This and That

[airfang]

<p><strong>B&H Deal of the day

</strong>B&H has the <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296\">Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in stock and selling for $2074</a> until January 7, 2012.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

actually, there's a better deal for 70-200 at B&H that only costs $1974, I am not sure if it is a mistake:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=SHCA7020028L&N=0

It seems that searching by item ID or by the terms "canon 70-200" will lead to different product pages. Again, today is the last day of this amazing offer! Act fast if you want one!

[StevenBrianSamuels]

Canon Buys Mamiya [CR1]

[aldvan]

One thing that amazes me is that Canon doesn't seem to care much about the opinion of its 'real' users. I am a Gold member of CPS, with a very typical and standard kit, but I never received a questionnaire or interview aimed to know my desires. I find this rather unusual, if I compare the behavior of brands in other sectors, such as automotive or electronics, for instance ...

[moreorless]

I agree this is likely the case with the 1D X where say 99.99% of internet posters about it would never buy something that level anyway, but I'm not sure that would be the case for a 5D3 level camera. That relative affordability means random internet posters could be a significant number of possible sales.

Again though even as someone who's one of them to some extent I'm not sure the more vocal internet posters really represent the majority of Canon's amature userbase. For most users I'm guessing that a relatively cheap jack of all trades 5D mk3 with say 6 fps, slightly improved AF and exellent ISO and a less demanding sensor would be more than welcome.

That seems like the main advanatge of the 1DX sensor route to me, the pro's who have the money to spend are forced to spend more of it on longer lenses compaired to ASPH and the amatures who have less to spend get a good all round camera even with just a 24-105 to go with it.

And just to move totally into fantasyland here, what if they made a medium format mirrorless camera? Future scenario: other mirrorless players largely beef up contrast AF such that it can rival phase even with motion tracking and do it smaller than entry level DSLR, which in turn become undesirable. DSLRs only have one retreat: bigger sensors for shallow DoF

Along with an "M9 killer" psuedo rangefinder mirrorless based on primes that actually seems like a good tactic to me. Considering most landscape/studio users are going to be using wide/normal lenses most of the time(and shorter tele when they do) you have the potential for a reasonabley well balanced system thats similar in size/weight to a 5D.

[lol]

7D mk2 = becomes the monster APS-C sensored camera to replace the older 1D APS-H, It could have all of the benefits of the 1D-X but with the Crop instead of FF and a much higher MP rate to suit....even dare i say as high as the fabled 36MP people want.

While I have no fear of MP count, I think 36MP would be highly unlikely in a 7D2. Given what the 1D X has shown us, I suspect the 7D2 could have an increased fps rate but generally there is a speed/resolution tradeoff. High speed doesn't easily go well with high resolution too unless you throw a lot of money at it. So that would put pressure on keeping the MP count lower.

For example, the Sony a77 has 8fps with a 12fps boosted speed model (no I haven't checked out what the exact limitations are in the boosted speed modes). The 1D X has 12fps boost to 14fps. Let's say Canon could go for 10fps with boost to 12fps on a 7D2 with a hypothetical sensor at say 21MP and same processing capability as 1D X. Why 21MP? I think they would continue the MP count growth here slowly as they would continue to reuse the same sensor in lower bodies also. Or perhaps they would throw a curve ball and bring out a drop to 16MP (not 15 or 18 as that would confuse with their existing sensors).

[dilbert]

5D mk3 = Could become the "video DSLR" taking the best parts of the C300 and 1DX video and putting that into the 5D3 body. Sure it won't be a C300 but it could possibly do 4K but its stills may suffer because of this.
streamline its footprint like they said when they merged the 1D series.

Why would anyone want to buy a camera with 4k video?

Chances are you can't display 4k video on your computer and if you can afford a home-video system with a 4k projector, then money is not a problem for you and you'll buy yourself a camera, today, that can do 4k video.

4k TVs are a long way from being affordable, never mind you actually finding a place to sell you one. The only place I've seen a 4k projector (I was lucky enough to get a demo) was in a HiFi store that has $100,000 amps in the showroom for demo purposes.

By the time 4k video becomes common enough in the home, the 5D3 will be relatively ancient history.

To whit the only people today that would have any serious interest in 4k video are those shooting for the big screen and the big screen only. How many people is that? I'd guesstimate that it would be between 1% and 10% of the total number of cameras sold - maybe not even 1%.

Consider that if you uploaded a 4k video to youtube, nobody that is using a current model laptop will be able to view all 4k of the video and an incredibly small number of people will be able to view it on their computer in full resolution. Well, there's another question of whether or not someone with a monitor big enough will have a computer powerful enough to watch 4k video.

The most likely impact of 4k video, today, will be movie files on your computer that are over 4 times larger than 1080p and that editing the video is consequently that much slower too!

It would seem that 4K video has become a numbers obsession to replace the MP obsession. People need to get over it already.

[Orangutan]

Every serious sports/action shooter would want it because it could also be a 24- or 30-fps still camera.   That's more chances to capture the "exact moment" something happened.  Yes, there are photographers who do this well by anticipating the action, but why not have the extra option?  Your assistant can be grabbing 4K video while you anticipate action, then take the best of both.

Of course, I'm presuming that the camera allows manual exposure control on your video: it's well-known that true video and true still photography do not use the same exposure settings for similar circumstances. (As I understand, true video needs a slower shutter to make movement look natural)

One of the reasons DSLR video is so great is that it pushes what can be accomplished with stills as well.

Why would anyone want to buy a camera with 4k video?...Chances are you can't display 4k video

[Sunnystate]

Considering the circumstances, when prices in the 35 mm class are far exceeding prices for most incredible medium and large format glass from Rodenstock, Zeiss, Shneider, maybe time to revive German camera industry is near?

At some point it has to be profitable to enter digital market by companies with know how to build quality 35mm camera shell, even with electronics developed by somebody else.
How could be possibly justified price for 35mm electronic gadget even in magnesium alloy box to be higher than for example Swiss made, highest quality, space age precision build Sinar instrument?
Let's hope current camera industry will not create cost prohibitive high end professional environment without possibility to enter by people that are serious enough about photography to be the lifetime hobby for them, but don't own really profitable studio to write off the cost.

I owned two large format cameras (four in fact including my two antique collectibles), two twinlens Rolleiflexes, basic still "brand new" Hasselblad system, Fuji medium format compact, some other small 35mm Rolleiflexes, Leicas, and yes least important Canons and/or Nikons cameras only for convenience.
It was really exciting to have the opportunities after some saving time to be able to afford what the best in the industry are using, learning and enjoying the "real magic" in photography, that people who never used large format camera won't understand.
Than digital cameras come in to the market.
It started with argument that we are saving on film and processing so the cost of the body is justified, but this argument starts to be bit silly now when we are getting offers with four zeroes in the price tag for the 35mm format systems.
My wish is simple, that serious photography will not be taken away and placed in the hands of any kind of small elites, ending this incredibly exciting process of democratizing photography that we have witnessed in recent years, even for the cost of army frustrated professionals that had no choice, but start learning again to compete. Thank you.
 

[briansquibb]

For movie I would like to see HD@120fps so we get real slo-mo

[Bob Howland]

5D mk3 = Could become the "video DSLR" taking the best parts of the C300 and 1DX video and putting that into the 5D3 body. Sure it won't be a C300 but it could possibly do 4K but its stills may suffer because of this.
streamline its footprint like they said when they merged the 1D series.

Why would anyone want to buy a camera with 4k video?

Chances are you can't display 4k video on your computer and if you can afford a home-video system with a 4k projector, then money is not a problem for you and you'll buy yourself a camera, today, that can do 4k video.

4k TVs are a long way from being affordable, never mind you actually finding a place to sell you one. The only place I've seen a 4k projector (I was lucky enough to get a demo) was in a HiFi store that has $100,000 amps in the showroom for demo purposes.

By the time 4k video becomes common enough in the home, the 5D3 will be relatively ancient history.

To whit the only people today that would have any serious interest in 4k video are those shooting for the big screen and the big screen only. How many people is that? I'd guesstimate that it would be between 1% and 10% of the total number of cameras sold - maybe not even 1%.

Consider that if you uploaded a 4k video to youtube, nobody that is using a current model laptop will be able to view all 4k of the video and an incredibly small number of people will be able to view it on their computer in full resolution. Well, there's another question of whether or not someone with a monitor big enough will have a computer powerful enough to watch 4k video.

The most likely impact of 4k video, today, will be movie files on your computer that are over 4 times larger than 1080p and that editing the video is consequently that much slower too!

It would seem that 4K video has become a numbers obsession to replace the MP obsession. People need to get over it already.

People are still watching movies made before 1940. That's over 70 years ago. Is somebody making a movie today supposed to assume that their work has so little artistic merit that nobody will want to watch it, say, 20 years in the future when 4K DVD players and television/monitors will likely not only be available but even common? From what I understand, 4K is the preferred production resolution, even if 2K is the resolution shipped to the movie theater. However, a movie produced in 4K can be re-released in the future in 4K when the viewing hardware catches up.

[JimKarczewski]

Canon Buys Mamiya [CR1]

Oh.. PLEASE Yes, PLEASE

I have 6 Mamiya AF lenses collecting dust.  Though canon would probably do something stupid and come out with a new mount system.  D'oh.

[dilbert]

5D mk3 = Could become the "video DSLR" taking the best parts of the C300 and 1DX video and putting that into the 5D3 body. Sure it won't be a C300 but it could possibly do 4K but its stills may suffer because of this.
streamline its footprint like they said when they merged the 1D series.

Why would anyone want to buy a camera with 4k video?

Chances are you can't display 4k video on your computer and if you can afford a home-video system with a 4k projector, then money is not a problem for you and you'll buy yourself a camera, today, that can do 4k video.

4k TVs are a long way from being affordable, never mind you actually finding a place to sell you one. The only place I've seen a 4k projector (I was lucky enough to get a demo) was in a HiFi store that has $100,000 amps in the showroom for demo purposes.

By the time 4k video becomes common enough in the home, the 5D3 will be relatively ancient history.

To whit the only people today that would have any serious interest in 4k video are those shooting for the big screen and the big screen only. How many people is that? I'd guesstimate that it would be between 1% and 10% of the total number of cameras sold - maybe not even 1%.

Consider that if you uploaded a 4k video to youtube, nobody that is using a current model laptop will be able to view all 4k of the video and an incredibly small number of people will be able to view it on their computer in full resolution. Well, there's another question of whether or not someone with a monitor big enough will have a computer powerful enough to watch 4k video.

The most likely impact of 4k video, today, will be movie files on your computer that are over 4 times larger than 1080p and that editing the video is consequently that much slower too!

It would seem that 4K video has become a numbers obsession to replace the MP obsession. People need to get over it already.

People are still watching movies made before 1940. That's over 70 years ago.

This is irrelevant.

Is somebody making a movie today supposed to assume that their work has so little artistic merit that nobody will want to watch it, say, 20 years in the future when 4K DVD players and television/monitors will likely not only be available but even common?

What's to say that 8k or 16k won't be all the rage by then?

20 years ago, video cassettes were all the rage with CRTs in the home. LCD/LED TVs were unheard of.

Today, how many people here still watch home made videos from 20 years ago that were recorded on tape?

But seriously, is that the best argument for 4k video in a camera today - that it might still be relevant at some unknown point in the future?

From what I understand, 4K is the preferred production resolution, even if 2K is the resolution shipped to the movie theater. However, a movie produced in 4K can be re-released in the future in 4K when the viewing hardware catches up.

Yet people in Hollywood are quite happy using 2k video to supplement 4k movies, today, which tends to support the theory that everyone who is out there making money cares about what is needed for today and not some arbitrary point in the future.

I mean seriously, if the unknown future is the best argument in support for 4k video today, then that's a very weak argument.

[Bob Howland]

Yet people in Hollywood are quite happy using 2k video to supplement 4k movies, today, which tends to support the theory that everyone who is out there making money cares about what is needed for today and not some arbitrary point in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounting

Update: This actually explains it better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return

There is also the issue of selecting camera resolution of a $25 million project when the difference in cost of renting/buying 2K vs. 4K camcorders is, for example, $200,000.

[martyvis]

I am really amazed that it seems their is no desire for Canon to come out with a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, of the ILK of the Olympus PENs, Panasonic G-series or the NikonV/J. I love the versatility and portability of my Canon P&S cameras (S2 IS and S60). I enjoy the photography I can achieve with them, despite the technical limitations. While I would like to have the option of having very good low-light and bokeh capability with say a 60D, I'm not sure I want such a big rig, and also the cost of the primes I might need to round out the solution.

While say stepping up to a G12 or S100 might help out a lot, I really am starting to be besotted with something like a Olympus E-P3. While dpreview is a bit down on it, other review sites and sample images make me think otherwise. I really want something with just a bit more flexibility and a larger sensor than a G12, but not the bulk of a full DSLR. (Some thing like old film Pentax ME-Super). Surely Canon must be crazy to not think there are many others like me

[dilbert]

I am really amazed that it seems their is no desire for Canon to come out with a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, of the ILK of the Olympus PENs, Panasonic G-series or the NikonV/J. I love the versatility and portability of my Canon P&S cameras (S2 IS and S60). I enjoy the photography I can achieve with them, despite the technical limitations. While I would like to have the option of having very good low-light and bokeh capability with say a 60D, I'm not sure I want such a big rig, and also the cost of the primes I might need to round out the solution.

While say stepping up to a G12 or S100 might help out a lot, I really am starting to be besotted with something like a Olympus E-P3. While dpreview is a bit down on it, other review sites and sample images make me think otherwise. I really want something with just a bit more flexibility and a larger sensor than a G12, but not the bulk of a full DSLR. (Some thing like old film Pentax ME-Super). Surely Canon must be crazy to not think there are many others like me

I'd love to see a NEX-style camera that could take EF mount lenses, either directly or through an adapter like Sony has for their alpha lenses.