If this is true, I am slightly disappointed. I would love a better AF system but my 5D served me well, so I guess I can live with it. 21mp is nice. ISO 6400 (expandable to 12,800) would be nice.
Jess Edward wrote:
Ok so my friends company is sponsored by Canon, and I am aware that every single rumor post starts with that, but he actually is. Anyway, he had a meeting last week with Canon and they showed him the new 5D which he told me all about. Here are the specs according to him.
21MP
1080p video recording
Same auto focus as current 5D
2 S-Raw modes (10MP, and 2MP)
ISO 100 - 3200 (Expands to 50 and 6400)
I think thats all he told me. I pretty much lost interest after he said it was the same auto focus system really. Apparently Canons plan is to release this camera and then hope people who need better auto focus start upgrading to the 1 series bodies.
Oh yea, also, no weather sealing, and its going to be called the 5D Mark 2...Show more →
Jess Edward wrote:
I pretty much lost interest after he said it was the same auto focus system really. Apparently Canons plan is to release this camera and then hope people who need better auto focus start upgrading to the 1 series bodies.
If true, it's a shame they feel the need to keep playing the same game. The new camera will not meet my needs, but I already have a 1Ds II, so will just stick with that. When will they realise that it isn't just 5D II vs 1Ds III but they have to give people a compelling reason to buy ANY new camera compared to older models like the 1Ds II? The main thing I don't like about the 1Ds II is that it is TOO BIG and TOO HEAVY. A 1Ds III shares these faults so would be a pointless upgrade. A 5D II would solve these problems but lose me other things like f/8 AF. So by worrying about a 5D II impacting 1Ds III sales they end up with no sale at all. They should just focus on giving customers what they want, not trying to force them to buy something they don't want.
Talk of the death of APS-C/DX formats's death are wildly exaggerated. Why cannot their be multiple formats? There will always be a demand for smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras and given the pixel counts now appearing it is more than enough for the vast majority of shooters. UWA glass is now available and many like the crop factor for wildlife/birding. Why have monster files only to then have to crop 60% of them anyway to get frame filling shots. My only issue is that Canon has not yet released a AF system worthy of the crop format being a true high performance sports/wildlife package yet. Nikon though has in the D300. I think Canon will do it eventually and even Olympus, Sony, Samsung are making improvements and taking it more seriously, although still have a long way to go.
Also have a look at the newest medium format digital backs where they now produce sensors from 44x33mm to 56x36mm ranging from 22Mp to 56MP. That's quite a range of sensor sizes for the same camera system.
The main thing is, prints from a bigger sensor will always be better all things being equal (which they're not) as there's a smaller enlargement factor. You won't see this difference with small prints though.
DThom wrote:
OK not smaller chips, but overall, fewer chips to do a task. The first CPU was a big room full of tubes. My 1987 286 with 640 KB of RAM & 20MB HDD had dozens of memory chips on a big board and a 1 foot long monochrome graphics board. My core 2 quad with 4 GB RAM has 18 much smaller memory chips and a few graphic chips. The smaller size of the components allows for very large scale integration. You still have one CPU but, one low function board (monchrone graphics) can be replaced by one high function chip that has many more components than the old board. As time progresses, you will have more powerfull Digic processors in a camera but supported by fewer and fewer chips that do more, allowing for smaller size and more features, unless you need a fan and heat sink to cool the Digic VIII.
My Core 2 quad CPU is much larger than the 1MHz 8 bit CPU in my 1982 Apple 2.
Edited by DThom on Sep 12, 2008 at 03:36 AM GMT...Show more →
I just don't foresee SLR's getting much smaller. The XTI lost a lot of people because of its size. Good lenses are always going to be big, that's called physics, and without any meat to hold onto it the lens is too difficult to hold. The size of SLR's, even DSLR's is about function rather than form or technology.
I just don't foresee SLR's getting much smaller. The XTI lost a lot of people because of its size. Good lenses are always going to be big, that's called physics, and without any meat to hold onto it the lens is too difficult to hold. The size of SLR's, even DSLR's is about function rather than form or technology.
That's what people said in the 70-ies too. We had heavily built big size Nikkormats, Canon Ftb, Leica SL, Minolta SR-T, Pentax Spotmatic and others. Then suddenly Olympus did the impossible and introduced their OM-1 with system around it. It was much more compact built and aiming Leica level quality. They proved smaller didn't necessarily mean compromised in performance. Later Pentax with their ME-series a.o. replicated that success. Current DSLR-s still could be more compact at the same time gaining in performance. This is gonna happen, I am convinced about that. It is one of my EOSfun dreams to have my 1DsmkIII boxed performance in a small but high quality built body like that of the Olympus OM that I mentioned.
Jess Edward wrote:
Well I did think that maybe my friend just made up some specs so he didnt get in trouble and maybe the camera is actually really awesome.
I was pretty surprised to hear that the auto focus system hadnt changed from the current 5D since the 40D and 50D have upgraded auto focus do they not?
with all due respect, why would you post this if you thought there was a chance that your friend "made up some specs" so he would not get into trouble?
eosfun wrote:
That's what people said in the 70-ies too. We had heavily built big size Nikkormats, Canon Ftb, Leica SL, Minolta SR-T, Pentax Spotmatic and others. Then suddenly Olympus did the impossible and introduced their OM-1 with system around it. It was much more compact built and aiming Leica level quality. They proved smaller didn't necessarily mean compromised in performance.
I owned an OM-1. It was an absolutely amazing camera (for it's time)! I hope you're right about Canon launching a breakthrough but, honestly, it really does seem a bit too much like wishful thinking for me to get too attached to the idea.
bka20d wrote:
with all due respect, why would you post this if you thought there was a chance that your friend "made up some specs" so he would not get into trouble?
That's a fair point but this *is* a rumor thread no?
bka20d wrote:
with all due respect, why would you post this if you thought there was a chance that your friend "made up some specs" so he would not get into trouble?
There is always a chance that something someone tells you could be false information. I wasnt at Canon when he saw the camera so I have no way of knowing for 100% sure what he was told. I was just relaying the information he gave me. It is a rumor thread after all.
There is a chance that all of the specs people have been giving in this thread arent real. Does that mean they shouldnt have posted either?
Edited by Jess Edward on Sep 11, 2008 at 05:56 PM GMT
Edited by Jess Edward on Sep 11, 2008 at 05:56 PM GMT
Edited by Jess Edward on Sep 11, 2008 at 05:56 PM GMT
eosfun wrote:
That's what people said in the 70-ies too. We had heavily built big size Nikkormats, Canon Ftb, Leica SL, Minolta SR-T, Pentax Spotmatic and others. Then suddenly Olympus did the impossible and introduced their OM-1 with system around it. It was much more compact built and aiming Leica level quality. They proved smaller didn't necessarily mean compromised in performance. Later Pentax with their ME-series a.o. replicated that success. Current DSLR-s still could be more compact at the same time gaining in performance. This is gonna happen, I am convinced about that. It is one of my EOSfun dreams to have my 1DsmkIII boxed performance in a small but high quality built body like that of the Olympus OM that I mentioned. ...Show more →
I am with you 100%! Loved the old OM system. Hope they can get to that size again (but I am not optimistic) although it will not be from Canon .... as you need to build a whole new system around it, as Olympus did.
I hope you're right about Canon launching a breakthrough
Just to be clear: I didn't mean to say Canon is gonna launch this now, not even that Canon is gonna go this direction first. I just don't know. It's however my firm belief that more compact designs is a development direction for the whole camera industry. On average the DSLR will get smaller at the same time improve in performance. ELVIS like camera designs (electronic viewfinder image stabilization) will push first in the direction. I find the 450D is a good illustration of the direction we are going, EOSfun in a compact body
32067dlm wrote:
That's what most of us think, right now. When your competition is using it in creative ways, you'll begin to appreciate it or hate your competition. The profession is changing. You can accept it and ride that wave or hang on like many did with film.
do want to be a leader or just follow?..
canon should stick to a still image edict with their DSLRs period
and MAKE them better than Nikon or sony so things like oh look nikon has video
and everyone is falling overthemselves...IQ and no-noise ISOs is what should matter
not video Canon does this they wont even blink when the next nikon can do the dishes,take out the trash,feed the cat...
No offense, I think you have a point re. the purity & quality issue, but I also think it is moot as video will be included in the next generation of DSLRs whether people here wish it to or not. The cost & competitive logic makes it nearly inevitable.
I've taken wedding, concerts and fashion pictures and now I'm sure that's not "photography"! (Even if they allow me to earn some money) Why ? Easy, you don't control anything! You just take pictures praying they will be some nice ones in your memory cards! They forget what photography really is. Photography means "writing with light" in other words "having (full) control of light"
No. That's painting. Snapshots are the soul of photography. Look at HCB. Controlling light sucks all the life out of your pictures until they're just painting without love. Being there and catching the moment is the key, whether you shoot 1 frame per second or 50 - it doesn't matter. The best photos are about the subject, not the artist's unique and benevolent vision. A good photographer is just a wormhole enabling a journey through time to a moment that might have been forgotten: http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/simonsinks.jpg
Tim Speciale wrote:
Good lenses are always going to be big, that's called physics, and without any meat to hold onto it the lens is too difficult to hold.
I don't know about smaller bodies without smaller lenses, ala Olympus OM. I played with an XTi briefly - thinking I would love it (as I really like it small/light/compact) - but I hated it. It looked absolutely ridiculous with my 85L. No EOSfun!
eosfun wrote:
Just to be clear: I didn't mean to say Canon is gonna launch this now, not even that Canon is gonna go this direction first. I just don't know. It's however my firm belief that more compact designs is a development direction for the whole camera industry. On average the DSLR will get smaller at the same time improve in performance. ELVIS like camera designs (electronic viewfinder image stabilization) will push first in the direction. I find the 450D is a good illustration of the direction we are going, EOSfun in a compact body
