a rebel. Check positioning of Canon logo and the very slopy shoukder on the right side of picture.
corrected. Looks like SL1 / EOS 100D:
corrected. Looks like SL1 / EOS 100D:
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.
Well, if you plan to do a lot of video, then ...
AF has no place on a serious video camera.
The new sensor must always have been in there. However, most likely, all the new software and calibration necessary for all the lenses was not done yet at that time, so it they release the camera without that functionality.
Now, what they may have to put in is at least new firmware, but maybe the firmware takes more memory than the old chip can handle, so a new memory chip needs to be installed. There may also be additional chips, i.e. circuitry that needs to be put in to process the dual chip phase signal. Maybe in the original version they only used the sensor in its "normal" mode (dual pixels merged), which would required a less complicated processing circuitry.
The choice between Canon gear and Nikon, Sony, etc. gear is no choice at all. ... Besides, this is a Canon forum, not a Nikon one.
On a personal note, I have always prefered the look and feel of dedicated dials over a menu driven UI. That said, I've made the latter work for me over the last 15 years or so....
Nikonians, as far as I see, are not really so impressed. The thing that might save this camera is if it (somehow, it's not clear yet) performs better with manual focus lenses. That could be an interesting perk, especially if you have a lot of Zeiss, Voigtländer and old Nikon lenses.
To be honest, this camera will probably sell well, which is a shame because it will encourage Canon to follow this stupid retro fad. Don't get me wrong, if retro means focusing back on individual user needs and building cameras that are a better fit to them, then I have no problem. In the case of the DF, retro goes as far as looks (which it doesn't quite pull off) and adding another layer of complexity to the control set-up. It will sell well because it looks fashionable, reminds the grey-haired crowd (who have higher disposable incomes) of the cameras of their youth, yet doesn't lose any of the features that give you bragging rights down at the local camera club.
Yet this camera is not a sign of things to come, it is an awkward hark back to a previous era. It feels disjointed in its concept because cameras have moved on in the last three decades. The latest Nikon 'G' series lenses lack aperture rings, which means that the DF needs a way of setting aperture on the body. A multi-point AF system, multi-mode metering, variable frame rates, as well as all the 'digital stuff', add their own levels of complication. This leads to a messy design, which when combined with the desire for retro styling, gives birth to a bizarre Chimera.
More faulty logic: you are still assuming that video costs extra,
Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.
No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive
The more I see of this camera, the less I like it: I find it very ugly -too big and lumpy and wanting in its deign philosophy.
Even Nikon doesn't seem to be sure about returning to an interface based upon dedicated marked dials, so they provide both. Pure photography? My arse! This is pure marketing gimmickry that has actually complicated the control interface through duplication.
This is a camera that claims to address the issue of over-complication in modern DSLRs, but actually does nothing of the sort, other than removing video. So video over-complicates a modern DSLR, but all the in-camera retouching options, a 39 point AF system with umpteen different tracking modes, banks of custom setting, etc. That's all fine it seems!
If you really want "Pure Photography", you need to make pure design decisions: you must decide what the camera can do and what it cannot. The DF attempts to be simple and yet lose none of the sophisticated features of a modern autofocus digital SLR camera; it fails because our expectations of what this constitutes a modern DSLR, lead to a design that is inherently complicated.
I would like to see Canon make a competing model.
No video: At last, all those who complain about paying for video they never use have an option available. Buy the D800 with video or buy the Df and save yourselves $50. I guess I was wrong and you guys were right. You are are paying more for video capability. Spend that $50 any way you want.