It has a special sensor and 12 stops.Axilrod said:AG said:Im also looking at buying a 1DX for video, from what i have been reading the image is sharper than the 5D3 and less moire and Aliasing than a lot of the new Sony cameras too.
I dont care about headphone jacks as i use an external "R word"![]()
The real question i have currently is what is the real difference between the 1DX and 1DC?
It seems like a $3000 4K video firmware upgrade.
I wonder if in the not too distant future the Magic Lantern team or someone similar could hack the firmware to allow 1DC firmware to load onto 1DX?
Now THAT would be worth the upgrade in anyones books.
I saw the image from the 1DC, it's amazing. Not sure what the internal differences are, but it has everything the 1DX does and then some. And it's more like a $5000 upgrade for $4k. Actually the original MSRP was supposed to be $15k but I heard it will be debuting closer to $12k.
I've heard that Canon suggested it's higher price was due to "different engineering" from the 1DX. Yeah I guess putting that little red "C" on it must have cost a fortune :![]()



I guess it's because the d4 doesn't replace a high mp camera..there the d800 for that..the 1dx however does and there isn't any high mp camera yet....halfwake said:Funny how Kai commented that 18MP of 1DX might not be enough, but he didn't make any comments on the Nikon D4's even lower 16MP.
Nope, totally different look.JRS said:Kernuak said:Classic example of why you need grad filters for landscapes. At a guess, a 3 stop grad on the sky and maybe a 1 stop on the sea would have helped with the light around the ship. Overall, the image is underexposed by around a stop, so with the grads 4 stop extra light would have helped lift the photo, with less need for over the top processing. If you have Lightroom, a slight increase in the highlight saturation only, would have prevented the weird colours in the blue sky.
Can't I get the same effect of grad filters using HDR?
Pompo said:In af point expansion, when you use only the cross points, the af points used in the expansion area corresponding to the middle empty columns blink! Im sure you all are aware of that, but why those unavailable couldn't just disappear? Another aggravating feature of this "intelligent viewfinder"
Ellen Schmidtee said:My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.
Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.
Could be something like that, certainly you're losing around two stops at 1:1. I know some of that is due to light loss within the lens, due to the design and physics, as well as some light loss from being in your own lightLetTheRightLensIn said:Kernuak said:I'm intrigued though why the 100mm macro USM is the only f/2,8 lens in group E, when even the older non-USM macro is in group C. I notice it's even worse with the 180mm macro, as it is in group G with or without the 1.4x extender.
Yeah it is odd. Glad I upgraded to L.
Maybe it is to sell more L versions. ;D ;D
If not then maybe something about the internal baffles and how it heads into macro mode as a non-extending lens, maybe the larger elements in the L get around this. The older non-USM uses an extended barrel type macro design. It is interesting that even the 100L is one of the few lenses faster than f/4 that does not get the central point to work as a super precision double cross point. Gotta be something to do with the way macro lenses are designed. Once you are at 1:1 I think they act more like f/5.6 in how much light they let in even when set to f/2.8 too, not sure where they decided to class the AF rating for it, at normal distance or macro.
gshocked said:Dear all,
Just looking for an opinion. I want to get my first L lens and I'm tossing between Canon 70 - 200 f/4 IS vs. 70 - 200 F2.8 non IS. I'm looking to use it for sports photography, mainly outdoors but sometime indoors. I've heard lost of pros for both but I haven't read a review that has given me an opinion between these two lenses. I'm leaning towards the f/4 IS but would the 2.8 compensate for hot having IS?
Has anyone used or have both? Which would people choose - larger aperture or image stabilization?
Any thoughts?
(Thanks in advance!)
RunAndGun said:I can't recommend anything in that low price range, but I can tell you NOT to go cheap on wireless gear. Like anything else, you get what you pay. I work in television and all of my wireless gear, since I started freelancing in the 90's, is Lectrosonics and it's the majority of what you will see in the field being used professionally(for a reason). Audio, unfortunately, is an afterthought a lot of times. It's not "sexy" like a camera or lens, but it is just as important. Lectro gear is not cheap. For someone with my needs, you are looking at about $7K or so for a complete two-channel system. But they have "entry level" systems, too. You can get into a single channel set-up for under $1,500. You are much better off spending a little more on an entry level Lectro system that is built to last than a plastic Azden or Sennheiser or Shure system that's in the "$600" range.
A junk 35mm film slr or old powershot will do it. Just give them the serial number. They e-mail you a shipping label so you can send it to the recycling center where is will be crushed. I doubt if anyone really cares if you actually send one, they just want a serial number.K-amps said:Marine03 said:Why not get a Canon Loyalty Program referb 7D? Costs less or same and 90 day warranty
To get into CLP, don't I have to trade something in?