Buying your own stock is an alternative method for companies to return their profits to their shareholders, i.e. an alternative to paying large dividends. A normal practice is to time the buybacks at peaceful periods vs. the factors affecting the share price, typically shortly after a published quarterly earnings report. Even though it could be profitable, companies don't want to annoy their shareholders by paying exceptionally little for the shares they buy back.
This entire upgrade looks disappointing. The 5DMkII MUST have better AF than the Nikon D700. The 3.9 FPS, is a let down, but maybe I can live with that.
rsg_1 wrote:
None now. If Nikon comes out with a D4 & D800 by PMA next spring, it may be a different story. However, with specs like that, there is little incentive to upgrade at a cost of $3,000 USD. Might as well pony up for the 1DMkIII or IV. Its just a couple of thousand more?
The 5D never was a "pro" It created its own segment (call it "high semi pro" for example).
5D II inho will feed that successfull segment I guess and not go to "pro".
Upgrading from 5D maybe not. But surelie from xxD and xxxDs 40D users do not want to ubgrade to a 5D with same resolution and less features. New customers might choose D700 instead of an old 5D. That is why there will be an 5D update.
I would not care about PMA in march 2009 now. There will be a 1D MK IV and if not at the same time a 1Ds MK IV short after. Those will (and I guess they will be able to) compete against what ever others will bring.
High pixel count and high fps are mutually exclusive for a given level of processing power. So, if Digic IV can deliver 6.3 fps on a 15 Mp crop sensor on the 50D, it stands to reason that the frame rate on a 21Mp sensor could be around 4.
Similarly, D700 can have a higher frame rate because its sensor only offers 12Mp.
I see the situation in another way? There is this perception that more pixels are meaningless except for very large prints (A2 and above).
IMHO the situation is simple. Either that is true, and Canon will lay a giant egg in light of the cost of the higher resolution (in frame rate among other issues) without significant user benefit. Either Canon are right, and more pixels are indeed better, and Nikon will face a huge handicap in having 3 high-end cams will relatively lower pixel count, and lesser IQ.
rsg_1 wrote:
This entire upgrade looks disappointing. The 5DMkII MUST have better AF than the Nikon D700. The 3.9 FPS, is a let down, but maybe I can live with that.
What upgrade? You already got any specs? Where is the link?
Based on the specs below, which I suspect is true, this camera is a let down.
21MP Full Frame Sensor
digic4
3.9 fps
9 point AF
Viewfinder: 98%
3.0" VGA LCD
Live View
Movie Mode
AF adjustment
Integrated Cleaning System
No pop-up flash
17 September Announcement
philber wrote:
High pixel count and high fps are mutually exclusive for a given level of processing power. So, if Digic IV can deliver 6.3 fps on a 15 Mp crop sensor on the 50D, it stands to reason that the frame rate on a 21Mp sensor could be around 4.
Similarly, D700 can have a higher frame rate because its sensor only offers 12Mp.
I see the situation in another way? There is this perception that more pixels are meaningless except for very large prints (A2 and above).
IMHO the situation is simple. Either that is true, and Canon will lay a giant egg in light of the cost of the higher resolution (in frame rate among other issues) without significant user benefit. Either Canon are right, and more pixels are indeed better, and Nikon will face a huge handicap in having 3 high-end cams will relatively lower pixel count, and lesser IQ....Show more →
If the framerate is 4 in full resolution it should be easy to make it 6 in raw s1 (~12-15MP) or up to ten in raw s2 (e.g.: 8-10MP). For me 4 is more then I need.
Genuine letdown over hypothetical specs...... I'm going to hold back on my letdown until I see real specs published. Who knows.....hypothetically I may not be let down....
rsg_1 wrote:
Based on the specs below, which I suspect is true, this camera is a let down.
21MP Full Frame Sensor
digic4
3.9 fps
9 point AF
Viewfinder: 98%
3.0" VGA LCD
Live View
Movie Mode
AF adjustment
Integrated Cleaning System
No pop-up flash
17 September Announcement
You forgott the most important:
ISO 100-6400 (or could it be 12800 with that low resolution) 50 low and 12800 & 25600 high I/high II (or 25600 & 51200 ) 6400 at old 5Ds 1600 standard
Ralph Conway wrote:
You forgott the most important:
ISO 100-6400 (or could it be 12800 with that low resolution) 50 low and 12800 & 25600 (or 25600 & 51200) 6400 at old 5Ds 1600 standard
Yes, and the AF to actually focus in light conditions that warrant such high ISO
Somehow, I feel that if Sony is able to move 25MP of data at 5FPS for $3K in a pro like body with weather sealing and a 100% viewfinder, then Canon should be able to do the same.
philber wrote:
High pixel count and high fps are mutually exclusive for a given level of processing power. So, if Digic IV can deliver 6.3 fps on a 15 Mp crop sensor on the 50D, it stands to reason that the frame rate on a 21Mp sensor could be around 4.
Similarly, D700 can have a higher frame rate because its sensor only offers 12Mp.
I see the situation in another way? There is this perception that more pixels are meaningless except for very large prints (A2 and above).
IMHO the situation is simple. Either that is true, and Canon will lay a giant egg in light of the cost of the higher resolution (in frame rate among other issues) without significant user benefit. Either Canon are right, and more pixels are indeed better, and Nikon will face a huge handicap in having 3 high-end cams will relatively lower pixel count, and lesser IQ....Show more →
IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
That is what the 5D is about and what Canon has to produce. Why are people aleady criticising a camera that is not released yet. We do not know how well the new 9 pt AF works on the 50D - it may be great. I was practicing shooting football at a football practice yesterday with my current 5D and about 20 of 400 shots were OOF. What is the problem? If you want gizmos buy a Sony. I want IQ.
Low light AF is important. The 1DMkIII, when it works, is the best AF. When I've used the 35 f/1.4L on the 5D and it has to hunt in dim light - that is upsetting. I'll say this again, IQ on all the newer upper end DSLRs are all very good. Gone are the days when the 5D was on top of the prosumer hill.
100 % VF and weathersealing do not make a "prolike body". The a900 is far away from beeing that. 25 MP do a pro cam neither. I only saw samples (what else?). But I am sorry my D60 (eos) produced less noisey pictures at ISO 400 and 800 5 years ago.
The sony doesn't have weather sealing. My point all along is that they will have to pursuade 5D customers to upgrade and a 16 megapixel 50D won't do it. If it's 21 megapixels then I'm buying one even with the same AF system. If it's got pro AF and weather sealing then I'm buying one even if it's only 15 megapixels. If it ain't either then why should I bother?
philber wrote:
High pixel count and high fps are mutually exclusive for a given level of processing power. So, if Digic IV can deliver 6.3 fps on a 15 Mp crop sensor on the 50D, it stands to reason that the frame rate on a 21Mp sensor could be around 4.
Similarly, D700 can have a higher frame rate because its sensor only offers 12Mp.
I see the situation in another way? There is this perception that more pixels are meaningless except for very large prints (A2 and above).
IMHO the situation is simple. Either that is true, and Canon will lay a giant egg in light of the cost of the higher resolution (in frame rate among other issues) without significant user benefit. Either Canon are right, and more pixels are indeed better, and Nikon will face a huge handicap in having 3 high-end cams will relatively lower pixel count, and lesser IQ....Show more →
The pixels processing can be parallelized pretty easily, and the fps is function of the number of processors in the camera. However adding processors has a cost.
Answer in a few hours...
Ok, no sense in trying to discuss a camera with unknown features. I am not reading this thread anymore, except maybe once in while to check for new info, rumours and when I can buy it .
... hopefully ... - hours I mean.