I'm editing 6700 pictures this month. 12 megapixels is quite enough. Most fellow pros I talked to were unimpressed by the 21 megapixel 5D2. Now, commercially 21 megapixels could always grow higher IMO. Canon DOES need different cameras. Different strokes for different folks.
Rob Whiting wrote:
(except the person above me that wants '12 native megapixels over sRAW.")
tonyhart wrote:
You guys need to go check out some where like Mac Rumors to see just how real something faked can get. This is nothing. The lengths I've seen fakers go to in the Mac world, this barely registers. Things like the Apple iHome and the Apple iWalk have been far more elaborate than an image of a tiny badge that could have been relatively easily doctored by a competent PShopper.
I might be all wrong and for those that want it, I hope it's real, but this tiny badge is not proof of anything in my eyes!
hardly a tiny badge, the entire body frame is nothing like anything in existence
that would mean MAJOR MAJOR work to produce this, if not real
roanjohnnyc wrote:
For those people who think Canon won't introduce a better-AF and a full-frame sensor on the 7D because it will steal sales from the 5DMKII / 1D series
Actually all along it's been Canon that has thought that, and dumbed down their non 1-series accordingly.
cineski wrote:
I'm editing 6700 pictures this month. 12 megapixels is quite enough. Most fellow pros I talked to were unimpressed by the 21 megapixel 5D2. Now, commercially 21 megapixels could always grow higher IMO. Canon DOES need different cameras. Different strokes for different folks.
Just curious what you have against sRAW? I've owned many Canon DSLR's. I'll admit, I'm not a "fellow" pro, but I can pixel peep with the best of 'em. I find the 5DmkII's sRAW1's just as good, if not better, than the 1DmkIII's full RAW files.
RobertLynn wrote:
Yeah some of the best high ISO capabilities and the ability to crop more out of an image aren't of interest to a wedding shooting.
Give me a break.
I'll give you the high ISO - which the 5d and D700 are quite capable of....
but ability to crop more??!!! SERIOUSLY??!!! B&G won't fly away when you come close to them.....and you are not confined to the far end of the church when shooting an event.....
Rob, I don't really have anything against sRAW other than the fact it stems from 21 megapixels which I'm not overly fond of (in this case, the 5D2). I've tested the 5D2 and didn't like the solidity of the files. They were IMO rather frail. Any pushing and the images would fall apart. In theory, I relate this to cramming too many megapixels into the sensor (although Nikon seems to do fine with high MP's). I would rather have a sensor that has not only lower megapixels, but higher quality megapixels. This seems to be Canon's only hope at matching the stellar image quality of the Nikon D3x (since that camera can handle high MP's with ease). I also have no experience with the 1D3, but by all accounts the image quality has some of the best IQ of any Canon camera. Not so much with the 5D2. My experience, and that of several FM members point out some serious flaws of the 5D2. Not so much out of camera quality, but the depth of those images. And to touch once more on 21 megapixels, I do 2 different types of shooting. Weddings and commercial. For weddings, 6 megapixels is really all you need. 12 is perfect as it allows you to crop a bit more. Wedding photography is not like commercial photography where you're dealing with 1-10 images. You're dealing with thousands. From my point of view, I want to move those images quickly through the production process.
fraga wrote:
Don't mind me asking, but you know this to be a fact?
If so, I wonder why the digic III and not IV...
make no sense at all
now way they go back to producing more digic III chips and surely one digic IV costs at least a little less to implement than a dual-digic system
unless they just took THE exact innards of the 1ds and stuck it into a gripless body and added some video code and a video encoder chip, but you don't just add a video chip without needing to redo the mainboard in which case again why digic III
recall they use digics in even cheapo P&S and digic IV does not cost that much really
and again, there was a NON-EF lens attached in teh pics, either EF-S (or something new)
RobertLynn wrote:
Why do you guys torture yourselves with these speculations, that are completely out off of the wall?
Because it not torture... It's self entertainment.
7D, 3D 9D... I'll believe any of this crap when I see it.
That implies we might think you wouldn't believe this crap when you see it?
Do you really think that little of us?
Just because you want this, doesn't mean Canon will give this.
Apparently you must.
Edward Castro wrote:
"There are whispers that the Best Buy inventory system is listing the body at $2700 and the kit with an EF 28-135 lens at $2900, but we can't verify those at the moment."
What makes absolutely no sense to me is why use the ancient EF 28-135 with its (I think?) first gen IS as the kit lens?
And there are a lot more EF lenses that are higher on my update list than that one.
I don't think Canon can afford to continue forever with a policy of not giving it's customers what they are asking for while Nikon gives theirs cheap(ish), fast FF and pro AF in crop bodies.
Hopefully the new cam will be a lower resolution fast FF cam with pro AF, this could happen if they are ready to merge the 1D and 1Ds lines but I'm not sure where it would fit in alongside a 1DIV. If they could manage 25-30MP at 8+fps and provide a faster crop mode in the next 1D/Ds that would satisfy most people IMO. If this is not the plan then I think the 7D may be aimed to compete with the D300(s) and be 1.6 crop.
It has a dial like a 5 series (No auto modes and a separate B mode) and a top LCD (The XXXD series don't have a top LCD). The on/off button being under the mode wheel is definitely different (For a camera of this type). The M-fn button is also new. Looks interesting.
It's funny how people on the Canon forum are screaming for "fewer megapixels... like 12MP to 15MP max" while on the Nikon forum they are upset that their D3 and D700 are "only 12MP" and have been wanting a D3x and D700x for a long time (finally got the former).
Also, since there is already a "7D" DSLR out there (Minolta), I don't think Canon is going to use the same model name.
aaronlam wrote:
Not trying to be argumentative or rude but makes sense to who? I agree with you... I'd love a FF under 2K. But that would most likely really sink their 5DII sales. Adding a 1D focus would completely kill the 5DII sales. Meaning all the money they spent on developing that camera is pretty much lost.
I would take almost any camera with pro AF and a smaller footprint than the 1D's. Hence why I have been scouting D700's for the last couple weeks. Just waiting to see what is announced before pulling the trigger.
Look, when the 5D II came out it was said that would destroy the 1Ds III, why spend another $4.5K. When the D700 came out they said it would destroy the D3. Every time a camera is proposed a lot of people say they won't do it because it'll kill sales of another camera and every time they do do it, the sky doesn't fall in.
Now I never asked for 1D AF in the 5D II or 7D, but even if they did, most pros would still own a 1Ds III for other reasons, just like many still buy the D3 although the D700 has 95% of the features.
I find it hard to believe you see nothing wrong with Nikon's approach, but say for Canon it's untenable
Anyway I don't squat about a business and you're maybe entirely right, but I see a $1300 gap between 50D and 5D II that should be filled.
I find the 5DmkII's sRAW1's just as good, if not better, than the 1DmkIII's full RAW files.