September 19, 2014, 10:10:08 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 195
1606
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 11:00:37 PM »
With the specs listed, I really wonder if Canon started this project years ago with the development of the 7D...

Canon APS-C sensor: 22.2mm x 14.8mm
35mm Full Frame: 36mm x 24mm

Just going by the sensor dimensions, the 18 megapixel sensor on the 7D is equal to a 47.3 MP sensor when expanded to full frame 35mm.  The leaked numbers of a 46MP sensor are just too close for coincidence.

My curiosity is piqued.

A number of us have been saying things like this for some time.

1607
Small battery powered fan that prevents air from settling on the front of the lens/telescope.

1608
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 02:03:49 PM »
    Looks like whoever sent this rumour to Craig also sent it to Keith Cooper over at Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_3d.html) along with some embellishments:

    • 16 bit RAW
    • Dual DIGIC 5+
    • "Its a new type of body,looks like a mini 1DX, it has a integrated portrait grip but its a bit thinner and significantly shorter and also lighter (no rear lcd panel)"

    Sorry, but (1) and (3), as well as the heat dissipation business sound a lot like b*ll*cks to me.  It's a bit soon after the launch of the 1D X and 5D MkIII to start suggesting that their technology is out of date.  As for the mini integrated portrait grip, perhaps they've seen the illustrations from NL and added them on to their imaginary spec list?

    Naturally, I will be more than please if I am eating my words in a month or so...!  ::)[/list]

    Agreed. 16bit RAW is overkill unless this is seriously new sensor tech as that number likely exceeds the ability of the sensor.

    Similarly a digital camera without an LCD is an immediate fail.

    1609
    EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
    « on: August 21, 2012, 02:00:56 PM »
    "Heat dissipation" is the real problem of eos iso noise (not another sensor design like Sony's)?! Since it isn't April 1st, can anyone please enlighten me or share a link with an explanation?

    http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/3-why-does-electrical-current-make-heat.html

    The light collection of a sensor is converting photons into an electrical current.

    So think of it this way: the photon is collected and turned into electrical energy that then has the potential to leak as it is drained and generate another photon that is then collected by itself or another pixel.

    1610
    EOS Bodies / Is this just a defensive rumor?
    « on: August 21, 2012, 01:43:37 PM »
    Is this just a defensive rumor started by Canon to stop people from defecting to Nikon and buying the D800?

    1611
    EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
    « on: August 21, 2012, 09:53:15 AM »
    Form factor? 1D sized body or 5D sized body?

    1612
    mmmm, automatic HDR bracketing.

    1613
    EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk
    « on: August 20, 2012, 06:14:40 AM »
    I'm not sure if anything goes next to the 1DX on the right.

    Look at the presentation - apart from the middle tier with 4 cameras, the 4 3 1 makes a pyramid.

    If the 1DX was centered, it would ruin the entire aesthetic of the page.



    The aesthetic is already ruined. If they want it to look pretty, they need to move it over to the right!

    Or, release something for that gaping hole in the graphic.

    No. Moving it over to the right solves nothing.

    Put three cameras in the middle tier (remove the far left one) and you'll see.

    1614
    EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
    « on: August 20, 2012, 06:13:23 AM »
    "Available this year"??

    Surely you jest.

    "Announced this year", ok, I'll give them that.

    But Canon's ability to deliver anything on time is rubbish.

    1615
    EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk
    « on: August 19, 2012, 11:42:19 AM »
    I'm not sure if anything goes next to the 1DX on the right.

    Look at the presentation - apart from the middle tier with 4 cameras, the 4 3 1 makes a pyramid.

    If the 1DX was centered, it would ruin the entire aesthetic of the page.

    The picture is meant to represent how consumers buy into the EOS system, can buy EF lenses and can upgrade their body. Thus you start with EOS-M, migrate to a real DSLR and maybe one day, to a 1-series.

    For those that get into DSLRs and are serious about video, they exit stage right and move on to 1DC or C-x00.

    1616
    EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk
    « on: August 19, 2012, 09:34:14 AM »
    I'd be willing to wager that the arrow pointing off to the right is for video and cameras such as the EOS 1DC (which obviously isn't on that chart.)

    1617
    EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D3 - AFMA similar to 5D2 or 1DX?
    « on: August 17, 2012, 08:51:11 AM »
    Does the AFMA in the 5D3 work in a similar fashion to that of the 5D2 (one setting per lens) or does it work like that of the 1DX where it is possible to have two settings for zoom lenses?

    1618
    Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
    « on: August 15, 2012, 11:07:27 AM »
    17-40/f4.0 L, released May 2003. 9+ years.

    Replacement....?

    1619
    Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Small Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue
    « on: August 12, 2012, 05:45:52 AM »
    Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.

    Reverse engineering when done properly is 100% legal and does not need to be "authorised".

    And we as consumers are definitely within our rights to demand that Canon open up their lens communication protocol to make it easier for 3rd party integration.

    It's your right to give your opinion.  It is Canon's right to protect their IP, and it is their right to change their protocols without letting unlicensed users know.

    If Canon changed the protocol then older lenses with a different protocol would not work.
    It is not a protocol change problem that is at hand here.

    1620
    Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Small Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue
    « on: August 12, 2012, 05:44:33 AM »
    Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.

    Reverse engineering when done properly is 100% legal and does not need to be "authorised".

    I'm not a lawyer or U.S. citizen, so I might very well be missing something, but doesn't the DMCA put some limits on reverse engineering?

    The DMCA has nothing to do with what's at issue here.

    Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 195