We're running a way a bit here. Couldn't the DSLR picture just be of the 1D X with a purple 'C' badge on it, to show that you can use the new cinema EF lenses on a regular EOS stills camera?
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.
I disagree with your statement regarding FF users and the cost of an FF setup. FF users are not much more likely to be rich than your average prosumer APS user these days: here in Canada, a 5D2 is $1999 and a 7D is $1449, which is not a huge difference. Also, used 5Dc's and 1Ds(II)'s can easily be had for less than $1500.
Secondly, a 5D2 with a 35/2 provides better performance at a cheaper price than a 7D with 24L (my set up); similarly, said 5D with 50/1.4 is much cheaper and better than said 7D with 35L. You can pretty much go on forever with similar comparisons. A 5D2 with 24/2.8 isn't even comparable to APS, as an EF-S 15/1.8 doesn't exist and if it did, the price would be frightening.
If you look at it this way, you can see that your statement about a "decent" FF kit being expensive is quite wrong. One (myself included) might even say the opposite is true. I suppose that makes me look dumb, as I have a 7D/24L, but in my defense, they were purchased years apart, I need the 7D's features and my mkI 24L was way less than the new one is.
If you don't need high PD or the AF/FPS of a 7D, how exactly are your priorities wrong in buying a 5D2 with cheap glass? You get better performance for less $$$ and often end up with a lighter, smaller kit as well. There's no rule stating that FF users are stuck buying L glass and honestly, they need it less than us APS guys.
This is why I like the idea of Canon updating these non-L primes: they would benefit both APS and FF shooters. These lenses are mostly fine optically, all they need is USM, more aperture blades and maybe a tweak here and there. They should definitely be kept EF though, even if there is a small cost savings to make the wider ones APS, there's more than enough interest in them from FF users. Personally, I'm looking to add an FF body as soon as I can afford it and would definitely buy a 35/2.
As Flake stated, people are interested in the 5DIII in part because it's been a while since the 5DII came out. The assumption that a 5DII replacement will have '7D build, AF and speed' is unwarranted, because Canon will need to differentiate the 5DIII from the 1D X on features to justify the price difference of ~$4K (or they'll minimize the price gap and charge $4K for the 5DIII but I really don't see that happeneing). So, people won't get their 'dream camera'.
This weekend I joined an 2 days lasting workshop for motorsportphotography. The "hardware" was one of the hot topics there. The workshop was sponsored by canon and nikon. We could test some of the better lenses for sportsphotography including the camerabodys. It was very interresting.
In the Canon-Group the tutors from Canon were not really able to highlight their new !-Dx product for sportsphotography for normal users. They recommend the usage of this camera with an fix focal lenght lens without an converter/extender! They did not see a reason to extend the AF working at an max f=8 even at another coming camerabody. "Buy an better lens... If you can buy this body, buy an 4.0 L lens with 500 to 600mm..." was the answer
Almost all visitors shook their heads.
The Nikonians laughed when they heard this. Nikon was presentig themselves as a corporation that is more and more looking to become an specialist for sports- and wildlife photography.
The RAW format is a lossless compressed format.
The file size gets higher at higher ISOs because there is less to compress (due to higher nosise).
No, it's because CR2 format doesn't use adaptive Huffman, but predefined tables that are optimized for common case value distribution.
If adaptive Huffman or arithmetic coding (like h.264 CABAC) was used, high ISO raw images would be significantly smaller. Unfortunately, processing cost in terms of power consumption and silicon area needed would likely be higher, especially with more complex coding schemes.
Maybe future RAW formats will have PNG or lossless JPEG style spatial predictor functions. Combine that with adaptive arithmetic coding, and file size savings would likely be significant, even halved.
But may that doesn't really make sense - file size is not really a big issue anymore. Current scheme is very reliable - flip one bit in current CR2 format, and you can recover rest of the image with just one pixel error given software that can resync to Huffman stream. More complex coding could mean larger blocks of the image become corrupted without sophisticated error recovery and correction. Otherwise one bit flip could render whole image unusable.
Besides, if file size was really an issue, Canon would probably stop embedding a thumbnail AND a full size JPEG image in every RAW file! I prefer reliability over file size any day or night.
There are a lot of reasons for solid use of a 30+MP camera... As everyone I'm sure has read from me before, I'm a huge proponent for more MP, but with that being said, I also understand there's a place for every camera and every use... As i've mentioned before, in film days, a 35mm camera rarely was printed at anything bigger than 8x10... even at 8x10, with good old tri-x film (ISO 400), you could see some grain. Sometimes you would be daring and ask your lab (or push it in the darkroom) and pump out 11x14's, but you knew you were going to lose quality... Professional photographers knew and had in their back pocket MF cameras or even large format cameras for bigger prints...
Now adays with cameras we can pump out 16x20 practically without any interpolation with the 5d/7d printing at 300dpi. I have shot murals with my 7D that were put on tradeshow booths (20 feet wide) however they were still lifes and I was able to shoot the large scene in sections and stitch together to build a native file without any interpolation. Larger MP's would mean that I could do that with less stitching and make things essentially quicker, better, higher profit margin, however I hope that we keep in mind the limitations of the 35mm format and if you have the rare need for super large images, not to expect a 35mm to pull that off but instead look at MF with digital backs or LF with digital/scanning backs instead.
Maybe thats whats guiding Canons tactics? with the 645D around MF is now not that much more(in price and size) than a top end 35mm body like the IDs so is there going to be much of a market? Focusing on a 5D sized body seems like a maximses the advanatges of 35mm, cheaper(even a higher spec body) and smaller than MF.
Tomorrow morning at 4.00 GMT the announcement. No merging between 1D-1Ds.