*sigh* Thank you.No the 1DX MkII has less MP (fractionally) than the 1Ds MkIII. Indeed my main reason for not going to the 'replacement' for the 1Ds MkIII, the 1DX, was the drop in resolution from 21mp to 18mp.
Upvote
0
*sigh* Thank you.No the 1DX MkII has less MP (fractionally) than the 1Ds MkIII. Indeed my main reason for not going to the 'replacement' for the 1Ds MkIII, the 1DX, was the drop in resolution from 21mp to 18mp.
All is good, we all have a ton to learn, myself included.*sigh* Thank you.
You seem like a pretty aggressive person and not sure what your agenda is here other than to drive people from this forum. But we all get our kicks from different things.I would really like to know what you mean by resolution and also how that has been abandoned, because I do not get it. Surely the current 1DX Mark II is better resolution than the 1DS Mark III. Surely dynamic range is better today than it was way back then.
.
There is a high resolution R series coming. Some say as many as 80+ megapixels. But then you also mention speed, and an 80+ megapixel camera will probably not be a speed demon... which is why the constant asking of you to explain exactly what it is you are looking for and that you refuse to articulate.
Fisheye Hemi is a very powerful fisheye correction program that is way more flexible than a simple rectilinear correction. V2.0 has given it even more usefulness.I wonder if Canon introduces an EOS R firmware update with an option for rectilinear JPEG correction of fisheyes.
If you feel demeaned by simple questions, that's your problem. Like I said before, I don't think you are going to get both high resolution and speed at the same time. The EOS-1Ds Mark III shot at 3 and 5 fps. So there was no "speed" in that camera. The Canon 5DSr is 50mp and shoots at 5fps in FF.You seem like a pretty aggressive person and not sure what your agenda is here other than to drive people from this forum. But we all get our kicks from different things.
1DXII was a18MP so no idea what you mean by that comment and DR is just fine on all modern Canin Cameras for my needs.
]
I hear the rumours (why I’m on this website) and the “we know its coming” talk from people like you telling us all without question that said camera is around the corner. I see all the nice new lenses I want to buy. What I don’t see is any suggestion that this camera exists in testing, planning, development or the imagination of Canon engineers.
I know what happened to the 1Ds line so no matter how you sugar coat it or demean my comments, nothing is just around the corner and hence my rather innocent comment about canon being so slow.
If you feel demeaned by simple questions, that's your problem.
The 1DsIII was both high resolution and fast in 2007???? Are you seriously comparing a camera from 2007 to make your point?????Like I said before, I don't think you are going to get both high resolution and speed at the same time. The EOS-1Ds Mark III shot at 3 and 5 fps. So there was no "speed" in that camera. The Canon 5DSr is 50mp and shoots at 5fps in FF.
You can discount the rumors you are seeing on a rumor site all you like (from normally reliable sources). But if you are going to do that, then what is the point of being here anyway? Just to complain and then claim to be attacked when more information is asked for? Good luck.
I wrote it so i think I understand what I said.In the quote I provided.
Or is it my fault that you don't understand what you are saying?
I think it's highly unlikely. If you expect an R camera with sub-20Mp resolution, you will be disappointed.
Resolution is my main objective in a camera and why I keep mentioning 1Ds cameras who's main objective in their day was speed, resolution and build quality.
EOS 5 was shooting 5 fps back in 1992. EOS 3 was shooting 7 fps (with PB-E2 booster) back in 1998. 1Ds III was a slow camera for its time. If you wanted a fast camera, you would have bought 1D III with its 10 fps.The 1DsIII was both high resolution and fast in 2007???? Are you seriously comparing a camera from 2007 to make your point?????
No, that doesn't follow.I wrote it so i think I understand what I said.
That is cherry picking the numbers, the 1Ds MkIII was very fast for throughput at the time considering the resolution.EOS 5 was shooting 5 fps back in 1992. EOS 3 was shooting 7 fps (with PB-E2 booster) back in 1998. 1Ds III was a slow camera for its time. If you wanted a fast camera, you would have bought 1D III with its 10 fps.
5D MkII had only ~20% slower throughput (besides, it could record video)That is cherry picking the numbers, the 1Ds MkIII was very fast for throughput at the time considering the resolution.
The contemporary 5D was 12.8mp, the 1Ds MkIII was a breakout for the time at 21mp. The 5D MkII with the same sensor but little else of value didn't arrive until over a year later.
Market-wise, 5D MkIII was a 1Ds MkIII replacement. It did not just "come close", it had a higher resolution sensor with a higher frame rate, which of course meant higher throughput.The 5D MkIII came close but the 1DX - 1D MkIV/1Ds MkIII replacement was with us by then.
Development, production, marketing, logistics, support etc. I don't think Canon makes big money on 1D series. I suspect that 5D series starting from MkII did "cannibalize" 1Ds series, making it unprofitable, and that's why Canon cancelled it.Personally I would have bought a 1 series with a 5DSr sensor and slower fps and I don't think the development costs would have been very high to do that.
1DXII was a18MP so no idea what you mean by that comment and DR is just fine on all modern Canin Cameras for my needs.
I would be all over this lens, I got the 15-35 but it’s more of a video. This lens would be better for those lovely night sky, I bet it’ll be super sharpTaking the RF 28-70 F2.0 as the yard stick, another RF F2.0 would most likely aim at the same thing:
1. absolute technical minimum of hard to remove aberations (esp. Coma here)
2. light touch on easy to remove aberations, i.e. distortion, CA
3. 95% sharp wide open at both extremes at F2.0
4. on par with the best primes when stopped down to 2.8
5. compromise on weight and size
I will not be able to resist if they make it happen
Thanks for the clarification.No, the 1DX was 18mp, the 1DX MkII is 20mp.
This is just incorrect and like said above, cherry picking the specs to win your own private argument. You can think what you like but the fact is the EOS 1 studio series stopped at the 1DSIII. A 5D, no matter the resolution is not a direct replacement for a 1DS.EOS 5 was shooting 5 fps back in 1992. EOS 3 was shooting 7 fps (with PB-E2 booster) back in 1998. 1Ds III was a slow camera for its time. If you wanted a fast camera, you would have bought 1D III with its 10 fps.
1Ds III and 5D II had the same sensor resolution, so it was not leading in resolution either. 5D III had both better burst speed and a higher resolution sensor than 1Ds III. "Build quality"... do you really think that there were so many people for whom the build quality of 5D III was not enough for a studio camera that the development of 1Ds IV would pay off for Canon?
Besides, you don't need to repurchase all your lenses. Who gave you an idea that you do?
No, that doesn't follow.
"I wrote it so I though I understood what I said" would be correct.
Unless you are not able to critically evaluate your past actions, that is.
That's only one fact. Another fact is that Canon is not bounded by your wishes. If Canon doesn't see a good market opportunity, they won't produce a camera (or rush it to the market) just before you wish for it. If Canon doesn't see a market for a studio camera built like a war zone camera, given the alternative Canon offerings, they won't produce one.This is just incorrect and like said above, cherry picking the specs to win your own private argument. You can think what you like but the fact is the EOS 1 studio series stopped at the 1DSIII. A 5D, no matter the resolution is not a direct replacement for a 1DS.
You are not fully quoting your original post. You forgot the following line:Finally, not sure how I can make this any clearer to you other than quoting my original post.
“The Canon lens devision seems to be firing on all cylinders and producing some truly drool worthy lenses.
The frustration for me is I’m ready to jump full speed into the R system and buy a swath of new lenses however, there is just not a camera I’m remotely interested in buying.”
Please can you explain how I can own any of the RF lenses as I alluded to in my very first message without buying a an EOS R(whatever) and starting again?
I would be all over this lens, I got the 15-35 but it’s more of a video. This lens would be better for those lovely night sky, I bet it’ll be super sharp
Skew what I said all you like it still doesn’t detract from my original rather innocent comment that I had to remind you of above.That's only one fact. Another fact is that Canon is not bounded by your wishes. If Canon doesn't see a good market opportunity, they won't produce a camera (or rush it to the market) just before you wish for it. If Canon doesn't see a market for a studio camera built like a war zone camera, given the alternative Canon offerings, they won't produce one.
You are not fully quoting your original post. You forgot the following line:
"The 1DXIII proves Canon has still got the magic touch (amazing camera if you need it) but wish they weren't so tragically slow with the Pro R camera."
The fact is that so far Canon is no more "tragically slow" with a Pro R camera than they were in 1980s with a Pro EOS camera. It took Canon two and a half years to release EOS 1 after shipping the first EF lenses.
And you don't need to "start again" with buying an EOS R(whatever). All your EF lenses will work no worse on RF bodies than they did before (some will work even better, because of no need in AFMA). All your Speedlites will work too.
The 1DXIII proves Canon has still got the magic touch (amazing camera if you need it) but wish they weren't so tragically slow with the Pro R camera.