Deep Hidden Meanings? EOS 6D/3D?

[edphoto]

Sometimes it is right in front of your face....

1. Canon likely has shown a pictures from the advertising for the new camera.

2. Canon always has only photographs taken with the new body except for those photographs of the camera itself.

An interesting conjecture, except the photo was taken at least a year ago - it was also used in an announcement for an exhibition of Brutus Östling's (the author of the photo) works taking place in summer 2010, published at the end of April. Could this hypothetical camera really have existed already a year ago? I have no idea.

SNAP!

Open and shut case, Johnson.

Jip, besides the fact that this image is a year old, the brightness of the gold/yellow colouration on the egret closest to the camera is completely different to the other birds, the sun direction is also coming from the right side of the camera and the shadows are quite a bit brighter, tells me that either a speedlight with a gel or a reflector was used (nice model... ) to light the egret.

Low light, no ways, my 350D could pull this off with a 10-22mm on easily!

I reckon its gonna be a printer 

[Grummbeerbauer]

I guess the "land of the crazy" spec list would make a lot of people in Canon land really happy, as this one would finally be an answer to Nikon's D700 which beats 5DII in every aspect except resolution (and, oh yes, and the video feature, about which I don't care, though).
What I don't like about the spec list is the quoted price - the only area where this rumored body clearly beats the 2,5 years old D700 is resolution (and only barely), they can't be asking over 1500$ more than the MSRP(!) of the D700. However, if at least after they ripped of the early adopters, this body would end up somewhere in the area of <3500$ (or for us Europeans in the <2800€ range, mind you, the 5DII is <1900€ at the moment!), it might stop me from considering switching to the yellow camp.
Considering the pricing of the 7D against the D300s, we know that the Canon executives have indeed not lost all touch with reality, so a more reasonable price is a possibility. If, however, they stick to their strategy of "protecting" their holy cow 1D(s) series by a combination of overpricing and/or underspecing other bodies, I and probably many others will join the crowd that already jumped ship.

[martijn]

I remember there was a similar situation about a year ago, with a similar invite from Canon Sweden, with pictures of the invitation card and with similar discussions, conjectures and hopes being expressed on the forums.

It turned out to be for an introduction of new pro (printshop) printers.

[Sean Nel]

I remember there was a similar situation ...

It turned out to be for an introduction of new pro (printshop) printers.

Hey!! Don't ruin our dreams!!!


 

[Flake]

this one would finally be an answer to Nikon's D700 which beats 5DII in every aspect except resolution (and, oh yes, and the video feature, about which I don't care, though).


I sometimes wonder what planet some people are on!  Some of us believe that the colour rendition of the 5D MkII are very good, and the resolution is a major issue!

The much vaunted low light performance of the D700 is crippled by an autofocus at f/5.6 which gives up way before the 5D MkII with it's more sensitive f/2.8 centre spot.  A friend & I took both cameras out at night both of them had Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8 lenses on, she ended up so frustrated that the Nikon refused to focus lock on anything when the Canon was quite happily managing.

So where does the D700 outperform the 5D MkII?  Certainly not image quality which after all is what a camera is all about.  The focus system is better for action photography, but for studio and landscape the Canon is adequate enough.

So I'll ask the question again - where does the D700 outperform the 5D MkII ?

[Flake]

BTW the Canon image is here http://obj.fotosidan.se/obj/docpart/3e/3ed0a5c3decfdbfd917915cb08fec949.jpg

[tzalmagor]

The much vaunted low light performance of the D700 is crippled by an autofocus at f/5.6 which gives up way before the 5D MkII with it's more sensitive f/2.8 centre spot.

An f/2.8 spot requires four times more light than an f/5.6 spot in order to work, so wouldn't it be *less* sensitive ?

[Flake]

The much vaunted low light performance of the D700 is crippled by an autofocus at f/5.6 which gives up way before the 5D MkII with it's more sensitive f/2.8 centre spot.

An f/2.8 spot requires four times more light than an f/5.6 spot in order to work, so wouldn't it be *less* sensitive ?

Does it?  Why?  an f/2.8 lens lets in four times more light!

[tzalmagor]

The much vaunted low light performance of the D700 is crippled by an autofocus at f/5.6 which gives up way before the 5D MkII with it's more sensitive f/2.8 centre spot.

An f/2.8 spot requires four times more light than an f/5.6 spot in order to work, so wouldn't it be *less* sensitive ?

Does it?  Why?  an f/2.8 lens lets in four times more light!

As far as I understand, or maybe misunderstand, an f/2.8 spot is one that needs a lens with max aperature of f/2.8 (or wider) to work. That would mean that f/5.6 would not give it enough light to focus, while f/2.8 would.

[Flake]

Not quite right, it does need a lens with an f/2.8 aperture to work, but that's partly because the AF system calculates depth of field more accurately.  It's also the reason why the Sigma f/1.4 performs worse on a Canon body than it does on a Nikon, which is less affected by the focus shift on stopping down.

The informal tests we did showed quite a bit of difference, as soon as we lost daylight and twighlight went a bit dark the Nikon just wouldn't focus on anything that wasn't under a street lamp, we never did find out where the Canon gave up, it didn't get dark enough!

[neuroanatomist]

The much vaunted low light performance of the D700 is crippled by an autofocus at f/5.6 which gives up way before the 5D MkII with it's more sensitive f/2.8 centre spot.  A friend & I took both cameras out at night both of them had Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8 lenses on, she ended up so frustrated that the Nikon refused to focus lock on anything when the Canon was quite happily managing.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the way the f/2.8 vs. f/5.6 AF points work.  There is a certain minimum amount of light an AF sensor needs to achieve a focus lock.  From your description, that threshold is higher for Nikon, meaning the Canon can AF in less light than the Nikon.  Low light AF performance derives from the sensitivity of the pixels in the AF sensor (usually reported as an EV value).   That sensitivity will apply to all of the AF points on the sensor, independent of orientation or whether the sensor is active with f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, or f/8 light flux. 

Canon refers to the center f/2.8-sensitive AF point as 'high-precision' not 'high-sensitivity'.  The comments that the f/2.8 sensor is less sensitive are, in a way, correct - those sensors require more light to function, but with that additional light, they are able to deliver a more precise focus measurement.  Note that on the 1-series bodies, that high precision center AF point requires f/4 light flux, instead of f/2.8 light flux (i.e. it still requires more light than a f/5.6 point to achieve higher precision, but not as much more as the f/2.8 center points on lower level, non-1-series bodies).

Indirectly, there may be some benefit from the high-precision AF point for low-light AF - the f/2.8 sensor will achieve lock on a subject with lower contrast because it's using more of the available light (even though in absolute terms, it's less sensitive).

[mikeeick]

So, what kind of birds are these? Storks? Herons? Cranes? I hope that this isn't about an "egrettable" new camera.

They are Great Egrets.  D'oh! 

YES, they are. Thank you! Finally one to name these birds right after all these comments with storks, cranes and so on.
(On the original photo there are in fact even some more species to see if you look closely: 3 Spoonbills on the right, 1 Grey Heron and some Grey Geese. No cranes, no storks... Unfortunately all of these birds are covered in the Canon invitation by the orange textbox.)

For all of you who want to learn more about the Great Egret or Great White Egret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Egret

[gmrza]

Sometimes it is right in front of your face....

1. Canon likely has shown a pictures from the advertising for the new camera.

2. Canon always has only photographs taken with the new body except for those photographs of the camera itself.

3. The photograph of the cranes is taken in low light with a very wide angle lens.

4. The only low light wide angle lens is the 16-35 f2.8 and it is only wide angle on a FF body.

Therefore, new camera is FF. Eithere that or they are going to announce a new printer.

Now if I could only count the pixels.....

I doubt the photo was shot with a wide angle lens.  At least in my opinion, the photo exhibits some
perspective compression, plus the point of view is almost on top of one of the egrets.  You would
need to be standing almost on top of the egret to shoot this with a wide angle.  If you did, you would
see perspective distortion from the wide angle.  Instead, the perspective is somewhat compressed.
I would say the should was taken with a telephoto, rather than a wide angle... - and I wouldn't
read anything into that either.

[able]

I doubt the photo was shot with a wide angle lens.  At least in my opinion, the photo exhibits some
perspective compression, plus the point of view is almost on top of one of the egrets.  You would
need to be standing almost on top of the egret to shoot this with a wide angle.  If you did, you would
see perspective distortion from the wide angle.  Instead, the perspective is somewhat compressed.
I would say the should was taken with a telephoto, rather than a wide angle... - and I wouldn't
read anything into that either.

I agree about the telephoto. It's difficult to get close to birds for a wideangle shot unless the photographer sat in a blind and waited for the shot.

Could this be shot with a camera featuring a internal HDR option?