Let's just hope the minimum focus distance has been improved. The old camera has such a far focus distance that it is often difficult to shoot someone sitting across you at a table. That was the main gripe of the first version.
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.
Because you read my comment and didn't factor the second part of my question about the sync speed. You automatically assumed that all I care about were the looks, quite the contrary if it has an electronic shutter, I'd probably buy this solely for the high true sync speed. It still looks like a steaming pile of $&@! but it will be a high true sync speed, ambient light overpowering brick that I'd buy.
From the pics, it is 12.5mm at its widest. If this were 24mm, then we are looking at a crop factor of 1.92.
Working backwards, you will get the following sensor dimensions:
Diag: 22.5 mm
WxH: 18mm x 13.5mm
This means this sensor is halfway between the old 1.5" and the m43 sensor. i.e. It has about 8% smaller surface area than 1.5" and about 8% bigger area than the m43.
This matches the mpx count as well. The G1X sensor was 14.3mpx. The mark II is about 8% less at about 13.2mpx.
I think it's the same 18.7mm x 14mm sensor, just used as 18.7mm x 12.5mm in 3:2 mode and as a little narrower in 4:3 mode. So, you're always cropping a few sensor pixels.
Magic Lantern is working on a true RAW and 14 bit video recording along with 4:2:2 to the card, something we'll never see from Canon.And they've already said it will never be something that will work for video people...best they've gotten so far is 720 at 24fps for 2s...the reality is you'll never get long recording times because the camera has a buffer to deal with. 1080p wont happen.
Really, it's an upgrade for time lapsers and may have some cool other uses.If this is the case, the soft output of the 5DmkIII compared to other cameras, as documented on many of his tests, may in fact be impossible to fix with a firmware update, at least one from canon.That said, what they did find interesting was that the resolution of the DNGs they got from their RAW mode were way higher resolution than just the traditional h.264 video stream from Canon. Not sure if that means that Canon intentionally is crippling it, or if the h.264 encoding loses a lot of resolution, but, that could be useful for some purposes.
Of course, if you want Raw video at 2k, you'd just spend the same amount on a BMCC instead and get a much nicer workflow.
I wonder if they can feed that 'raw' DNG stuff into the h.264 compressor and get better quality out? Or if they can push it out frame by frame over the HDMI and delete each frame from the buffer afterwards so nothing would ever overflow and you could at least get an 8bit or maybe 10bit crisper image out over HDMI? It seems like it should be possible but it's hard to know the internal Canon subsystem, it might not be, or even if it is, it quite likely might require all sorts of knowledge far beyond what they have been able to hack out so far and might only be reasonably doable by Canon people with full docs and access?
apple designs the iphone, foxconn makes it. Nikon designed the sensor, sony makes it.
To be correct, Nikon designed some supporting circuitry around the sensor, not the sensor itself...
QuoteDual DIGIC 5+ image processors capable of delivering approximately 17 times more processing speed than DIGIC 4
Having the same MP as the 7D, shouldn't this camera have say... 17 times faster burst rate?
Now... before anybody shoot me, let me make it clear that I'm not asking for a 136 fps. I personally think 14fps is just right. I just like to know how the 17 times faster processor being utilized in this camera.