October 01, 2014, 06:50:39 PM
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 - Chewy734
« on: July 17, 2013, 12:59:33 PM »
2-3 months, in general. It's well-worth the wait.
« on: June 22, 2013, 05:09:40 PM »
Want a group to see pictures of snakes making love with bicycle tires? They probably have one.
hahaha... sorry, but I had to.
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:51:24 PM »
However, as I posted before, often it doesn't matter if the company has legal standing or not, they can bring suit, and it is a contest on who has the deepest pockets for $$ that wins in the end, by dragging on the case endlessly.
Ahh, yes... you are right about that. I didn't mean to go off on a tangent here, I was just curious if anyone knew why Canon was hell bent on protecting their 1D line as opposed to their more popular 5D line, that's all.
That being said, this is really cool news, and I hope that Canon doesn't curtail this project.
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:46:25 PM »
Well first of all the 1DC is just Canon's hack on the 1DX. I don't buy that there is some required heatsink, that's window dressing. They don't want 3rd parties competing for sales of hacks at that price point ($5,000+).
The second thing is the 1DX has a proper downsampler for its video rather than the 5D3's pixel binning. Which is necessary given the sensor dimensions (unless they wanted to go back to the hideous 1st gen line skipping). And so a hacked 1DX recording less lossy compression (with more actually distinguishable pixels, and more luma/color levels, in more situations) would give the C series a run for its money while this 5D3 hack is just going to please the ambitious kids that think they're getting a bargain. For those kids $3000 for a 5D3 is a lot of money and about all Canon can expect out of them. But people who will buy a 1DX are professionals that will prefer going C-series and Canon wants to usher them that way (for their own benefit I may add) rather than have them confused by kids and their hacks.
Perhaps you are right, but this would be similar to let's say...
BMW suing tuning companies for selling a $500 tune for their turbo-charged 335i cars, giving it a potential performance boost over their top-of-the-line M3 (which costs like $20k more). Does it cannabalize the sales for the M3? Sure. But people still buy the M3, and people still tune their 335i cars.
But, perhaps that analogy isn't equivalent, since the M3 also has suspension upgrades, etc. But, wouldn't that also be similar to the speculated heat sink upgrades on the 1D C, for example?
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:31:19 PM »
I think it's because the two cameras are purchased by different types of people. I own a 5D3, but would not dream of buying a 1D X or 1D C...if I needed to shoot in 4K, I'd rather rent (probably a RED Scarlet or the upcoming BMCC Pro).
Canon understands that a hacked 5D3 will see a surge in sales due to Magic Lantern, but they also understand that a hack in the 1D X to match the 1D C specs would result in a drop in purchases for that camera.
Say what you will about Canon, but they're not idiots.
So, you're telling me that a hacked 5D3 won't cannibalize sales of their higher-end cameras and video recorders? I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that a large number of 1D C cameras are being sold, as opposed to the 1D X. People who need the 1D C to shoot video all day long will continue to buy the 1D C. People who want to occasionally shoot video on the 1D X should be allowed to use the potentially more unstable hack if they want.
Is it true that if there are any rules ML would be breaking by modifying the 1D X, it would be the same as when modifying the 5D3?
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:16:28 PM »
I wonder why the Canon legal team would look the other way on this hack since it's on the 5D3, but throw down the hammer whenever hacking the 1D X is mentioned?
50L. It's dreamy bokeh is legendary.
Same for the 135 f/2L.
« on: October 11, 2012, 04:21:44 PM »
Well, the low-light ISO scores are 3296, 2293, and 1815, for the 1D X, 5D3, and 5D2, respectively.
The difference between the 1D X and 5D3 is 1003, and the difference between the 5D3 and 5D2 is 478. So, the difference between the former is ~2x as much as the latter.
Or am I missing something here?
The fact that ISO sensitivity scale progression is not linear, perhaps?
yeah yeah yeah Neuro... I just figured it wasn't actually ISO numbers, just some random metric they made up (hence the assumption of a linear scale).