>Canon tries to give the market what it says it wants, with dollars.
I am sure the market wanted a more advanced or more pro like AF for the 5DII. There are limits to what the marketing department will do to satisfy their customers.
sevan pulurian wrote:
was very iffy on answering anything about the mkIV, he just gave a a sneaky smile and we moved on to other conversation.
Believe me, he knows nothing. You'll hear only six month old "news" from reps, that's a fact.
This and other forums on the net will have advanced information, as you gain experience in post watching, you'll pick up the posts with the advanced news.
We've not been wrong yet and we know before the reps do.
sevan pulurian wrote:
Even the rep I talked to about a month ago was very iffy on answering anything about the mkIV, he just gave a a sneaky smile and we moved on to other conversation.
"sneaky smile" translation:
If I, as a "rep", say "I don't know anything", ...I fear that it will make me appear less significant.
On the other hand, a smirking "Oh the things I could tell you (but then I'd have to kill you!" ;-) expression allows me to appear to be among the select group who are in-the-know, ...much better for my ego.
lpazxxsh wrote:
But with all the problems with the MK3 i've been reading I've decided to hold off and wait for the MK4 or what ever they name it. I believe all the bugs will be fixed and it will have a 16MP sensor.
And why would you assume that the Mk4 would not have any problems?
ChrisDar wrote:
Maybe that's why the internet is flooded with 5D2 video's. I've seen very few 5D2 video's and most of those are pretty poor (unless produced by a full production company to promote the video feature).
That was because it had major AF problems and never lived up to the hype Canon put out in their white paper. It had nothing to do with video.
Again, just my opinion.
I believe that was Brainiac's point. It had nothing to do with video! Video is not the root-of-all-evil, it is just another "feature" , which, like all other features, will be useful for some and unused by others. As any other feature, it will augment the camera's performance potential if it works,...and will be a source of complaint/frustration if it does not.
Whenever I read "I don't see why anyone would want"(some feature), I think I am looking at a case of lack of imagination. I.e., "If I (the center of the universe?) don 't want it,...how could anyone?"
Here is a link to some people who are interested in this particular feature:
Another feature which arouses the same kind of "who needs it?" comment from those who obviously have no use for it is MLU.
I won't bore those who already know, by trying to present for the thousandth time the many arguments FOR MLU in a "pro" camera.
The internet is full of such discussion already.
A little broader appreciation of the varied needs of different photographers wouldn't hurt.
Mr. Dar's avatar suggests that he may have some interest in wildlife photography.
I will guarantee anyone that no still image will convey the friskiness and unrestrained "life" demonstrated by the squirrels who chase each other, bouncing-off trees, turning summersaults(literally), etc.,. outside my window. When they begin such behavior, if I was using a camera with video capability, I would certainly switch it on to record the smile-provoking activity.
I have also taken still photos of some antler jousting between buck deer, a nutria turf(surf?) war fight in the water, etc., and the results are very poor substitutes for the lively events. Again, I would have been glad to augment the stills with some video recording.
The next-best "feature" with which to attempt to capture the high points of such action with a DSLR is a high frame-rate, ...which, coincidentally, also has plenty of "who needs it?" detractors.
To each his own, ...and from the rest of us, hopefully some understanding and tolerance.
My personal hope is for an actually "improved" 1DIV, WITH an also improved(over the 5DII) video option.
P.S.: I have no idea why this post failed to "wrap",...at least on my screen when I checked after posting. (?)
However, if you have to come in under a certain price point, quality on one component must be lowered in order to include video because the inclusion of video DOES cost money to Canon. If Canon would just concentrate on image quality versus a do-it-all camera, the image quality would go up because the quality of the components wouldn't suffer. Added features cost extra money. If the final product doesn't cost extra money, than those added features are cheaply made or bring the quality of other components down.
L. H. Smith wrote:
Whenever I read "I don't see why anyone would want"(some feature), I think I am looking at a case of lack of imagination. I.e., "If I (the center of the universe?) don 't want it,...how could anyone?"
Video is NOT a feature of a still camera, video is a feature of a video camera. Video on a still camera is a gimmick and a very poor one to boot. My comments were plainly stated as just my opinion. Your comments were rude and immature.
ChrisDar wrote:
Video is NOT a feature of a still camera, video is a feature of a video camera. Video on a still camera is a gimmick and a very poor one to boot. My comments were plainly stated as just my opinion. Your comments were rude and immature.
So if Canon was to release an ideal body ('ideal' as in to your spec.) but had a video feature implemented you wouldn't buy it
Gary Petersen wrote:
If they had a model sans video for a lower amount I would. If I want to shoot video I'll buy a video camera.
Seriously? How much additional cost do you think Canon charges you for the video feature If they offered a camera like that sans additional 'fluff' features they dump into bodies these days I'd want that too, but the simple fact is I'd only be saving a few peanuts in the end (that is if Canon alters the price to begin with)--that and I don't need to use them.
M Vers wrote
So if Canon was to release an ideal body ('ideal' as in to your spec.) but had a video feature implemented you wouldn't buy it
Probably not if it was in a Pro body.
IMHO what I think Canon should do is concentrate on their individual camera lines, Entry, Prosumer and Pro and keep them separate of certain features. If they want to have video in one of their lines they can put it in one camera and continue to develop it over a period of versions. Then if I want video I can buy that line and know that Canon will stick to it and keep developing that camera until they get the two formats working properly together. If people want video the line will be successful and Canon will sell a lot of cameras. If not it will fade away but not at the expense of all the rest of us that didn't want it to begin with.
All I really want in a new professional grade action camera is:
* An AF system which represents a positive evolutionary step from 1DMkIIN.
I'd like to see better frame coverage with AF points, heightened AF point sensitivity and precision, custom AF settings that really change performance in a predictable and meaningful way, AF prediction algorithms that are either made to work or need to be dropped to save computing cycles, more stable and better attenuated system response to disturbances and rapidly changing target projection.
* Auto white balance which would make me leave my gray card at home.
ChrisDar wrote:
Probably not if it was in a Pro body.
Excuse me if this comes off harsh, which is not my intent, but that's pure stubbornness--regardless of your stance on product segregation. If Canon releases the 1DIV (or what have you) with a video feature and it happens to be the best camera they make (I'm talking large jump) or if they plan to release all future 1-series bodies with video capability you will simply ignore them based on one feature you are not forced to use? I guess I'm baffled by your thinking--but to each his own
Keeping video on the consumer and prosumer cameras would bring the 1 series owners in for their fun cameras. This makes more sense than trying to lure consumers to the 1 series. Keep the 'toys' on the lower end cameras and professionals who shoot exclusively with the 1 series will be tempted by the fun fluff stuff and buy one for the heck of it.
In an effort to completely puzzle Rob Goldbraith, Canon is planning to release the 1D Mark IV with only one focus mode: Manual.
Additionally, all bodies will come with a stack of "Get out of a botched shot free" cards to hand out to other photographers in the event that a single shot out of a 14 fps sequence is not crisp and tack sharp.
I personally think the video mode will be included and it will have the ability to control exposure manually vs. the 5D2 which requires kludgy workarounds. Then again, perhaps the 1080P fully operational exposure version will be on the 1DsMK4 since it'll be full frame. I kinda doubt (assuming they keep the 1.3 crop) will be where the video mode interest will be.
I personally love the fact that I can shoot with highend interchangeable fast glass at 1080P and very nice 38.6mbps h.264 CODEC for about $2500. Barely anything compares to that for 10X the current prices. BUT...It's a film makers tool...NOT a camcorder. One must shoot differently with it and not expect it to be something it isn't.
