5D Mark III [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
- Status
B
Bob Howland
Guest
jonne said:
Grendel said:
Then it should be 104MB/s, not 104Mb/s. Mb/s means megabits/sec. MB/s means megabytes/sec. One byte is 8 bits.
Upvote
0
J
jonne
Guest
Grendel said:
RAW data, if you are talking about raw video, doesn't have to include pixel data. It's not spitting out 30 uncompressed, ready-baked TIFFS/second, if that's what your numbers are based on. They could keep the current bitrate and still give us raw data from the sensor. It would be compressed, but all the other benefits of raw would be there. How realistic this is with the current chips, I don't know. Even if the only gain was white balance, I'd take it.
Upvote
0
WarStreet said:
I agree that the ball is in Nikon's court. Just like what sales figures are showing, 5DII is doing better than its counterpart D700 and Nikon still has to answer to the challenge in the field of affordable FF bodies.
If Nikon doesn't answer, someone else (maybe other companies - say, the next SX Pro? or K-X body?:
) would probably jump in and fill the niche. If the situation doesn't change, I'd say Canon (and people with 5D2) would be even happier with their current position.We'll probably see a new D800 before we hear anything solid on the 5D3.
Upvote
0
G
gbaturin
Guest
Don't know about the rest of you people, but I'd really LOVE to have the option of buying a cutting edge FF DSLR without video capability, if the price difference is at least 500 dollars. I don't see the point in a video capable DSLR with virtually non-existent autofocus. If Canon released two versions of a 5D mark III (one with video, and a cheaper one without), they'd really make me a happy customer. I know some of you want to say GO BUY A NIKON D700, but that camera's outdated, not enough pixels on a FF body. The only thing still holding me back from buying a 5D Mark II is curiosity - I'd love to see what Nikon churns out in the coming months... And then see what Canon throws back at them ))) My 50D works just fine for me right now.
Upvote
0
gbaturin said:
Getting rid of the video capability wouldn't save any money, the few video specific components in the camera are very cheap. That's why the 5DII costs about the same as a D700. I can't see Canon ever introducing a new DSLR without video now.
Upvote
0
W
WarStreet
Guest
gbaturin said:
Due to the large sensor, the video capability of the 5DII is similar to cinema level, with a nice shallow depth of field, and low noise in low light. I think the difficulty of autofucus is due to the shallow depth of field. It is easier to focus FF equivalent shorter focal length lens on a smaller sensor such as a camcorder. Also, due to the large sensor, this is meant for pro use, and in pro video as far as I know, manual focus is used alot. Final episode of House has been shot with the 5DII, and now there are commercial spots being shot with it too. For those into video, they say the 5DII is revolutionary. Search for the subject, and you can find lots of talented amateur videos with this camera, and also pro commercial shots.
Upvote
0
B
Bob Howland
Guest
WarStreet said:
And then there are people who think like this:
http://prolost.com/blog/2009/12/3/you-didnt-believe-me.html
http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
Upvote
0
studio1972 said:
I don't believe that getting rit of video won't make things cheaper. If you read all the posts here how to improve video on DSLR's, I guess a lot of research has to be done. That is research money which has to be paid back by the buyers of the camera.
Heck, even the new power focus mode on the new tele lenses are there for video and made these lenses partly more expensive. :'(
Upvote
0
Peerke said:
The original suggestion of having a no-video option won't make things cheaper. If Canon offered a 5DIII with no video and a 5DIII-v with video, the R&D for putting video in would still be needed and already baked into the cost of both versions. You could even argue that developing two separate products with just that difference would even be more costly, and raise the price of both models. Likewise, with the new supertele lenses, setting up production lines for video and still versions would be impractical and costly.
You're right in one sense - if Canon abandoned dSLR video entirely, R&D costs would drop and prices could (but not necessarily would) be lower. Mathematically speaking, the probability of that happening is somewhat lower than the reciprocal of the US national debt.
Upvote
0
Jan said:
Power Focusing (PF): A new Power Focusing mode (PF) has been added to the focus mode switch on both the 300mm and 400mm IS II lenses. This feature is primarily intended for use by videographers. It allows manual rack focusing to be operated smoothly and silently by turning the playback ring normally used for the focus preset function. Power Focusing can be operated at low or high speed, depending on how far the playback ring is turned.
From here.
Upvote
0
Absolutely right Neuroanatomist. That is why I never liked the video option. When it appeared people were telling that it was only minor costs, because the signal was there and it was only peanuts to put in some electronics and software to make the signal a video. Everybody very happy. For a few dollars extra a video and a still camera. Than the Steven Spielbergs came with extra wishes for video. Higher FPS, better AF etc.
Now Canon and others are committed to video and they don't have a choice but putting more and more research into it. The AF of my 7D is working fine (for stills that is), but I'm sure Canon is putting money in the development of a different AF to put in an even more video capable 7DII and other models. Nice for our friends, the Spielbergs, but for my part, Canon could better spend that research on higher DR and low noise performance.
Now Canon and others are committed to video and they don't have a choice but putting more and more research into it. The AF of my 7D is working fine (for stills that is), but I'm sure Canon is putting money in the development of a different AF to put in an even more video capable 7DII and other models. Nice for our friends, the Spielbergs, but for my part, Canon could better spend that research on higher DR and low noise performance.
Upvote
0
The money Canon spends on developing and implementing video specific features is presumably more than offset by the extra sales canon makes to people who want them. This is not a very difficult concept to understand.
Just look at the pricing of the 5DII vs the D700, the 5DII isn't any more expensive than the canon despite having the video feature. If they scrapped this feature the camera wouldn't be cheaper, in fact the price may well go up!
Just look at the pricing of the 5DII vs the D700, the 5DII isn't any more expensive than the canon despite having the video feature. If they scrapped this feature the camera wouldn't be cheaper, in fact the price may well go up!
Upvote
0
Neuro, I find that my views often coincide with yours, but not on this point. I think the photo-video convergence isn't something artifically forced into existence by canon; rather, they had a good read on the direction the industry was moving in and got a great jump on it.
In terms of the ideal use of r+d resources, I'd like to propose an analogy to another market that delivers similarly complex, multifunction machines- the auto industry. If we think of cars twenty years ago, they were relatively spartan devices that revolved pretty much around an engine, chassis, suspension, and simple cabin comforts like air conditioning. Since then, based on market analysis and the desire to produce unique product, manufacturers have introduced dashboard computers, power seats, entertainment systems, panoramic sunroofs, bluetooth voice recognition software ... none of which really contributes at all to the process of driving a car. Yet at the same time, they've also improved by leaps and bounds in engine, suspension, and chassis technology. Would a BMW 3-series be getting 40 mpg if BMW weren't wasting engineers on fixing the horrid iDrive software?
While opportunity cost always exists, I don't think its always so simple. As studio observes, without video implementation the 5D mark ii may very well not have brought in as much money for canon to reinvest in new technology. We can't know for sure. I am firmly of the belief that canon can improve video quality as well as stills performance at the same time. Besides, better DR and lower noise improves video image quality just like it improves photo IQ ... so again, its not a mutually exclusive use of resources on canon's part.
In terms of the ideal use of r+d resources, I'd like to propose an analogy to another market that delivers similarly complex, multifunction machines- the auto industry. If we think of cars twenty years ago, they were relatively spartan devices that revolved pretty much around an engine, chassis, suspension, and simple cabin comforts like air conditioning. Since then, based on market analysis and the desire to produce unique product, manufacturers have introduced dashboard computers, power seats, entertainment systems, panoramic sunroofs, bluetooth voice recognition software ... none of which really contributes at all to the process of driving a car. Yet at the same time, they've also improved by leaps and bounds in engine, suspension, and chassis technology. Would a BMW 3-series be getting 40 mpg if BMW weren't wasting engineers on fixing the horrid iDrive software?
While opportunity cost always exists, I don't think its always so simple. As studio observes, without video implementation the 5D mark ii may very well not have brought in as much money for canon to reinvest in new technology. We can't know for sure. I am firmly of the belief that canon can improve video quality as well as stills performance at the same time. Besides, better DR and lower noise improves video image quality just like it improves photo IQ ... so again, its not a mutually exclusive use of resources on canon's part.
Upvote
0
W
WarStreet
Guest
studio1972 said:
kubelik said:
I was going to say the same thing, but you two managed to say it in a much better way
Regarding video quality, there will always be possibility of improvement. During these years, digital photography is improving rapidly, and still after pixel peeping, one will always find something wrong. If you consider that this is the first attempt of video in DSLR, the quality of video was still good enough to be used in pro productions. It also gave the Spielberg wannabe a possibility to express their artistic abilities with a good quality/price ratio not available before.
Upvote
0
kubelik said:
I do agree, and I'm not rabidly anti-video even though I use my cameras primarily for still shooting. But I am a bit frustrated that lots of R&D money is going to higher and higher pixel densities and improved video features, and less to DR increases and ISO noise reduction. However, even that's an oversimplification since as the pixel densities have been increased, noise has not increased in parallel - that's partly physics, but partly due to improved NR performance.
Upvote
0
N
niko
Guest
neuroanatomist said:
I believe Canon (as well as other manufacturers) need to carefully consider the allocation of their R&D budgets in order to provide the biggest improvement (in specific areas) in the next gen products (after all, this is what is going to entice the consumer to upgrade their current equipment).
Video opened up an untapped market segment (in DSLRs) and provides the biggest bang for the buck since it is currently 1st (ish) gen while ISO and DR are pretty mature and already at very good levels.
I am not saying that Canon would be (or should be) abandoning completely the ISO and DR (sensor) improvements, and we probably will see improvement in both areas, but that is probably not the greatest selling point.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
