dpun wrote:
The Real Reason the Mark4 is being delayed:
I talked to someone who used to be the team photographer for one of the NFL teams. Word on the street is that the NFL is balking at the 1Dm4's video capabilities. The NFL wants to control all the video coming out of these games, they don't want togs with the new Mark4 to have HD video. They are searching bags for the 5Dm2 and not allowing that model on the field right now.
Question: does the NFL control all the video coming out of the games now?
If this is true, Canon has a decision to make....give up the NFL or give up HD video. (And I can image that other sports leagues are contemplating the same thing...MLB, NBA, NHL..etc...etc)
Afaik it's not only the NFL. This is a real problem for all events that sell video rights. They can't sell them as exclusive if the photographers are also doing video.
brainiac wrote:
In the menu under liveview video functions you will find an option called 'disable'. If you'll excuse me for explaining what that means, if you select it, then no button, no usage, and no feature of the results will have anything whatever to do with video. Using it means that the camera is identical to a camera in which a video feature does not exist, except for that single menu item. It's also completely free of charge, included in the basic camera. Now, selecting that option, once, the first time you switch on the camera may be too much like hard work for you, or you may be too lazy to browse the menus or even read the instructions, or you may simply take pleasure in denying others features that they might find useful, but if not, then what imaginable reason is there to bear a grudge against this feature? Liveview is a useful feature in certain circumstances, for instance as a very reliable and accurate focussing aid for macro and landscape. So we have liveview, and the camera contains memory. The cost in raw materials of feeding liveview through a processor and writing the results to memory is so minimal that I am willing to bet this feature had no influence whatsoever on the price point of the camera.
So really, those saying that inclusion of video is bad are just puritans trying to ban other people from dancing because only their kind of fun (bitching) is the one true way.
We've been through all this with liveview, a feature which many derided, and which turned out to be very useful, and also with joystick focus point selection on the Mk3's which again, many said mustn't be added, and not a whisper of complaint has been heard since it was added. Probably many of the naysayers have realised that it's a better system, and have quietly adopted it. Some people think all change is Satanic, and it's very important to ignore and ridicule them, otherwise change for the better never happens....Show more →
I agree with your line of thinking here brainiac, but it doesn't apply very well to a couple of features I find unnecessary for my photography, namely full frame and/or high megapixel count. Those are features that really do increase a camera's cost significantly, and are much more inconvenient to work around.
PetKal wrote:
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.
Amen, plus:
* High-ISO performance equal to, or better than, what Nikon currently offers in the D3 & D700.
* A larger hi-def LCD would be nice.
I own the 1d-markIII and the 5D mk II...I love them both but would be very happy if the 5D didnt have video...truth is I dont use it and to me it just creates another item that can cause problems with the camera....I am one who hopes that going forward we avoid adding on all kinds of extraneous things to our cameras...yes,i recognize that to a lot of people the video is not extraneous and i suppose that if and when it becomes easier to use i may think differently but for the moment when I want to shoot video i will take my video camera and when i want to shoot stills I will take my camera!...
again,I love my 1d markIIII..think it is a fantastic camera...to me the obvious improvements in a new model would be an improved LCD screen....even better noise control than it already has and that is already damn good!....I dont see much need for higher than 10 fps but i guess some will ask for it....since i already have a FF camera I am happy to see it remain 1.3.....in terms of MP ,whatever they do I would not want to see noise performance sacrificed in order to cram more MP into the camera like with the 50D...I always say I am happy with what i currently have until they introduce a new model lol....
I don't think the NFL is worried about some P&S camera that's recording video. Their main concern is HD quality video that can be re-broadcasted. I'm sure Canon is working on video for the Mark 4 that ...at the very least... matches that of the 5Dm2.
Couldn't they just seek compensation by suing if video was re-broadcasted? There will be more and more video cable cameras and they will never be able to keep video capable cameras out of the stadium.
I think Canon is going to replace the 1.3x sensor with a 15 to 21mp full frame sensor for the new 1D Mark 4 in light of the Nikon D3 as its main competitor. That's just my thoughts. Then you will probably see a new 30+MP 1Ds down the road.
