beewee wrote:
Out of curiousity, how long does it usually take Adobe to add RAW support of new cameras to photoshop's camera raw software (and now lightroom)?
Same question for Capture One Pro.
my IIn and 5d RAW support in c1 and PS CS was only a few weeks.
it always seems to take to long in my estimation. I bought my 30D a moth after it hit the stores and I still waited another few weeks until they released the ACR upgrade.
I feel like it's a feature that is unneeded. It probably tacks on about $100 more onto the price tag. There is no need for it. The viewfinder works perfectly.
I think they added live view for; (1) it helps to shoot at awkward angles when one cant use the viewfinder, (2) it has 5X or 10X magnification that helps in precise manual focusing, (3) it even lets you view the scene remotely via wireless transmitter and take pics!
Edited by Joseph C J on Mar 25, 2007 at 01:56 AM GMT
Scott Welch wrote:
I feel like it's a feature that is unneeded. It probably tacks on about $100 more onto the price tag. There is no need for it. The viewfinder works perfectly.
There are some who have no use for AF, some who never use spot meter, some who don't care about dual media slots, buffer clearing speed, and on down the list. I don't know how you came up with your $ value, but it certainly seems way off to me. There is essentially nothing added to allow live view except minor changes to software to allow a "hot screen." Certainly doesn't look like much more than a couple of bucks if that. With the parity that is coming to the DSLR market, companies have to innovate new features to keep the marketplace happy and advance their designs. I must say I like the feature, and feel it is far superior to their last new feature (direct print button). Canon isn't Burger King, they aren't going to make it your way, so if you don't like it don't use it, but it certainly isn't worth starting your own vendetta against.
ive had the pleasure of playing with a mark III and the live view was awesome. my mind started to race with the possibilities...i couldnt help think how awesome it would be for some type of still-life or even some static portrait type situations. personally, im waiting for the 1ds upgrade, but the 1d certainly got me very excited.
oh, and not that i dont think that $100 isnt a lot of money, but relative to all the things we pay for, seems pretty cheap to me...id certainly shell it out.
Hammerli wrote:
There are some who have no use for AF, some who never use spot meter, some who don't care about dual media slots, buffer clearing speed, and on down the list. I don't know how you came up with your $ value, but it certainly seems way off to me. There is essentially nothing added to allow live view except minor changes to software to allow a "hot screen." Certainly doesn't look like much more than a couple of bucks if that. With the parity that is coming to the DSLR market, companies have to innovate new features to keep the marketplace happy and advance their designs. I must say I like the feature, and feel it is far superior to their last new feature (direct print button). Canon isn't Burger King, they aren't going to make it your way, so if you don't like it don't use it, but it certainly isn't worth starting your own vendetta against. ...Show more →
No, you would have to make adjustments to the software and add a lot of lets say "computer power" in order to get real time view directly from the sensor. I assume since it's THE top-of-the-line good all-around camera that the live view is almost exactly what the sensor sees, at that exact moment. (With no lag time) Given that conclusion I would say it takes a lot more computer power than what the 1D MKII has in it, giving the reason for the MKIII to add $100 onto the price tag.
Scott Welch wrote:
No, you would have to make adjustments to the software and add a lot of lets say "computer power" in order to get real time view directly from the sensor. I assume since it's THE top-of-the-line good all-around camera that the live view is almost exactly what the sensor sees, at that exact moment. (With no lag time) Given that conclusion I would say it takes a lot more computer power than what the 1D MKII has in it, giving the reason for the MKIII to add $100 onto the price tag.
You are wrong. Look at a P&S, or other DSLR companies that have been offering this exact same feature on very inexpensive models. The white paper I linked, which you seemingly haven't read, gives the exact proccessing speeds of the CPUs in the 1DIII, and the same can easily be found for the model it replaced. People who have seen this feature have commented on the "lag" associated with changing the framing, just like on would get in a $160 Canon point and shoot. If that feature alone costs $100, it is pretty obvious we wouldn't see it in a camera costing less than twice that as a whole. The feature is clearly intended for stationary use for many situations, not to be used as a sports viewfinder. The minuscule lag that would be inherent to the feature is irrelevant for the intended applications like landscapes, macro, astro, etc.
If you complain about an extra $100 over a $4500 body, it probably isn't for you. This is almost like talking about MF digital backs where "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it".
"Instead of looking through the viewfinder, you can shoot while viewing the scene on the camera's LCD monitor. This feature was mainly designed for shooting still-life subjects."
and more importantly from pg. 26:
"The Live View display's frame rate is approx. 30 fps. The picture remains smooth even if you change the camera's direction or if the subject moves."
areas highlighted for importance.
30 fps is hardly taxing on throughput since no recording is going on at that rate, most P&S models offer at least that same rate, and some even have higher rates since they use the "live view" as a primary viewfinder. Like I said, minor software change to allow this, nothing technically difficult or taxing on the (dual) CPUs.
I must be blind. Sorry, but I can't see where it says "the exact proccessing speeds of the CPU's" I might have not looked thoroughly enough. Exactly, like you said, people have been complaining about the lag time associated with $160 point and shoot cameras. That system they use for the realtime viewer on the LCD screen is no where near to the quality of the MKIII, meaning that the system wouldn't cost $100 on a point and shoot camera that was costing $160. So since $(the price of the MKIII)/$160 is how much more times the MKIII costs than the MKIII, the point and shoot camera should have a live view system that's considerably lower quality.
Hammerli wrote:
30 fps is hardly taxing on throughput since no recording is going on at that rate, most P&S models offer at least that same rate, and some even have higher rates since they use the "live view" as a primary viewfinder. Like I said, minor software change to allow this, nothing technically difficult or taxing on the (dual) CPUs.
Last time I checked, the point and shoot cameras were slow on the live view. And trust me, I have owned a lot of point and shoot cameras. I use them as back-ups for my vacations. Plus I wasn't really talking about the fps, I was talking about the lag and glitching that goes on in most live view systems. If a subject moves really fast or you move the camera fast, that live view doesn't keep up with you. So the live view on the MKIII must be new technology or "the best" technology. Giving it a $100 price tag.
