And here I thought that the Korean teaser was going to result in the SL X (SL1 body with 1D X sensor). Take note, Canon, a brilliant idea and perfect name.
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.
Granted, the RX100 II has 20 MP (vs. 14MP for G1X and 12MP for S120/G16) so it will have better resolution at base ISO (~20% higher linear resolution all things being equal), but will that make much or any difference at higher ISOs, or printed < 30x40, or shared online? Although, now that I'm thinking of it, the RX100 II will have a FL advantage over the G1X when cropped to 12MP (120mm vs. 112mm).Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II
Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.
As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II. :-)
Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II (which is an outstanding camera in its segment):
It's an adapted Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 as seen here: http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/80-200mm-f28.htmThe flange distance for Konica-Minolta is only 0.5mm longer than EF. No chance of mount adapter for that without losing infinity focus. You could change out the mount itself to EF, but it would still be a manual focus lens with no aperture control (wide-open only). I can't see anyone with a press pass to photograph the World Series doing that.
*UPDATE 2*So Roger think it's a modified 28-300mm. Any pictures online of such a beast? Any reason given for why one would modify it as such?
Another suggestion from a man who knows everything about lenses. He thinks it’s a “28-300 with filter barrel removed”.
No red ring....this is nothing.....+1
Plus...seems too small for the 100-400L....
I think he's talking about the 85L (narrow depth of field with very blurred background). But I do take issue with calling it odd-shaped (the 17mm TS-E and 8-15mm take that crown), even if it is a chunky little monster.You sink 2000$ in a small odd shaped lens and all the picture it takes comes blurry - My wife
tilt shift? I still don't understand tilt shifts, but maybe I'll borrow one one day and figure out the draw.
Or the other extreme, you NEED 2.8 lenses or faster to be taken seriously... or even better yet, you need all prime lenses.That sounds a lot like Jared Polin. Also, from the same guy:
Yes, the same Sony that makes the Xperia Z (5.0" LCD at 1080p - 443ppi).Higher resolution LCD screens
If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4-5S and the 3:2 aspect ratio it would have a resolution of -
3.0": 814 x 542 (1.32 million dot)
3.2": 868 x 579 (1.51 million dot)
3.5": 960 x 640 (1.84 million dot) - same size as iPhone 4/4S
If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (441 ppi) as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and 3:2 AR it would be -
3.0": 1100 x 733 (2.42 million dot)
3.2": 1174 x 783 (2.76 million dot)
3.5": 1284 x 856 (3.30 million dot)
Better than the current 720 x 480 (1.04 million dot) displays (288 ppi @ 3", 270 ppi @ 3.2"), and could allow Canon to tout the highest resolution LCD on any DSLR (Samsung would still have the biggest, though, with the almost-unusably-large Galaxy series at 4.8"). Does anyone know what type of panel technology is used in current DSLR LCDs (TN, MVA, PVA, IPS, eIPS, etc)?
What are your thoughts?
Canon does not produce LCD's, they buy them from Sony.
I'd like them to use a OLED display so it is bright enough to use outdoors.