Messages

16

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 announced - $2100, let's see how Canon response!!!

« on: September 13, 2012, 04:46:30 PM »

Yeah, that is funny.  I miss you guys.  I have not been on this forum in a few months because I sold all my Canon gear and bought a d7000.  But I see it is as caustic as ever on here.  I don't worry about specs and dxoMark scores and all of that stuff any more, I am just have a wonderful time shooting with my miraculous d7000.  I hope the d600 is just as good.  But I won't be buying one any time soon, I am happy with what I have.

The real joke here is that I checked Nikonrumors earlier today and the people here seem positively ecstatic about the d600 compared to that crowd.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]

« on: May 16, 2012, 12:53:57 PM »

You state categorically that Canon have spent a lot of money on R&D for the 5D3, could you tell us all how much? To the nearest hundred thousand dollars would be fine.

Fact and Opinion are two very different things.

IMHO they spent very little on 5D3 R&D: 7D body, 1DX AF system, 5D2 slightly modified sensor, same 5D2 battery etc.

Just because Canon has already used the same AF system in another camera (which has been announced but hasn't actually reached the market yet) it doesn't mean it didn't cost them anything to add the same sensor to the 5d3. Developing this AF system cost a certain fixed amount of money that they will have to recover somehow; the fact that they chose to use it in another camera besides their flagship product just means this cost will be spread out between two different camera lines, just like the cost of developing the Digic V chip will be spread out between different cameras and so on. And which one of those do you think will help them recover most of it? My guess is it definitely won't be the one still not actually shipping.

18

EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]

« on: May 15, 2012, 02:47:23 AM »

Except the point is that they will release a CHEAPER fullframe with stripped specs.  So why not keep the 5d2 around and lower the price.

I would guess it's because even Canon has limited production capabilities. They can't keep making the 5d2 because they're either phasing out or have already stopped producing some of its central components, like the Digic IV processor or the image sensor. The resources have already been reallocated and the tooling used for their production replaced to produce Digic V-s and 5d3 sensors; converting them back or setting up a separate production line for the previous-generation stuff would not be cheap. It would be more economical in the long run to produce a cheap "updated 5d2" utilizing bits used in other current cameras than keep resources tied up in making limited quantities of older components.

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 03, 2012, 11:36:36 AM »

The problem here is, I KNOW about the tape.  Had I never known about the tape I wouldn't care.  But now I KNOW.  Ignorance is bliss, I guess.  And I am not interested in plunking down $3500 for a piece of equipment with a design flaw fixed by tape.  Thank you very much.

If we call this apparent non-issue a "design flaw", we might just as well call the piece of tape something else as well. Something more sophisticated, like "anti-static photon-blocker". That is to say, Canon fixed the design flaw by adding an anti-static photon-blocker to the design of the top LCD.

20

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79

« on: April 20, 2012, 11:13:27 AM »

My conspiracy theory:
I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800.

36 is not a multiple of 8.