I use 30 fps (29.97), 1/60 sec shutter speed. It is smoother than 24p
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.
No touch-screen? It's sort of nice. But it's really a gee-whiz feature. For people who like using point and shoots. I can change settings much faster and easier without it. And in sports, that's much more critical.
An articulating screen.. Now THAT could be useful in many ways. Even for a pro. But it introduces a major weak point in the construction.. Not worth it for the .01% of the time I would use it.
"Serious" videographers should not clamor for freaking video-optimized crap in stills cameras, especially not in DSLRS with a mirror in the lightpath. They should go buy a panasonic GH4 if they are poor or a Sony A7S if they want "full frame/shallow DOF" or a canon C-something if they want a video-optimized camera or if they really dont mind the mirror and want FF plus 4k, then a canon EOS 1D-C ... if they are not so poor. An APS-C DSLR is by its very nature the least suitable video-recording device. So stay away from it.
I hope the 7D successor comes without any video-recording capabilities whatsoever. A lean and mean STILLS machine.
I don't want to hear anything else until it includes 4K internal video recording, less moire and a headphone jack. Among other things.
As far as I'm concerned (and I'm going to sound like a jerk to some people by saying this) photo featues don't need anymore improvement. We've had awesome stills cameras for the last five years and if you can't take a good picture with one of those than you suck as a photographer. It is video functionality that Canon is seriously lacking behind on compared to its competitors.
The original 7D was the first of the Canon cames to features it's now standard video functionality that made its way into every other Canon camera. I expect the 7DmkII to usher in the new standard for Canon video functionality.
Do I sell my Canon 24L II to buy this new Sigma, which will probably be sharper but not have weather sealing? I think not.
Do I but the Sigma 14-24mm OS which takes 82mm filters, although all my other lenses take 77mm filters, and also lose 13° of angle of view compared to the Canon 16-35mm f/4? I think not.
I'm sure these lenses will be good for others, but I will skip them for now.
will dual pixel improve DR? or only AF? It would be nice if it would
I'm expecting something like this. Canon wants to improve the tracking ability of the dual pixel technology to make it suitable for professional level autofocus. I expect some solution to be in all future CanonDSLR's.
And maybe take one more step toward pro-level mirrorless.
That would be nice, but after getting bit with mirrorless technology 3 times, Canon is pretty shy. The Fiasco with the "M" cost them a bundle. Its nothing to do with the camera, just that the buyers that it targeted wanted nothing to do with it. They dumped them for a big loss.
I'd love a small macro lens with reasonably long working distance. Would the M's design allow for an equivalent to the 100L macro or 180L in a much smaller package? I've found the M a really good macro camera, with both the 100 and the MP-E - most of the time I'm using Live View for macro work anyway (especially with the MP-E) so the lack of a viewfinder isn't a problem.
But these lenses are rather bulky on the small body.
Am I the only thinking: "there is no way this can possibly be true!"?
Seriously, 11mm rectilinear on full-frame, has that even been done before in a prime? And we're talking about a zoom? At f/2.8?
Have seen how BIG the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is?
I actually think $2800 would be a steal for something so absurdly wide and fast.
I agree with most on here in that I do not see the point of f/2.8 on something this wide. I guess you could argue astro-landscape photography but, at 11mm, even f/4 would be very manageable on modern full-frame image sensors.
I hope I'm completely wrong, but this lens just seems physically impossible to make.