Comments on: Odds & Ends [CR1] http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/ You gotta know Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:20:23 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Zac http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-12039 Zac Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:48:21 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-12039 ok. the high res and high speed bodies will never be the same because no matter how good your processor(s) is you can always use it for smaller files more quickly or bigger files more quickly. simple as that. the bloated part about it is that one costs more than the other. realistically the higher resolution model should cost a little bit more since it is slightly more laborious to construct a sensor with more pixels, but since everything else is (in Nikon's case) or should be (in Canon's case) shared components the price difference shouldn't be 3500-3000 USD it should be like $500. also keep in mind these are pro oriented cameras. meaning your better off with a tool that does one thing really well than a tool that does an OK job of everything. ok. the high res and high speed bodies will never be the same because no matter how good your processor(s) is you can always use it for smaller files more quickly or bigger files more quickly. simple as that. the bloated part about it is that one costs more than the other. realistically the higher resolution model should cost a little bit more since it is slightly more laborious to construct a sensor with more pixels, but since everything else is (in Nikon’s case) or should be (in Canon’s case) shared components the price difference shouldn’t be 3500-3000 USD it should be like $500.

also keep in mind these are pro oriented cameras. meaning your better off with a tool that does one thing really well than a tool that does an OK job of everything.

]]> By: Zac http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-12038 Zac Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:44:04 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-12038 very. optical zoom 7x? needs to be varies by lens 10-20 MP? could that be any less specific? sensor anti-shake. what's funny is that the 2000D will probably look exactly like that and may very well be called the T1. but that isn't it. my guess is they're an intermediate supplier who is looking to snatch some cash in pre0orders for a camera that doesn't even exist yet. very.

optical zoom 7x? needs to be varies by lens

10-20 MP? could that be any less specific?

sensor anti-shake.

what’s funny is that the 2000D will probably look exactly like that and may very well be called the T1. but that isn’t it.

my guess is they’re an intermediate supplier who is looking to snatch some cash in pre0orders for a camera that doesn’t even exist yet.

]]> By: zaptor99 http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-12035 zaptor99 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:33:46 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-12035 fake? http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/238565684/Digital_Cameras_Canon_2000D.html?pn=1&pt=2&total=2&cids=&tracelog=detailphoto12907&newId=238565684 fake?
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/238565684/Digital_Cameras_Canon_2000D.html?pn=1&pt=2&total=2&cids=&tracelog=detailphoto12907&newId=238565684

]]> By: Joe J http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11963 Joe J Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:44:20 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11963 Yeah, I understand that when the 1D came out, 1.3 was all that technology allowed. I totally agree with you that it's now possible to make a high resolution body that covers all bases. When Nikon came out with the D3, I thought it was going to kick Canon's ass into gear and make a similar flagship camera with a bit more pixels, around 16-20mp. And if not, I was considering jumping ship and crossing over when the D3X came out. But what happened? Nikon decided to follow Canon's bloated footsteps and divide their market into two by limiting one huge factor on it- fps. When are they going to get it right and quit trying to leech even more money from consumers? Sorry to sound so jaded, but I just see no justifiable reason for making consumers have to buy multiple cameras for different types of shooting in the digital age, when film choice was the only real deciding factor for how you shot in the past (in the 35mm realm, at least). Yeah, I understand that when the 1D came out, 1.3 was all that technology allowed. I totally agree with you that it’s now possible to make a high resolution body that covers all bases.
When Nikon came out with the D3, I thought it was going to kick Canon’s ass into gear and make a similar flagship camera with a bit more pixels, around 16-20mp. And if not, I was considering jumping ship and crossing over when the D3X came out. But what happened? Nikon decided to follow Canon’s bloated footsteps and divide their market into two by limiting one huge factor on it- fps. When are they going to get it right and quit trying to leech even more money from consumers?
Sorry to sound so jaded, but I just see no justifiable reason for making consumers have to buy multiple cameras for different types of shooting in the digital age, when film choice was the only real deciding factor for how you shot in the past (in the 35mm realm, at least).

]]> By: Nathan Scott http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11960 Nathan Scott Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:43:02 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11960 That sounds like the right idea but 1D series bodies dont have a dial like the pro/consumer ones! B-> That sounds like the right idea but 1D series bodies dont have a dial like the pro/consumer ones!

B->

]]> By: David http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11934 David Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:04:28 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11934 It makes sense to trick all the 1.3 crop fanbois into not crying about having a FF camera. Also, nothing wrong with an in-camera crop feature so you have WYSIWYG shooting through the lens. It makes sense to trick all the 1.3 crop fanbois into not crying about having a FF camera. Also, nothing wrong with an in-camera crop feature so you have WYSIWYG shooting through the lens.

]]> By: David http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11933 David Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:01:39 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11933 oH yeah, forgot about that Zac! oH yeah, forgot about that Zac!

]]> By: Zac http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11911 Zac Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:05:44 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11911 saves time in post and file size if you know you're going to be cropping to roughly that size. personally I doubt I would ever use it, but there are those who would. saves time in post and file size if you know you’re going to be cropping to roughly that size. personally I doubt I would ever use it, but there are those who would.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11909 Anonymous Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:02:30 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11909 I don`t understand how Nikon`s dynamic crop feature makes any sense at all, never mind being the best of both worlds. You don`t gain any pixel density, so you don`t gain any reach. What`s the point of shooting 5MP images with a tiny VF on a big $$$ camera? I`ve used these Nikons, but would never even consider using the IMO idiotic crop mode. A 1.3x camera with the same pixel count as FF at least actually has more pixel density, so it does "reach" further, though I`m not sure that going 1.3 is the right thing either. I just don`t understand why ppl keep bringing up dynamic crop mode as being useful in any way. I don`t understand how Nikon`s dynamic crop feature makes any sense at all, never mind being the best of both worlds. You don`t gain any pixel density, so you don`t gain any reach. What`s the point of shooting 5MP images with a tiny VF on a big $$$ camera? I`ve used these Nikons, but would never even consider using the IMO idiotic crop mode. A 1.3x camera with the same pixel count as FF at least actually has more pixel density, so it does “reach” further, though I`m not sure that going 1.3 is the right thing either. I just don`t understand why ppl keep bringing up dynamic crop mode as being useful in any way.

]]> By: Zac http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/odds-ends-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-11866 Zac Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:03:26 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=2124#comment-11866 actually due to the back focus distance and the size of the primary reflex mirror it is impossible to use a EF-S lens on a larger than APS-C DSLR without destroying the main mirror on the first shot. I would still be in favor of 1.6x dynamic crop, gives you the length on telephoto lenses, if you want to go wide (the only time when EF-S glass is really a must on 1.6x bodies) you just set the crop factor wider and you're done. actually due to the back focus distance and the size of the primary reflex mirror it is impossible to use a EF-S lens on a larger than APS-C DSLR without destroying the main mirror on the first shot. I would still be in favor of 1.6x dynamic crop, gives you the length on telephoto lenses, if you want to go wide (the only time when EF-S glass is really a must on 1.6x bodies) you just set the crop factor wider and you’re done.

]]>