a moveable spot meter if you please.....
It would be nice but a surprise - there are no rumours floating arround re this (unlike other specs)
I find it very easy to a) move the camera to put the spot meter on a target, or b) take a shot or two and adjust the exposure. A movable spot meter would complicate the user interface, introduce something else for users to get wrong or confused by, be not very practical and would be of interest to only a very tiny minority of photographers. I'm sure you've never had a camera with a movable spot meter.
Ha. Yeah they did. But then again, Nikon and Canon have both been guilty of this. Nikon has been hounded and hounded for not having VR (IS) in more of their lenses. Sloooooowwwly, its happening.
Don't know what about you but when it comes to spot metering I find a non-moveable one to be next to useless. I mean, the partial metering can be linked to the active AF point in the 20D/30D and the spot metering can be linked to the active AF point in the 1D series (thought strangely, the partial metering can not) so it shouldn't be THAT difficult.
Everyones preparing for it, of course. We saw this last year, when the 20D was being upgraded. All the sites started saying it was 10MP blah blah blah. Its going to happen, eventually.
You understand whats happening. People type "40D" in the search engines such as Google and their website comes up. Even though there's nothing there. And you guys fall for it everytime.
Well, if nothing is expected who waste time making or preparing Web pages ?
Specially in a digital magazine...
May be some more leak with more details can happen .....
Sorry, you call that "lots of Canon PMA rumours and speculations"
One post taken directly from this thread, and one post that has been clearly washed through an online translation service, because it's definately not correct english. The bits you can make from it leave really too much open for guesswork.
nikt wrote:
Ha. Yeah they did. But then again, Nikon and Canon have both been guilty of this. Nikon has been hounded and hounded for not having VR (IS) in more of their lenses. Sloooooowwwly, its happening.
Perhaps the reason was not that they were not willing to do it but that they
did not have the resources to undertake a major effort to overhaul a large
percentage of their lenses on a rapid timetable.
