I just watched a video where an "explorer of light" for Canon was shooting this along with a fellow from DP Review (video found there) with the 1DX Mk iii at a ranch in south Texas from blinds - he had his on a tripod with a gimbal head and a 600mm f4.0L IS II and tried out the liveview shooting mode for the 20 frames/second and was very impressed with what the camera was capturing and the overall hit-rate for frames in focus. He felt the hit-rate much better than his 1DX Mk ii, adding that he was not complaining about his Mk ii, just impressed with the in-focus hit-rate of his new Mk III.
Reviewers complaining about the 20 frames/second but only in live-view apparently were not considering/thinking about shooting from a tripod and/or monopod set up where you only have to have one hand to hold/control the camera...
You may have watched The Matrix too many times I've been in a large number of electronics factories and warehouses over recent years, and never seen product plugged into the mainframe in massive volumes.
It may not be impossible, but it's a heck of a lot, even for Canon, for one particular model in one particular division. I'm not saying its not true, but I'd join with those expressing interest in seeing the source of that 'statistic' (which I appreciate wasn't one you posted).
Hey, hey! This is the video I referenced in a reply to an earlier comment in this thread. I thought this was a great video to show how effective and realistic shooting with the 1DX Mk iii in LiveView could be.
When I watched listened to Northrup and Polin both 'decrying' the LiveView shooting mode (frames/sec & autofocusing) they were both, I felt, scoffing at anyone actually trying to shoot this way - by holding the heavy camera/lens out at "arms length". I thought at the time they were both disingenuous with their comments. I thought, this would be a fantastic feature for someone shooting the type of sports/wildlife etc. where you know where the action is and where to set up your tripod/monopod to be capture the action...
I think they both have some 'serious skin in the game' now with Sony so I took their early looks with a grain of salt...
Hmm when thinking you got 1dx3 and 500mm f4 and M camera with 200mm F1,4 , their view field is about same and reach .Because smaller equipment can't do the same job. Those pesky laws of physics.
Hmm when thinking you got 1dx3 and 500mm f4 and M camera with 200mm F1,4 , their view field is about same and reach .
About light sensitivity crop sensor is 1,5 stop weaker but larger F number would compensate it when you can use 2 stop smaller iso.
I know 200mm f1,4 is hard to make for full frame but for crop it could be lot easier.
You dont need get minituarizion even phone camera level to get 1dx3 equal M camera. Olympus seems doing ok even with lot less design resources than canon.
And you dont need lens IS for action shooting ,ibis is enough for that work. So no needing extra pins
Sorry if i use wrong terms ,my word memory isnt always working good.
Just saying R sport camera isnt 100% sure ,mirrorless revolution gives opportunity for big changes.
Yep i was lazy to count right numbers ,told just about aproximatelyThe Canon EF-M cameras have 1.6X APS-C sensors, so to get the same angle of view as a FF with a 500mm f/4, one must use a 315mm lens. If one wants the same DoF at the same distance, one must use f/3.1. Have you priced a 300mm f/2.8 lately? Have you weighed it? For that matter, have you priced a 200mm f/2?
Even a Micro Four-Thirds camera would need a 250mm f/2 lens to get the "equivalent" shot as a 500mm f/4 on FF.
Yep i was lazy to count right numbers ,told just about aproximately
Many bird shooter seems to like new olympus and 300f4. canon with canon lens making skills could make lot better.
Still 300mm f2,8 is more agile to use than 500f4
I don't suppose you believe that participation in a photography rumour forum web site is someones career, including myself. This is a rumor webs site. we cannot be certain of things here.. Now, being a CIA asset, you would have no trouble to get a background on what my day job is, experience, competencies and skills.
in what way? exposure certainly is not sensor size related.300mm f/4 on an MFT body equates to a 600mm f/8 on FF body.
A viewer also doesn't give a hoot what the exposure settings of an image are.I mean my Sekonic light meter does not give a hoot what camera is in my hands or even what focal range of the lens that is attached to that camera.
Bokeh? yes, I get that.
So only reason olympus isnt 1d serie cameras killer ,they lack knowledge about making wider lense?300mm f/4 on an MFT body equates to a 600mm f/8 on FF body.
Has Canon ever managed to make a 300/2.0 lens, though (required to be an equivalent to 600/4 here)? I thought, only Nikon was making them.So only reason olympus isnt 1d serie cameras killer ,they lack knowledge about making wider lense?
Maybe thats why we never see good crop tele lense. Canon never going to teatch MFT league how to make good teles,or they are *******