« on: December 10, 2011, 11:42:05 AM »
I'd be interested in a Sigma 300 2.8 or 500 f4, if they can maintain their high level of IQ. I just can't bring myself to pay Canon's prices for a range I will use, but not everyday....
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.
My thought is that we will get a crippled 5D3 again with again a bad autofocus system.
Canon wants current 5D2 owners not to upgrade to the 5D3, but rather have them upgrade to the 1D and therewith earn more money, due to larger profits on the 1D camera.
This was my thought as well but my reasoning is that they'll sell a crippled 5DIII to a new owner, who will eventually wind up buying a 7D for the autofocus. (I would think larger profits for small cameras with less R&D this time around with bigger sales). (But you're right, current 5D owners will probably not tolerate another crappy AF system).
Side note: Canon wants Non- 1D owners carrying 2 bodies.
The 1D IV has only been around for about a year and a half. Why would Canon be replacing that fantastic camera already? There are people out there who like its crop believe it or not. It's ideal for many big telephoto users. If Canon is coming out with a Mark V that has full frame for a lot more money, I will happily pass on it. The current Mark IV is just about perfect to me. There is apparently a lot of whining on the internet for a fast full frame camera. I do hope Canon comes out with one so they can be happy.
As I said above, Why you are thinking that the 1DV is going to replace the 1Ds and 1D series, leaving nothing in the 1D price range ? Is it obvious that the high res and speed merging would happen in the 1Ds price range and the 1D series will just continue as usual probably FF leaving the same price ranges as before ? The naming of the camera is not important, but price ranges are, and they can't leave the price range of the D3s/D4 out.
Very strange. The actual 7D is placed right in the middle between the 60D (with its lacks of pro options) and the 5D Mark II (with its complete pro bundle). Now the 7D Mark II would enter the Full Frame category and even partially replacing the 1D Mark IV? Now I don't see the point of getting a 5D Mark III if the 7DII will be doing what a 5DII can.
I don't believe APS-H is going anywhere. The only way Canon could shelve the tech is if APS-C IQ and dynamic range can somehow exceed that of APS-H.
As others have said, Canon's lenses aren't range-specific to APS-H so there are no system-related exit barriers for APS-H. Surely it's only a matter of time (possibly very soon) before we see a very high resolution full-frame camera capable of 10FPS. Then what would be the point of APS-H?
We can just agree to disagree....
I don't know that we're actually disagreeing. My point is that a manufacturer is going to release a technology/product at the time when they predict it will yield the greatest profit. Likewise, they're not going to 'waste' money on R&D with no expectation of an ROI - and as a general rule, an early ROI is better than a delayed ROI, unless it's predicted that there's substantially more profit to be gained from a delayed release.
In the example of the 120 MP APS-H sensor, I actually doubt they produced incrementally increasing versions - that may not have been cost effective. If it were my R&D money, I'd have had a team do some computer modeling to suggest the maximum feasible density, then attempted to produce three versions - that predicted max, and something lower and something higher. Three shots on goal, simultaneous, rather than racheting it up with repeated costs for each increment. But honestly, I can't speak to any sort inside knowledge of how they did it.
Certainly, in some industries technology is 'held back' - you mentioned defense, so compare consumer GPS systems with military GPS systems. The latter is always ahead of the former (although the companies are still making a profit from their technology, albeit from a different sector.
Back to releasing a product when it will generate the maximum product, I do think that's the key driver - and I definitely acknowledge that that is not always as soon as the technology is available and producible. In the specific case of boceprevir and telaprevir, and the general case of drug development, the maximum profit results from the earliest possible release. If a cure for HIV were developed (and some are being actively worked on), it would be released as soon as possible (and I do speak from direct knowledge in this case - I happen to hold a senior position in a large pharma company).
The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they can never be proven wrong, because any evidence to the contrary is just taken as further proof of how the conspirators are fooling everyone but the handful of people who "know" the truth.
It's the same whether it's 200 mpg carburetors, Elvis is still alive, black helicopters, fluoridated water or super secret superior camera technology that's being purposely withheld from consumers.
The fact that an item is announced or a prototype can be produced does not necessarily mean that the same item can be put into mass production, perhaps for technical reasons, perhaps for economic reasons. So, companies may 'sit on tech' not out of a desire to hold it back, but because it's not yet feasible to produce it. You say Pentax announced a FF sensor that never went into production. So? Canon announced a 120 MP APS-H sensor in 2010. By your logic, the 1D MkV should have that sensor, right? Else, Canon is 'sitting on their tech' and 'incrementally releasing it'. I'm pretty sure there are other factors that preclude mass production of a 120 MP APS-H camera, and will for some time to come.