« on: February 17, 2015, 01:21:24 PM »
I saw this at EOS HD and seemed funny enough for here. sorry if repost but I think this should be their next breakthrough
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
B. The 5Ds has more editing latitude
How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?
This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography!
Learn you market.
I don't know. How many are there? Read the Luminous Landscape forum and they are using cameras & lenses that cost that much and much more, for landscape, product, commercial, and whatever. Some landscape photographers are willing to pay a lot for resolution. Camera makers know their market better than internet commenters do.
Exactly my point. Some landscape photographers are able to pay that much, but every commercial photographer is willing to do so.
But, because all these high-end marketing executives are wanna be photographers who got absolutely no idea what market wants or needs, it's left up to the engineering department to their job as well.
This camera is a great proposal, and if you look at it's features it's clearly meant to battle MF offerings. It doesn't need gps and wifi to do so, because those cameras don't have those features, either. It is a great landscape camera, but mentioning wedding photography and stupid things like that? Come on, it's the worst possible camera for the job. Low shutter count, large files, small frames per second count... 1DX is a camera for that.
This is a studio camera, just like MF cameras, it absolutely works as a landscape camera, but it's buyers are likely commercial photographers, and landscapes are just one part of their job. No decent wedding photographer is going to buy this, unless it's a shoot for the cover of a magazine.
The 1DX is a fantastic camera, but I much prefer the 5D3 and 6D for weddings to anything as large & heavy as the 1DX. The 5DS would be a *great* wedding camera too. "Worst possible for the job"? I don't know how anyone can say that. The estimated shutter count is fine for a number of years, and shutters are not that expensive to replace. Large files of the 5DS are absolutely no problem because the raw file size is variable, so you have large when you want large and medium and small when you don't want large. Frames per second is perfectly adequate for weddings. A wedding is not the Olympics or professional sports. It's no surprise that previous 5D series cameras have been extremely popular for weddings (with the same or similar shutter count and frame rate). And the 5DS now brings the possibility of shooting very high res square photos, similar to some wedding cameras of the film era.
I was reading Lloyd Chambers and he says that DR is identical to 5DmkIII?
I tried to find his reference but it seems he hasn't tested it so the jury still out.
No, he is doing exactly what everybody else is doing, repeating the comments from Canon techs that say exactly that, the 5DS DR is the same/equivalent to the 5D MkIII. There is no mystery in that and he knows nothing that is not public knowledge.
The DR of the 5DR/S IS THE SAME as the 5D MkIII, there is no discussion on that, the only point of interest is the Canon comment that there is improved shadow and highlight latitude. Some say those two comments contradict each other, I think the first is worded ambiguously enough that both might well be true.
Some people are excited, some are denouncing this. One thing is for certain: this is a huge buzz that will not just affect Canon shooters but shake up the market for other brands as well. Studio/landscape shooters will be flocking to this 50MP body if all goes well, and suddenly Nikon and Sony will have to have something like this.
"if all goes well".
If by that you mean "Canon delivers a FF sensor with competitive IQ." (better DR, no pattern noise)
Consider that Sony is also expected to deliver a FF sensor in the 40-50MP range early in 2015.
If I had to choose between (say) a 46MP Sony Exmor based camera that was just as good as the Nikon D810/610 or a 50MP Canon sensor based camera that had the same IQ as the 7D2, I'd still go for the non-Canon camera because simply having more MP doesn't give me a better quality picture.
And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:
"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"
... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.
Having bought a D800 and some pro level Nikon Glass, my big issues were post processing high ISO images. It was taking a minute for Lightroom to run the NR on a image, and that was a modern i7 pc at the time.
I've upgraded computers twice since, and those old D800 images process reasonably fast now. However, I still am uncertain about having to process 2500 images.
The big Use I get out of high MP images is the ability to crop, but that's only if they are pixel sharp, and the Nikon images were very noisy when severely cropped, while I can crop my 5D MK III without that concern.
Still, if there is a high ISO improvement, and dual pixel technology, I'll be very interested, and will likely pre-order, if only just to get a place in line.
If the 1D X drops a bunch in price, I'll jump and buy a used one.