How reliable is the new Canon 1DX camera ie repair frequency?I can not imagine a bunch of anecdotal evidence on a forum to give a solid basis for statistical analysis.
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.
The 'dual pixels' are all split vertically, so if they altered the microlenses and CFA to increase the actual resolution of the sensor, you'd end up with images having a 3:1 aspect ratio.I think that's not the right way to look at this. It'd be more like having two color channels per pixel in the raw file rather than only one as input to the demosaic.
maybe that´s how canon manages to make a profit..... selling flawed gear to fanboys and making millions for repair.that's capitalism, perhaps one day we as a humanity will have enough of all the lies and manipulations and greed and find something better
The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying.You are right, but the connection is not so far fetched, either, since the motivation for such dishonesty will be very similar.
I noticed that all but the top MBP Retina only have onboard graphic chips (Iris/Iris Pro) now instead of discrete graphics. Are they as good for graphic editing as the previous version with nVidia cards?
Don't know why Apple had to discontinue the non-retina MBP. Seems like a way to force newer technology even if people don't want it.
Its all about money:
Sorry, should have been more specific as in this is an actual quote from the governing IOC.So the brand is not allowed to show its logo, which would mean that Canon or Nikon can't just show up waving flags, but I don't read that to imply that photographers happening to use Canon or Nikon (or whatever) need to cover their logo. What would be next, they need to cover their shoes if Adidas or Nike aren't sponsors?
"The International Olympic Committee (IOC) enforces strict regulations that protect its corporate sponsors, meaning any brand not sponsoring the Olympics is not allowed to show its logo or otherwise affiliate itself with the lucrative event".
The 500D is a nice camera, but Canon's crop cameras do lag behind the FF cameras. You are probably making the right decision to change cameras and a 5Dii is a smart option for many. But some 1Ds and 1D models are in your price range and they have some positives, too.Even ignoring the image quality, I found just the AF-ON button, the custom-modes, shortest shutter speed, second wheel, top LCD, the view finder etc. a huge plus.
But personally, it wasn't really until I got a FF camera that I realised how immaterial the whole APS-C vs FF debate is. I'm now using a little APS-C Fuji for much of my photography. It might be technically inferior to my Canon, but the difference isn't that big and it is better suited to what I do.
So the only real suggestion I have is to sit back, evaluate your photographic goals, work out where your 500D is deficient and then decide which camera is best suited for your needs.
The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.
i know it sounds a bit crazy but i watch the games mainly because i want to spot canon prototypes (not much a fan of commercial sport events, especially olympia).
are some other crazys here like me who are more interested in the photographer crowd then the sport events?
It's spelled "Sochi". I've not watched the Olympics very much...I liked the opening ceremonies, the light show.
Is there some alternate meaning to 'fast zoom lens' that I'm unfamiliar with? The ad reads as if fast is a bad thingNot really, the guy is saying that the lens is not as fast as others may claim, and that he has faster lenses, and therefore is getting rid of the 70-200 II, for being too slow.
And this raises a question. If you really feel that Canon tries "to get away with absolutely the least they can for the most money they can", why in the world would you stick with Canon???I'm not really the target of this, because I'm mostly happy with Canon, but let me say that in capitalism every corporation has to get away with the least they can for the most money they can because otherwise they could be sued by their shareholders. Unlike the customers, which can't sue them for not implementing easily done features. However Nikon, Sony and Canon are all corporations, so for me there's no big difference. I'm sure Nikon users are waiting for some feature that Canon products have just like we Canon shooters would like for example the zoomed histogram that even the entry-level Nikons sport. Anyhow, back to shooting with my quite nice 1DX, I've mostly stopped caring about it having less MP or DR than a D800, and even though I would prefer more MP, DR and less AA, I'm really like my Canon glass, the 135L, the 50L, etc :-)
If money is no object, then get both.Or get the 1DX for BiF etc. and keep the 5DII as backup and for light(er) weight hiking. For landscapes there shouldn't be much difference between the 5DII and 5DIII.
Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?One factor is the fact that the smaller flange distance allows smaller lenses only for wider angle lenses. (This is the "in a nutshell" of a very long explanation; for an example look at the 35L and a 35mm f/1.4 for Leica M-Mount; the difference in size is due to the 35L having to "compensate" for the larger flange distance of the EOS mount; I'm no expert on the field but I remember reading something about having to complicate wide-angle lens design once the focal length goes below the sensor diagonal (or some value that is a linear function of the sensor size)).