If anyone had bothered to read the linked article you can see that they were basically hanging on since *1991*.
"The decay in the heritage institution had, however, started to set in much before the advent of digital technology. A fire in 1991 not only broke the studio financially, but also destroyed pieces of history stored in the building in the form of negatives."
James Benet: The reason they took the plastic and the other bits is because you left a sweat or smell imprint on it. The ants do not eat the leafs or insects they take. They hoard it deep into their nests and let it rot to grow a fungus that is their true food source. The plastic and other parts by having bacteria and human oils and sweat would also help in growing the fungus. As a nature photographer myself the water containers help but are just a starting defense. You need to use White Petrolatum or Vaseline in the tripod legs to stave them off as that is something they easily stick to and thwarts their advance.
I have a research scientist friend who trapped tsetse flies in Africa and they created a ring-like barrier around the steel legs with dollops of axle grease to prevent ants from crawling up into the traps.
1/4"-1/3" thick dollop all the way around each leg, about 6"-8" off the ground, and clear the area around it.
DamianFI: Make it free and a large chunk of customers who use it will most likely buy Canon products.
Charge them and they won't bother, you can learn it all on YouTube university.
Canon should charge for it but give certificates to everyone who has registered their warranty in the last 2 years and also with every new SLR/ILC.
That way it adds a perceived value to the course, and to the new camera sale.
nir-vana: I will take the Sigma 120-300/2.8 SSimilar image quality, less than third of the price, T2.8 vs T4.7
Taken with the 1D4 and Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS in declining light. We were on a rubber zodiac slowly motoring by after the light had declined to the point where we had head back to the ship. ISO 5000 wasn't ideal for the time but I needed the faster shutter because of zodiac's bobbing and the how low the light level was.
Nobby2016: the lens elements show dust.
i worked for a video production company and i did such stuff as CGI in maya,it´s a mess to do stop motion when you see every dust spot and fingerprint.
so as nice as it looks the dust gives me the creeps. no way i could have presented that to my former boss.
they should have done most of it as stop motion but do the lens elements as CGI.im pretty sure canon has full CAD models of this lens so they could have done it 100% animated easily. but i see the reason why they wanted classic stop motion.
it´s just that the dirty lens elements don´t look good.
Good eye...even the aperture blades after that show some wear.
I have the original 120-300/2.8 OS and the 200-400 IS. My 120-300 is a freakishly sharp copy, but the 200-400 is definitely better in AF and the built in TC means the lens is extremely versatile. Before the 200-400 I used the 120-300 on a 1D4 as a 'poor man's' 200-400. Now the 200-400/1Dx(2) is a near unbeatable combo whilst on safari.
If you need a zoom and can't afford the 200-400 I'd recommend the 120-300 Sport or the 100-400 II. There is an embarrassment of great lens choices today.
robbo d: Glad i'm not the only one finding that i'm needing to up my shutter speeds to get sharp images with this new breed of high mp cams ....
Higher resolution means that something that was sharp across one pixel might be blurry across 2 pixels if the new sensor is twice as dense (4x megapixels), if the subject is in motion.
Therefore increasing shutter speed would be the solution to freeze the motion even further.
alcaher: There was a d5/1dx msrk2 Af performance comparison, it was interesting. I want to see from dpreview a d500/d5 Af comparison too.Like a previous póster said, eventhough they share the same Af system and technology, the d5 might be better but how much better? People here like alot comparisons between cameras of different brands, well it is time to see some between the same camera maker.
I think you're right in looking for a D500/D5 shoot off comparison. Even though they may share the same AF sensor, all the subsystems after that are significantly different, although it may wind up to be a small advantage for the D5 in the end.
I don't have a D5 but I do have a 1Dx2, moved from 1Dx and all the 1D series since the II before that.
I'd say that Nikon has tended to have the edge in AF performance in previous generations and I think they still may at present, but the gap has been the narrowest since the D3 trounced the problematic 1D Mark III.
The D5 might be better in the lowest light (high ISO and AF) but the 1DxII is just behind it. However, faster FPS, base ISO DR and 4kp60 video are really strong features that make the 1DxII a better all around body.
Also Canon battery life has been slowly going backwards on the 1D series while the Nikon's have been going forwards.
It would be in the narrowest of edge cases where a Nikon shooter would have gotten significantly better results than a Canon shooter, and other improbable edge cases where the Canon shooter would have an advantage. I wouldn't hesitate picking a Nikon or Canon 99.9999% of the time.
johnschafer: I'm sorry, but I'm at the point where I'm done with DPR's very obvious Nikon bias. I really don't want to start a negative rant here. But come on, honestly, I must protest. DPR admits in a separate article of the D5's lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR. Further, look at FStoppers review of the D5. It is very clear to see the D5 hits its useful limit at ISO25600. Here at DPR if this was a Canon-equivalent pro DSLR, it would be demoted to Silver award. Further, DPR hasn't reviewed a Canon 1D-series in 6 years. Nikon D5 is a Silver award, nothing more.
Anyone who decides to buy a D5 over a 1Dx Mark II only because of this review (coming out first) is pretty much a fool for doing so. Both the D5 and 1DxII will not disappoint though, but which one you would choose would likely not hinge on a DPR review.
If there was a big bias towards Nikon vs. Canon you wouldn't have had Barney's cool 80D video (sponsored by Canon).
Ilvez: Good camera, but hardly groundbreaking. Lack of anti-flicker mode will be a big turn-off for the pros who shoot infoor sport events with artificial lighting and might even be a reason to choos another camp.
Why would they choose another camp for one missing feature? They would likely just buy a D500 as a supplement instead, which does have the anti-flicker mode.
steelhead3: Not to put a damper on Mr. Yuyan but the possession of a Polar Bear tooth is illegal in the US unless you are one of the exempted native people in Alaska.
He probably came by it legally:
Kiliii Fish is an indigenous photographer (Nanai) who specializes in Native cultures and wilderness conservation. He is a former wilderness guide and continues to teach the traditional skill of Native kayak-building. He works on documentary projects that tell the stories of the voiceless- people and wilderness.
Kiliii’s work has been awarded by Communication Arts and Sony World Photo. He is a public speaker on issues of wilderness, and Native peoples. His clients include REI and The Nature Conservancy; he is currently at work on a multi-year project on indigenous whaling. Kiliii spends the majority of his time in the Arctic or on the ocean and is on the road ten months a year photographing at the edges of our wild world.
CaMeRa QuEsT: I was expecting Canon to have leveled-up to Nikon's AF performance by now, given how much improvement they have brought forward with their latest sensors' DR, but, alas, Nikon still seems to have the upper hand in AF capabilities and DR across its range, only now it also has caught up to Canon in skin colors while Canon is actually doing worse? Bravo for Nikon. Now if they could only up their QC and have something to counter Canon's Dual Pixel LV AF, they might stave their terrible sales slips of late...
This is the narrow end of the market, there is no magical cure all (except the Eye focus of the EOS 3 film body?).
To torture a car analogy, these cameras are the F1 cars of cameras, or Rally machines. They are getting further away from general purpose use and into specialized situations.
Just like you can't just jump in and drive those cars in a race (and not crash), you can't just expect to grab a 1Dx2 or D5 and expect to get the same results as a dedicated sports shooter in a sporting event.
Canon AF always has felt like it was designed for engineers whilst Nikon AF has felt like it was designed for photographers.
Both will get you to where you want to go, but one is more easy to grasp than the other (without extensively studying the manual).
Just look at Canon's flash system vs. Nikon's and you will see a big difference in philosophies. Canon's learning curve is huge for complicated features and I'm not sure it is always an improvement over competitor's schemes.
Good shots. Would like to see some oncoming shots in series to see if will grab focus and hold focus at 14fps. Side shots are a lot easier, especially with sky in the background.
So is the final score judged on what the camera is like compared to its peers today or what the market was like 2 years ago? Not that it matters that much since the final evaluation is so high, but just wondering because the 5Ds/r and A7RII were not out then, nor was there a Pentax K-1 imminent.
Peiasdf: I would be more excited using this on a phone that can accept SD cards but I guess no one really needs 256GB on a phone.
Recording high bit rate video/4k video on a phone?
kayaro: That's great to have 55,200 photos stored but if the card go wrong than you will LOSE 55,200 photos at ONE GO. Oh, is the 10 years warranty include recover all the photos?
Tonkotsu Ramen's answer is the only correct answer.
(unknown member): I'm still waiting for a full D4 review :)
I'm still waiting for the a full 1D Mark III review! ;-)
CameraLabTester: More intrigued by what model name will come after this series... as there is an existing 100D up the road...
The new features are so predictable.
The model naming continuity is much more interesting to contemplate on...
Canon naming is pretty strange, they like incrementing the double digit and triple digit models but the single digit models get ordinal succession of the same model series, and even that got semi broken with the 1D4 -> 1Dx... guessing they think consumers won't believe that a 80D Mark II is as good as a 90D when comparing to a 80D?