jonne said:Where does the 104Mb/s number come from?
Grendel said:(1920x1080x30fpsx14bit)/(8bit*1024b*1024b)
Grendel said:(1920x1080x30fpsx14bit)/(8bit*1024b*1024b)
WarStreet said:With these sales figures, and the fact that the 5DII has video, while the D700 don't, Canon might delay th replacement, and allow Nikon to act first and improve the 5DIII final model accordingly....... maybe ?
gbaturin said: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 I know some of you want to say GO BUY A NIKON D700, but that camera's outdated, not enough pixels on a FF body.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.
gbaturin said:I don't see the point in a video capable DSLR with virtually non-existent autofocus.
WarStreet said:gbaturin said:I don't see the point in a video capable DSLR with virtually non-existent autofocus.
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.
studio1972 said:gbaturin said: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.
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.
Peerke 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. :'(
What is power focus? Are you shure only video benefits from that?Peerke said:Heck, even the new power focus mode on the new tele lenses are there for video and made these lenses partly more expensive. :'(
Jan said:What is power focus? Are you shure only video benefits from that?
Peerke said:That is why I never liked the video option...Nice for our friends, the Spielbergs, but for my part, Canon could better spend that research on higher DR and low noise performance.
studio1972 said: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.
kubelik said: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.
kubelik said: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.
neuroanatomist 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.