jamesf99 wrote:
Gee, I'm sorry, did someone leave the door open and you walked in uninvited?
That kind of attitude is not going to get you very far here, but to answer your question, "THIS" means you don't know enough yet, so why don't you sit down, read/listen, and try to behave yourself.
I have apologized twice for this attitude. I am sorry you were offended, and yes I recognize that my remark was offensive.
Brent Ward wrote:
When did being realistic turn into being elitist?
Was my statment incorrect?
Do the majority of buyers for a top level pro body not know what aspect ratios are?
...and if this is the most offensive thing you've seen on the web, then you have one hell of a spam blocker running on your email.
I made an offensive remark and I apologized for it (3 times now). You made one and dismissed it as a necessary risk of being a member of the internet community. This will be my last statement to you, Brent, if you cannot at least try to meet me halfway. I'm trying to get back on good footing here because I'm a member of this board to learn and gather information about photography (as I still have much to learn) and future purchases.
I am, in fact, in the market for either the Ds2 or its successor. I currently shoot with a D2N. I hope we can put this behind us and move on. For the last time, I'm sorry about my remarks and attitude and will remember next time to temper my remarks with a little wisdom. The last thing I want to do is alienate myself from fellow shooters.
Joel Slack wrote:
I made an offensive remark and I apologized for it (3 times now). You made one and dismissed it as a necessary risk of being a member of the internet community. This will be my last statement to you, Brent, if you cannot at least try to meet me halfway. I'm trying to get back on good footing here because I'm a member of this board to learn and gather information about photography (as I still have much to learn) and future purchases.
I am, in fact, in the market for either the Ds2 or its successor. I currently shoot with a D2N. I hope we can put this behind us and move on. For the last time, I'm sorry about my remarks and attitude and will remember next time to temper my remarks with a little wisdom. The last thing I want to do is alienate myself from fellow shooters. ...Show more →
I'm not upset at all, no need to apologize directly to me. I have very thick skin. I think you took my remark a little too personal, but this has been happening on the web ever since Al Gore invented it.
Bad analogy, unless you think that GPS in a mass-marketed camera (when handheld GPS units are a dime a dozen) is a comparable giant leap forward in technology to that which ENIAC represented.
ENIAC: world-shaking technological event which changed the face of everyday life for all humans. GPS in camera: useful for small percentage of photographers. I'm not seeing the correlation.
But if Canon puts one in their cameras, it's no skin off my nose. (it won't change my world, however)
What a lot more photographers would use at the 5D level and above: An internal wireless LAN transmitter. If I was on the Canon project making a choice between a WLAN and GPS, the WLAN would certainly win in my book.
dcmiller wrote:
They're special because each pixel is full color - even the 40D
I assume you are joking?
The files would be absolutely huge - at 3 colours per pixel that would be 60MP equivalent for the 1DsIII and 30MP equivalent for the 40D - IOW even the 40D would need to process data faster than the present 1DsII - and you would have the little problem of getting that data on to present CF/SD cards!
the only way I can see that is if they are already some sort of bayer MP equivalent ratings being quoted.
Regards,
DaveMart
EB-1 wrote:
Why would it have substantially less effective pixels than actual pixels if there is no bayer interpolation? I don't understand.
EB
Nothing to do with Bayer interpolation or the lack of it - it is common practise to have a figure for the actual size of the sensor, and then another rather lower figure for how many are actually used for the crop in the camera - presumably because it is too much hassle to make the sensors exactly 4800 pixels by whatever, so there are rounding errors and you get a rather larger chip cut out of the silicon - probalby helps a bit if the cutting process messes up a few pixels and so on as well.
Regards,
DaveMart
dcmiller wrote:
Geez, what happened to this place?
Tempers are running high because there's nothing to talk about. Canon hasn't released anything exciting in a long time (years actually). All there is to talk about is WAGs, and speculation in this forum, and in the regular Canon forum it's the same thing that's been going on for years. I can't take anymore "what lens should I buy questions". We need something new!
I know, let's talk about GPS, or wireless xfer, or the benefits of Canon using SD cards instead of CF cards. You know, something safe where everyone agrees.
> Why would it have substantially less effective pixels than actual pixels if there is no bayer interpolation? I don't understand.
The apparently "unused" pixels in all sensors are masked off for noise measurement purposes. If you have some unexposed pixels to compare noise values, then you get a better idea of how much NR to apply to an image - the more pixels, generally the better the idea.
So why not set that in the factory? Simple - image noise levels vary in the field, heat is the biggest factor, but I suspect background radiation may also affect things a bit too.
This whole thread needs to be nuked so it can get a fresh start. By making it a sticky, all the interesting speculation has given way to arguing. And I miss all the "Not another rumor thread" posts.
Wow, you guys are really concentrating on the high end high priced camera with the 22mp stories. I am really surprised. 4/3rds 3:2 and all. Amazing stuff . . .
I would think that logically Canon would be looking more at their sales figures and posturing in the market before they would be focusing intensely on a camera that may sell 10,000 units for the whole year.
The MK2 becoming a MK3 would give then a direct hit against the top of the line Nikon if they move the MK3 to something in the 12mp range. That camera would sell 3 or 4 thousand units a month right out the gate.
And the 30D had plans to sell 20,000 units a month (and could manufacture 30,00 if needed), and it isn't doing even close to that. I think a priority would be in order there too.
If I were Canon and my marketing team spent all their time and ended up missing the bull's eye on the sales chart I think I would get rid of the whole bunch - lol.
Why all the curiosity on the 22mp camera?? Are most of you guys in here going to be buying an $8,000 camera? If so, then this is the biggest and most elite group of guys gathered together that I have ever seen.
I have a bigger curiosity and intensity on what Canon may do with the MK2. I think this room is filled with lots of guys (and gals) that would be real life buyers of a new MK3, on the other hand there may be all of 5 folks here who would be buying a high end $8K camera. But if this room is full of sMK3 buyers, then my hat off to you guys
Peter Gregg wrote:
I have a bigger curiosity and intensity on what Canon may do with the MK2
Aren't you contradicting a little bit yourself? The discussion is about replacing the MK2 with the MK3, at 22mp. Or is it elitist of you to think that YOUR MK2 is the only MK2 worth discussing?
What? The 40D is only 10.3MP?? In another few months Nikon is going to release D200's successor. This means basically that the 40D class is being lowered to be pitted against the Nikon D80. You'll have 400D and 40D versus the D80. I don't think the price difference between 400D and 40D is justifiable then if both are 10MP. It's true that MP isn't everything, but I think the 40D should definitely be in the 12MP area.
There's still a large gap between 40D and 1D Mark III, when not counting 5D.
Besides a natural curiousity in the cutting technology for its own sake, advances at that level lead to changes in the more affordable segments of the product line as well.
For example, someone thinking about a 5D type camera, perhaps at a somewhat lower price than the current price, recognizes that the capabilities of the 1 series cameras probably have to be increased before changes can occur at the mid-level, for marketing reasons if nothing else.
