I'd get it replaced! After all, if those pixels are attracting your attention and the cam is still in return period, why not?..
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've ascertained from the picture of the LCD display of the bird that this prototype camera has at least 100MP! This is based on the following assumptions:lol
1. the LCD has at least a pixel count of the 7D (921,600 pixels) and has approximate dimensions of 1174 x 785 pixels (3:2)
2. the professional Canon photographer is not a pixel peeper (he's not viewing at over 1:1)
My calculations are based on the small box showing that approximately 1/7th- 1/8th of image's narrow edge is being displayed which would put the resolution at least 12327 x 8218 or 101,303,286 total pixels.
I believe this is a Canon employee being shot by another Canon employee (with a 5D mk III as well) for a controlled leak to hype up the camera. Why would Canon charter a safari outing with the public when they could just easily go on private outing?
Much of what is written about SOPA speaks in platitudes about free speech and an open Internet. We all face a serious problem, particularly people who create content for a living.
This problem has recently been well documented by Robert Levine in his book Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business. The title is provocative, but Levine systematically documents how piracy has damaged the music, movie, television, newspaper, and now the book businesses. In my own research, I have come across stories from countless photographers about how their works have been pirated.
Levine looks at cost structures, employment trends, and usage to make his case. He shows how both the transmission and hardware companies have used piracy to build their businesses, knowing that much of what they are transmitting and putting in the hands of information consumers is pirated. They then use the leverage they have obtained by gathering eyeballs to negotiate what have often proved to be unfavorable arrangements with content providers.
Levine also documents how the transmission and hardware companies have funded nonprofit organizations to promote the notion that information should be free and the Internet open. These companies have manufactured populace sentiment to further their own profit-making agendas. They have a right to do that, but there is another side to the story--the rights of creative people to earn a living.
If Levine's predictions are correct, we are on the cusp of learning what "Information Must Be Free" leads to: Less quality information. In one of many examples, Levine points to Spain as providing creative people with the fewest protections. He demonstrates the devastating impact that a failure to regulate the Internet has had on the Spanish music industry. Just yesterday, world--renowed Spanish author Lucia Etxebarria announced that she would cease writing novels because illegal downloading of e-books made it impossible for her to earn a living.
Creative people have a right to be paid fairly for and control the distribution of their work. That is true regardless of whether the creative person is a lone photographer or a large media company. The Internet is now well-established. It is time to end the lawlessness and strike an appropriate balance between free speech and property rights.
As much as I would like all my music, books, newspapers, and movies to be free, I am willing to pay the creators for their work. I am unwilling to hide behind free speech platitudes to serve my own selfish interests.
I continue to be puzzled why many creative people and people who like the fruits of creative people are so quick to lobby on behalf of large corporations at the expense of creative people and their efforts.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to get compensated for your hard work. I believe in it strongly, but...
Perpetual copyright, ensuring no content will ever enter the public domain; is wrong.
Suing your customers into oblivion (and financial ruin), using laws meant to go after commercial offenders; is wrong.
Making civil offences, like copyright infringement, criminal; is wrong.
Hamfisted censoring of the internet, based on the (often) tenuous claims of media conglomerates; is wrong.