jamesf99
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: EOS 5D Mark III ?! | |
brainiac wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
brainiac wrote:
Canon is like Microsoft. It makes its profit by getting you hooked, and then not giving you what you want. If you had what you wanted you would stop upgrading.
I\'ve made this point 1,000x, much to the displeasure of many here that can\'t seem to wrap their mind around Canon\'s business MO. high tech products are often like this; they\'re out of date before they even hit the production line.
..... It knows that a happy customer is an unpaying customer, and that is why it makes sure that every camera is half-broken as a universal photography tool.
I think it\'s one reason why I dislike the 5d2 so much. it would have been so easy to make it into a decent camera, but Canon always takes the low road and insures their products are handicapped.
Look no further than the 3.9 FPS. Seriously, 3.9 It\'s as if making it shoot at a full 4 FPS would not have been insulting enough so they dropped it to 3.9 just to make sure that at least 80% of the users would be able to recognize what was done. The VF at 98% insures it doesn\'t reach proper VF size of 100%; they want to insure you can\'t accurately frame your image without guessing how that other 2% will look in the final image.
Then even cut the LCD corner on the 1Ds mark III. While Sony and Nikon were putting the higher res screen in their bodies, Canon released their top-of-the-line bodies with the older, and undoubtedly cheaper, outdated model.
There will be no 5d3 for quite a while IMO. They have to release the 1Ds4 first, and they may have to result to some creative methods to find suitable deficiencies/handicaps for it. Once they\'ve handicapped the 1 series, it all rolls down hill. 
The 3.9 fps is because that\'s the max rate they could get from one digic blah. 98% viewfinder is fairly standard in cameras of this class, e.g. D700. The 1Ds3 came out before the D3 and D700, and was probably planned before them too, since it is typically a derivative of the 1D line. Canon\'s 1D3 came out six months before the D3. I don\'t think any of these limitations are that important, and I don\'t think they are necessarily a result of deliberate decisions to weaken the product. The 5D2\'s AF system looks much more like a deliberate decision to limit the camera with a sub-par feature and protect the higher-priced cameras, since much cheaper cameras already had better AF systems.
Actually, the 1Ds3 was released in Aug, 2007. The larger LCD was not only available, but it was provided on Nikon\'s D3 as well as the mid-level D300, both coincidentally released in August, 2007 (3 days later to be exact). Since Canon is one of Sony\'s largest customers for LCD screens and sensors, it seems more than reasonable that the LCD was made available to them, yet they declined. Nikon, on the other hand, accepted the offer and included it in both their new cameras. I had a discussion with a Canon employee about this; he tried to convince me that the lower res one was \"just as good\"... Hmmm. Me thinks not. Especially since I had both cameras side by side.
The 5d2\'s 3.9 FPS is just a firmware limitation and not because that was Digic\'s processing limit. I will acknowledge that there may be other limitations. A possible candidate is the support IC\'s, such as one controlling the poor AF; it may not have been able to keep up with even 4 FPS, which is demonstrably possible as it often fails at 3FPS on the 5d.
Now the 98% VF is just a \'close, but no cigar\" move, as more than adequately demonstrated by the 7d. I will concede that the 7d\'s 100% VF is smaller than the one required for a FF sensor, and also takes less skill to align it at the factory. They can simply make it a little larger than it needs to be, use low tolerance installation specs, and voila! it still works....
|
