|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
More FPS!
A possibility for the next 1D is variable FPS based on whether or not RAW or sRAW is selected.
“If the camera is set to sRAW 1 it will be able to shoot 12fps”
Movie Mode?
“This isn't a forgone conclusion. There is a 50/50 chance we may not see movie mode in the next 1D. If we do see it in a pro body, it will be the 1Ds4.”
CR's take: I think there will be some kind of movie mode in the camera, I don't expect anything more than what's in the 5D2.
Live View?
“A new live view technology exists, we're more likely to see it in a prosumer body.”
That's it for now
cr
“” More FPS! ~ A possibility for the next 1D is variable FPS based on whether or not RAW or sRAW is selected. “If the camera is set to sRAW 1 it will be able to shoot 12fps†“”
About time! Less data transfer should mean more FPS can be achieved…
“” Movie Mode? ~ “This isn’t a forgone conclusion. There is a 50/50 chance we may not see movie mode in the next 1D. If we do see it in a pro body, it will be the 1Ds4.†“”
What? Why… I would be pissed… I’m not a video pro but looking at the 5DII video, I would love to experiment with it…
“” Live View? ~ “A new live view technology exists, we’re more likely to see it in a prosumer body.†“”
Again why? … Part of the reason I buy 1 serie camera is because I want the latest tools that can make me more efficient.
I hope this camera doesnt turn out to be hyper conservative and feature only a higher resolution. There is so much room for improvement… If they need idea, all of us can give them some as we use these camera everyday hehe.
If you need a video camera, buy one. I don’t want to pay more money for a camera because they incorporated a feature I don’t plan on using for work. I’d rather buy a new lens, or, a real video camera. And if the price doesn’t rise, what sacrifices did they make to keep it that way?
YES!!! If you want to shoot video, buy a video recorder.
It’s good to hear this from someone else.
Convergeance is everywhere. Cinema and video games, cellphones and cameras, MP3 player and audio recorder.
I want a great camera first. But video functions in FF DSLR are tempting for many reasons. The main reason for me is to explore a different way of visual expression.
Technology is there to make videos and we have proof it can be put in a lower end camera (5DII) without to much sacrifice on the price or feature set.
Agree
Less data read from the sensor would mean potential for higher fps. Just like the D2X did. :)
But sRAW works by processing the whole file, sizing it down and then reencoding it into something more or less similar to a RAW file. Just compare sizes of RAW and sRAW images, filesize ratios aren’t anything close to what you would expect from the number of pixels, even if you compare only the data area to factor out the thumbnails and such.
At best you’d get deeper buffers at high fps; anything else smells like artificial limit.
I was wondering when they would bother to do that. btw, is was the D2Xs, rather than the original D2X
multimedia PJs
Need it to stay competetive against future cameras.
They charge the same regardless, once its developed it doesn’t cost any more to produce.
Stop asking people to take features out of cameras, and just don’t use them.
Cant wait… That also means you can get even more FPS at 4m/pix for example. Of course the shutter + mirror cannot go as fast as 20 fps but this could be the Live View update they are talking.
In live view mode when the mirror and shutter are open, you could faster FPS at lower resolution.
So you’re telling me that if it doesn’t actually come with a video function, that it had nothing to do with cost, they just didn’t want to provide that particular function? I don’t think so.
I could care less about video. If I want to shoot video I will use my video camera. I know the camera is already being used by the “testers” at the Kentucky Derby, and Preakness as well as NASCAR and probably other locations i am not aware of. However, my wish is for 16 MP at 1.3 crop or 18 MP at FF with large photosites for low noise. Frame rate around 10 fps is fine for my uses. Oh yea, it has to have state of the art AF that works as advertised.
Ok, at the risk of sounding like an idiot… Why can’t or don’t they make fps user definable? From my perspective it seems like there are some applications that definitely benefit from 10fps, or more, but others might be just as well served or even better served by being able to dial in 5 or 3fps and save wear and tear on the mechanisms. What am I missing here?
This camera is aimed at photojournalists, and with the present state of the newspaper industry, and the ever growing need for Web content such as video, this would be the PRIME camera to have video, not the 1Ds IV if Canon is thinking. Why carry a video camera around if you don’t have to. And, as great as the 5D is, it just cannot take the beating that photojournalists put their cameras through. I know this first hand.
Its already user definable in custom functions. You can set both a high and low value.
you might as well just stop fighting this losing battle. as the 500D and the new pentax show, it’s more or less certain that virtually all dslrs are going to include video from now on. in addition, jvc just released an everio HD camcorder that will take 9MP stills. so the convergence is happening from both ends, and the time is coming where there will be no still cameras and no video cameras, just cameras* (aside, obviously, from high-end broadcast stuff, though there are reports of 5D2s being used in feature films).
adding video to any camera that has live view is a trivial task, and does not add, as many seem to think, a couple hundred bucks to the price. the large players introduce their cameras at a certain price point, based on the history of the line and their competitors’ products. if they removed video, they would sell at exactly the same price, as you can see from the 50D’s current msrp. whenever the 60D debuts, it will debut at a price projected from the historical prices of the XXD line, irrespective of its specs…and it will most certainly have video.
edit: i’m sure Leica will not have video. wouldn’t do to add a feature like that. it would destroy the “purity” of te brand, if it still exists.
i hope you’re right about the price, if so, :)
Sorry, turning Live View into video mode isn’t trivial. There are a lot of technical challenges to defining shutter speed without using a physical shutter, and there are challenges to managing the data flow and video compression such that the video isn’t jerky.
yes, I am.
They have already developed it. -> 5D mkII and 500D show that, all it is is a bit of software they add to the camera. the video is almost like a modified live-view function. so at this stage it costs them next to nothing to put it in, and some people want it, so they’d be dumb not to put it in. As for you, and I, most likely, just leave it disabled in the menu, problem solved.
+1
Why on earth do you want to put HD movie on stills camera ???? You cannot use both together at the same time -I work for Tv and a pro snapper – you fire the stills via email to the picture desk and you get your mini dv tape from a mini dv camera picked up by a dispatch rider to be edited they way the production editor wants it to be , Yes I understand there must be some use ,but only for a novice , if you are going to shoot an HD video via your stills camera you need a sturdy tripod and understand how to put a package together , or just use a flip camera , it is low res is possible to send via email, max 5 mins downsized in quicktime , otherwise the tv company will want to send a despatch rider to pick up the SD/CF card , a waste of camera space if you ask me -sorry about the rant !
Thanks Mark. I was afraid of that. Should have researched more before sticking foot in mouth. Obviously I don’t shoot w/a 1D but wish I did. : )
But it has already been done. It is trivial to add it to future cameras since the technical challenges you mention have been solved and presumably amortized in…what? five DSLRs so far?
Some people might argue that if the resultion is good enough you can shoot the video alone and grab stills from that. Personally, I can’t get over the lack of control and cruddy audio. But there’s no accounting for taste and those who just want as much functionality as can be thrown in.
Hey guys, do you know how much proffesional video camera costs? And how big is?
Do you really want your DLSR to become that?
for your uses yes, perhaps it’s not useful. for me it’s the question if either i’ll buy the camera or if i buy a 5dmk2.
i do a lot of wedding photography and more and more people are beginning to ask if i do video too. i cannot carry an slr plus equipment AND a camcorder. the 5dmk2 has proven to me that it’s video abilities are quite enough for my needs. i only want a pro body and a professional af in that thing. so the 1dmk4 will be the right thing for me IF it has video.
all the people who absolutely don’t want it: t-u-r-n-i-t-o-f-f….. is that so hard for you?
Yes to both the first and second question. But I don’t understand the third question. Do I want my DSLR to become one? No, of course not. Who has ever suggested it should? Why would it?
Do I want to have video as an option? Yes. Why not? It might be useful in some circumstances. And if it isn’t, well… you don’t have to use it.
take it easy, please
Agree!
i don’t want to pay extra for it. do yo all understand this?
If you want fully equiped car because you like leather seats and sunroof, you will have to pay for the bigger wheels even you dont care about them. It’s included in the package.
Bill.
The technology is developed. R&D is done, and the 5D mk II will see that they recoup that. The movie mode is just a firmware thing, it requires nothing more mechanically than what is already inside any live-view equipped camera. So it costs literally NOTHING for Canon to include it.
They risk people being annoyed that a 1-series lacks a feature (one that’s even useful to some (Photojournalists chiefly, within the 1D target market)) that a lower end model has.
It cost’s you nothing.
You don’t get a choice it will be there. (and it will, Canon will not risk being out-speced by other manufacturers, chiefly Nikon, especially regarding an already developed technology)
Just leave it turned off in the menu.
You are all wrong on this. Being able to shoot HD quality video through Canon lenses is amazing. Normal video cameras have hardly any depth of field and a fixed lens. Being able to use prime lenses with fast apertures for less than$10,000 – $20,000 is a big deal and a big improvement. It sounds like you just do not know how to use it or take adavantage of it, but not having this keeps it from being a true pro camera, as a true pro would know why it is beneficial.