I think that the 1D4 will be full frame, allowing better low light performance and higher shutter speeds for sports. If pro shooters need a crop camera they now have it with the 7D. The 1.3 crop was only ever introduced as a measure to deal with sensor cost and data throughput rates - now that those issues no longer are a problem there is no reason to maintain a 1.3 crop. After all, canon would prefer everyone to buy longer lenses anyway.
But here's one anyway - this reminds me of the wacko young woman at the Frank town hall meeting and Frank's wise but direct statement to her: "I might as well have a discussion with my dining room table."
Have fun with this...
I usually don't enjoy the health care screamers or people that have zero facts, zero ideas, zero understanding, and just scream about "something" or say something negative whenever given the chance.
Frank's a local and boy did he have it right. It's not worth the time trying to talk to someone that lacks the basic intellect to understand. I think the shoe fits there Cinderella... Enjoy your shoe, er uh, slipper, while out there doing your health care screaming.
Wrong. All else being equal, 1.3X is much cheaper to manufacture. I remember Chuck Westfall stating that once.
Sorry, but I think you're overstating things. Is it cheaper? Yes. Is it much cheaper? Doubtful, unless you want to define how much cheaper and why..
They're just chips, not ocean liners or one of a kind sculptures; they're mass produced, pieces of silicon run through a fab and both Sony and Canon can run dual pass masks at will. The production costs, independent of wafer/production yield, are in developing the mask, maintaining the line, and mating the chip to the package. Material costs are most likely the same as they grow the same silicon for both with differences only in the area consumed.
So, how many of those processes are different from a FF process and what is it specifically that increases the cost so significantly? Hint. it's a trick question.
I remember that Chuck said that 1.3X can be printed in one "run" (don't remember the actual term he used) and FF needs 3 "runs". Also, the number off damaged chips is much higher as the format gets larger and that the relationship is far from being linear.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I remember that Chuck said that 1.3X can be printed in one "run" (don't remember the actual term he used) and FF needs 3 "runs". Also, the number off damaged chips is much higher as the format gets larger and that the relationship is far from being linear.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
The term he used was "pass". A FF sensor requires two, and the second mask must be aligned to the first which is more difficult, but has been done for at least 8 years now. APS_H only requires a single pass
dcmiller wrote:
If Canon comes out with the 3D I think people are going to be disappointed with the price.
I don't know if people will be disappointed, but I am sure they will complain and pontificate about how their great knowledge proves that it should 1/2 of what it is and Canon is ripping them off. This will be followed by statements about how Canon does not care about them and they will never use another Canon, or if it was not for their investment in L glass they would change to Nikon, or .....
jerrykur wrote:
I don't know if people will be disappointed, but I am sure they will complain and pontificate about how their great knowledge proves that it should 1/2 of what it is and Canon is ripping them off. This will be followed by statements about how Canon does not care about them and they will never use another Canon, or if it was not for their investment in L glass they would change to Nikon, or .....
I think people get upset from a form of cognitive dissonance.
In this case, they buy things with the willingness to suspend disbelief, hoping the company producing the goods is treating them fairly, Only after the sale do they find out they've been misled, or worse, taken. They thought they acted, or were acting, rationally, yet what they got was lot of marketing crap and far less substance than they hoped (1D3 perhaps? I bought 2, but don't tell anyone).
Regarding Canon, it's hard to believe a company that says "no one complained about the 5d's AF so we left it alone" is acting in the best interests of customers. It would appear more so that they're acting as a company that will say anything to sell products (not unusual at all BTW). Only a fool would believe the 5d2 was little more than a self serving stop gap with more MP. I'm certainly not saying it isn't a competent camera (in some situations anyway) but is its price commensurate with reality? For me, and many others, no. I've purchased 4 5ds in the past few years, all new, and knew all along they were overpriced.
I know value and utility are subjective. While it's doubly hard to convince any intelligent customer today (post 7d and Sony A850) that the 5d2, for example, is a "good buy", the same will happen for each new release. Here we are, still in a down economy, and Canon releases a 7d, outclassing the 5d2 in every way possible except the larger sensor, and it's $1,000 less....
Whining? Hardly. I'd much rather be surrounded by intelligent and informed people/customers than dolts buying whatever is put before them without questioning.
Don't worry, I suffer no delusions that most people here will become rational and informed customers any time soon, especially before their next purchase .
jamesf99 wrote:
I usually don't enjoy the health care screamers or people that have zero facts, zero ideas, zero understanding, and just scream about "something" or say something negative whenever given the chance.
Frank's a local and boy did he have it right. It's not worth the time trying to talk to someone that lacks the basic intellect to understand. I think the shoe fits there Cinderella... Enjoy your shoe, er uh, slipper, while out there doing your health care screaming.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Stiil cracking me up! Thanks for the yucks! ;-)
Any time. Don't let your voice get hoarse now. Still lot's of shouting to do, pitchforks to hoist, torches to be lit, and the unintelligent rabble needs to march..
Until we meet again (that would be me in the castle, you with a pitch fork), I bid you adieu...
skibum5 wrote:
nah because when the D700x has better DR and only 1/3 stop worse high ISO and gives 24MP at 7fps the 3D at 15MP and no reach will look silly
Sep 03, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jamesf99 wrote:
I think people get upset from a form of cognitive dissonance.
In this case, they buy things with the willingness to suspend disbelief, hoping the company producing the goods is treating them fairly, Only after the sale do they find out they've been misled, or worse, taken. They thought they acted, or were acting, rationally, yet what they got was lot of marketing crap and far less substance than they hoped (1D3 perhaps? I bought 2, but don't tell anyone).
Actually cognitive dissonance theory would predict that in this situation people would come to love their cameras and not become disappointed with them. The theory suggests we come to overvalue whatever we buy (or choose) and we do so more when the thing we bought wasn't worth what we paid for it. This may seem far fetched, but it actually helps explain why almost everyone (myself included) rates their gear so highly and generally is very attached to it.
drobertfranz wrote:
I would say the new 19 point AF sensor in the 7D is the test bed for the prosumer line of cameras, 5DII upgrade and whatever else is in the works. I would guess the new AFsensor for the 1d series will be at least 45 AF points with many of the same features shown in the new 7D AF sensor...
