Who gives a rat's ass? It is there and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it except engage in stupid arguements over its potential cost. Jeez, no wonder the world is screwed up.
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.
Scott Welch wrote:
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. ...Show more →
What do you think lag is the result of? You ARE talking about fps whether you realize it or not. I quoted the Canon white paper as stating the 30fps, which is for the 1DIII That isn't a fast or "best technology" frame rate, but that is what it is even though it doesn't fit your cost equation, since as I also stated, some P&S models FAR chaper offer faster frame rates on their live view LCDs. Maybe you missed in my posts where I mentioned people who've tried early 1DIIIs have mentioned the lag when panning just like you'd get with a P&S, which makes complete sense when looked at in the context of Canon's stated frame rate. Apparently you missed my first quote in the text you quoted, so I'll restate it "This feature was mainly designed for shooting still-life subjects."(Canon's words, not mine.)
Since the camera CPU in the 1DIII is a 40 MHz, 32-bit RISC according to the 1DIII white paper, and the 1DII had a 32 MHz, 32 bit RISC, that is hardly a sizeable upgrade in processing power. Look at the difference in comparably priced Pentium or AMD CPUs over that time span, and you'll realize how paltry that upgrade really is.
I'm only willing to base my analysis on objective evaluation of facts and what those who've tried it have reported. That couldn't be more different than your subjective what it "should" do, or your skewed 1 over that you seem willing to apply to every aspect of the body.
About the processors on the 1D3, the RISC processors are for controlling exposure, camera settings and AF.
I would imagine that Canon's using the dual DIGIC3 processors to run the live view functions. And since the dual DIGIC3 processors can process over 175MB/s ( 10MP x 14bit / 8bit/MB x 10fps ), I can't see why canon would need 'extra processing power' for the live view function when the live view is only 0.23MP and even at 30fps, that's a measely 7MB/s.
I'll bet, to keep the heat down on the sensor, they probably only use a fraction of the pixels for the live view, making processing speed even less of an issue.
I am sure this has been talked about but if you are using the live view auto focus is disabled but you can zoom in a lot to see if your subject is in focus and manually adjust the focus to suit your needs. so this live view is not meant to be used like that of a point and shoot anyway. So there is really no need for this discussion. The reason the camera costs so much is because it is freakin awesome. I do not like that they changed the whole layout of the controls but other than that this is by far the biggest upgrade I have seen in a body in a long time.
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.
The live LCD is not unneeded for macro, wildlife photography, some studio shots, overhead shots for the paparazzi....
You get my drift.
And the users report at IR says that the MF in that mode is totally usable - 10 times zoom on the LCD takes care of that.
DaveMart wrote:
The live LCD is not unneeded for macro, wildlife photography, some studio shots, overhead shots for the paparazzi....
You get my drift.
And the users report at IR says that the MF in that mode is totally usable - 10 times zoom on the LCD takes care of that.
I tried the Mark III a couple of weeks ago and the live LCD was the thing that impressed me the most.
having used the III for 2 weeks in work i found for me the least useful "improvement" has been the live view feature. its no wonder they needed toimprove the battery as it is the most power consumptive addition to it. for some it may be just what they want but to me it would be better served on the so far mythical 1Ds3
yep its cool but in the real world for most shooters of this type of camera it may turn into the least used. i guess its nice to know its there though
sjms wrote:
having used the III for 2 weeks in work i found for me the least useful "improvement" has been the live view feature. its no wonder they needed toimprove the battery as it is the most power consumptive addition to it. for some it may be just what they want but to me it would be better served on the so far mythical 1Ds3
yep its cool but in the real world for most shooters of this type of camera it may turn into the least used. i guess its nice to know its there though
What struck you as the most useful improvement? I think a lot of people would appreciate it if you would elaborate on your general impressions of the camera since very few have had a chance to actually use one extensively.
donnie16 wrote:
I am sure this has been talked about but if you are using the live view auto focus is disabled but you can zoom in a lot to see if your subject is in focus and manually adjust the focus to suit your needs. so this live view is not meant to be used like that of a point and shoot anyway. So there is really no need for this discussion.
Many P&S models offer manual focus coupled with zoom, so that's nothing new either. Don't get me wrong, I love the 1DIII, and I'm glad they have made substantial upgrades, but the live view mode isn't anything new or some great technological advancement. It is a feature they were able to easily add given the fact they had the technology in their entire P&S line and in their video line. I'll bet it is a feature that will be useful and appreciated for a lot of 1DIII owners.
Edited by Hammerli on Mar 25, 2007 at 09:04 AM GMT
what concerns me about the livve preview is the possibility of overheating causing noise. I think i read somewhere, you can't use it for over 20min. Not sure the impact of this for landscape work,where Live Preview is used in place of mirror lockup. Does 20 consecutive minutes coz overheating. Or wil there also be issues if you are turning it on and off over 30-40 min period.
khurram1 wrote:
what concerns me about the livve preview is the possibility of overheating causing noise. I think i read somewhere, you can't use it for over 20min. Not sure the impact of this for landscape work,where Live Preview is used in place of mirror lockup. Does 20 consecutive minutes coz overheating. Or wil there also be issues if you are turning it on and off over 30-40 min period.
Canon actually quotes a lower figure than the 20 min. for consecutive use, and that is what will generate heat. Factors like heat from light sources (studio or sun), ambient temp., etc. will also factor into the equation. We'll have to wait for some user reports to find out just how much effect long duration usage has, as well as how long it is before the camera shuts down live view to cool off.
the re positioning of the actual controls and the joystick actually makes the camera much more handleable in the field if speed is the key for its usage. its ergonomics have improved fairly substantially. everything else is evolutionary on it as in the next step type up upgrading. if you are coming from a nikon its easier to adapt to now compared to when i did it back almost 5 years ago. a low percentage of purchasers will actually use more then say 25% of this things capability. the rest up it upgrading is internal and as i said evolutionary. when it comes to making images it does do a faster and in the hands of the right owner a better job overall.
oh yes the ability to tweak in your AF on a per lens basis (microadjust) is a very good thing too. i only had time to do this one one lens which was the 70-200 2.8. it can make a difference and saves the user time and money for service if things are not "just right".
it is a different animal form its previous incarnation overall.
Shot any high key contrasty light stuff to try out the new highlight white extended range thingie? The lower noise stuff ya ya same old improvement lol but what about this 'wedding dress' feature I wonder...... Thanks
Hammerli wrote:
Many P&S models offer manual focus coupled with zoom, so that's nothing new either. Don't get me wrong, I love the 1DIII, and I'm glad they have made substantial upgrades, but the live view mode isn't anything new or some great technological advancement. It is a feature they were able to easily add given the fact they had the technology in their entire P&S line and in their video line. I'll bet it is a feature that will be useful and appreciated for a lot of 1DIII owners.
Edited by Hammerli on Mar 25, 2007 at 09:04 AM GMT
Glad to see that the art of Argument For The Sake of Argument is still alive and kicking.
sjms wrote:
the re positioning of the actual controls and the joystick actually makes the camera much more handleable in the field if speed is the key for its usage. its ergonomics have improved fairly substantially. everything else is evolutionary on it as in the next step type up upgrading. if you are coming from a nikon its easier to adapt to now compared to when i did it back almost 5 years ago. a low percentage of purchasers will actually use more then say 25% of this things capability. the rest up it upgrading is internal and as i said evolutionary. when it comes to making images it does do a faster and in the hands of the right owner a better job overall.
oh yes the ability to tweak in your AF on a per lens basis (microadjust) is a very good thing too. i only had time to do this one one lens which was the 70-200 2.8. it can make a difference and saves the user time and money for service if things are not "just right".
it is a different animal form its previous incarnation overall....Show more →
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.
I REALLY wish people would try to be aware of other worlds in addition to the one which revolves around them and their particular needs/uses. This "I don't need it, so no one does!" stuff is tiresome, and that's an understatrement.
If everyone subtracted the one thing of no use to them, to save $100 on this wonder camera, we'd soon have a cheap POS. Plenty of those are already available, no?
LV "uneeded"? VF "works perfectly"? Do much tripod-mounted high-mag manual focus? Macro? Telephoto? Read on.
Excerpt from private messages between myself and Dave Etchells of Imaging resource:
Dave: Playing with our eval sample, you *can* scroll the 5/10x magnified view *anywhere in the frame*! Pretty cool, and it *definitely* gives you enough resolution to focus effectively. (In fact, with the 100mm macro attached, I had a hard time adjusting the focus finely enough manually to get the image really sharp, it would go totally in or out of focus with what felt like 1/16 or 1/32 of an inch of rotation on the barrel.)
Larry: Excellent. I like the "*definitely*"!
Am I safe in assuming that you feel the focus-ability re. this method is in-fact superior to viewfinder focus?
Dave:Yes, without question.
Scott,...how perfectly can something be working if something else is superior "without question" (under direct scrutiny by a respected tester)?
Cameras of the 1DIII class are definitely moving into the diminishing-(but still definite)returns vs. dollar investment, level.
Not for everyone. If you don't need/want to pay for state of the art capability,...don't buy it.
I love the MKIII. It's one of the best out on the market right now. And yea, I do shoot macro and many other types of photography, I am just commenting on why now does Canon put in a live view into a DSLR? There had to be a reason why. I don't really mind the live view now that you gyes have explained it, but I just find it startling that Canon didn't do it sooner in their DSLR's.
What do you think lag is the result of? You ARE talking about fps whether you realize it or not. I quoted the Canon white paper as stating the 30fps, which is for the 1DIII 
