Samples from the EOS 1DX:-
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dx/samples/index.html
though a bit too small..
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dx/samples/index.html
though a bit too small..
Upvote
0
Flake said:61 focus points and all of them crowded together in the centre of the frame! What's the point in that? They could have used the 19 point of the 7D and had similar results. Is there anyone here prepared to admit that the only place they choose to focus is in the centre of the frame? Why not spread the focus points so they have a broader coverage which makes them a lot more usual in the real world.
Old Shooter said:Am I over-simplifying things; or does the Multiple Exposure feature look like it could do double-duty as an in-camera, 9-exposure, HDR option?
macfly said:Bye bye Canon, hello Nikon.
You won't be seeing me here anymore, good luck with new Prosumer 18mp camera kids, and keep an eye on EBay, all my lenses etc will be there soon.
weilin said:Has anyone heard 14fps before?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/89313874@N00/6256207783
Edit: According to the counter, the JPG buffer is 50 photos...
GeorgeMaciver said:Do people really want 30 megapixel cameras? What for? Your hard drive will just fill up twice as quick. A noise free clean 18 megapixel photograph could be upsized if that was really necessary. All I need to do now is decide on whether or not to save for one of these or wait for a 6D thingie. In camera multi exposure technology is exciting.
Zuuyi said:I don't want a 30MP picture. I want to be able to crop a 30MP picture as much as needed and still be able to blow it up as large as I need to. And hard drive space is nothing. You can go get 8TB of space for $300 dollars. So if all others factors are equal I will always take the large MP count.
GeorgeMaciver said:Do people really want 30 megapixel cameras? What for? Your hard drive will just fill up twice as quick. A noise free clean 18 megapixel photograph could be upsized if that was really necessary.
All these things are tradeoffs for better IQ on all ISO. So all pictures taken will be (at least, Canon says so) much cleaner, have wider dynamic range and less CA.sanyasi said:I am not an engineer, so I would be curious if anyone knows: Does the slight drop in file size from the Mark II, 5D reflect a tradeoff that was necessary to improve results at higher ISOs? A second question: Although the ISO outer limit is higher on this camera than earlier ones, will this camera improve the results at the typical ISOs that we have been using: 800, 1600, 3200, or do those stay the same?
As an aside, I took a seminar from a very experienced professional two years ago--he has written a book on making your own darkroom chemicals, so he is a technically savvy user. He was screaming that 21 on the Mark II,5D was more than was necessary. He claimed that 18 was the maximum necessary for quality results. His comments are pretty interesting now.
Thanks
motorhead said:Call me weird if you want to but this replacement for the 1D sports/photojournalist body does nothing for me.
RuneL said:wockawocka said:Jared said:Well I don't know about you all, but I'm skeptical of this 'new and improved' AF technology - only 5 f/2.8 sensitive points down the middle of the frame!? What the hell were Canon thinking!?
Yeah, I did think that too. Was surprised about it replacing both the D4 and Ds3, say to me another new camera is on it's way to cover the high mp needs of studios.
Completely agree, the 5D III should be interesting.
motorhead said:Call me weird if you want to but this replacement for the 1D sports/photojournalist body does nothing for me.
To read that the 1Ds 111 has been discontinued is a shock. For a long time I had been planning to buy the high MP, high quality 1Ds replacement, but I've got no interest in anything this body is offering. Its gone in entirely the wrong direction for my personal photographic interests.