Comments on: 1D Mark IV [CR2]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:14:37 +0000

You are all wrong on this. Being able to shoot HD quality video through Canon lenses is amazing. Normal video cameras have hardly any depth of field and a fixed lens. Being able to use prime lenses with fast apertures for less than$10,000 – $20,000 is a big deal and a big improvement. It sounds like you just do not know how to use it or take adavantage of it, but not having this keeps it from being a true pro camera, as a true pro would know why it is beneficial.

By: Zac

Zac — Sun, 24 May 2009 07:30:24 +0000

Bill.

The technology is developed. R&D is done, and the 5D mk II will see that they recoup that. The movie mode is just a firmware thing, it requires nothing more mechanically than what is already inside any live-view equipped camera. So it costs literally NOTHING for Canon to include it.

They risk people being annoyed that a 1-series lacks a feature (one that’s even useful to some (Photojournalists chiefly, within the 1D target market)) that a lower end model has.

It cost’s you nothing.

You don’t get a choice it will be there. (and it will, Canon will not risk being out-speced by other manufacturers, chiefly Nikon, especially regarding an already developed technology)

Just leave it turned off in the menu.

By: Christian

Christian — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:16:56 +0000

If you want fully equiped car because you like leather seats and sunroof, you will have to pay for the bigger wheels even you dont care about them. It’s included in the package.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 23 May 2009 10:10:56 +0000

i don’t want to pay extra for it. do yo all understand this?

By: Ezio Armando

Ezio Armando — Sat, 23 May 2009 09:24:45 +0000

Agree!

By: ÃÂÃÂ¾ÃÂ²ÃÂ° ÃÂ¢ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ²ÃÂ¸ÃÂ·ÃÂ¸Ã‘Â

ÃÂÃÂ¾ÃÂ²ÃÂ° ÃÂ¢ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ²ÃÂ¸ÃÂ·ÃÂ¸Ã‘Â — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:52:30 +0000

take it easy, please

By: jouster

jouster — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:02:48 +0000

Yes to both the first and second question. But I don’t understand the third question. Do I want my DSLR to become one? No, of course not. Who has ever suggested it should? Why would it?

Do I want to have video as an option? Yes. Why not? It might be useful in some circumstances. And if it isn’t, well… you don’t have to use it.

By: me

me — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:31:15 +0000

for your uses yes, perhaps it’s not useful. for me it’s the question if either i’ll buy the camera or if i buy a 5dmk2.
i do a lot of wedding photography and more and more people are beginning to ask if i do video too. i cannot carry an slr plus equipment AND a camcorder. the 5dmk2 has proven to me that it’s video abilities are quite enough for my needs. i only want a pro body and a professional af in that thing. so the 1dmk4 will be the right thing for me IF it has video.
all the people who absolutely don’t want it: t-u-r-n-i-t-o-f-f….. is that so hard for you?

By: Desinderlase

Desinderlase — Fri, 22 May 2009 08:59:07 +0000

Hey guys, do you know how much proffesional video camera costs? And how big is?

Do you really want your DLSR to become that?

By: Nigel

Nigel — Fri, 22 May 2009 08:59:02 +0000

Some people might argue that if the resultion is good enough you can shoot the video alone and grab stills from that. Personally, I can’t get over the lack of control and cruddy audio. But there’s no accounting for taste and those who just want as much functionality as can be thrown in.