" small, efficient electronics are the key to being able to miniaturize the camera". No s**t, Sherlock!
Woah, this is a cool photo. And the horse is coming into the frame, not exiting. Very nice work.
Has this been done in post? Looks like the grass beneath the ball is not blurred while that around it is. Strictly speaking, if this is the case, then the photo doesn't meet the challenge criteria of panning the camera.
The additional images appear to come from the Canon press kit, and that side-on image is identical to the one shown on CR, but the back certainly is not:http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-u-s-a-introduces-eos-1d-c-digital-slr-camera-featuring-4k-high-resolution-video-capture/
Superb shot. You should enter (have entered) this into the Raven contest, it's way better than anything else there ATM
superb shot and mood. well done & congratulations!
Personally, I would have preferred two CF slots, as has finally been introduced to the 1D range, instead of CF/SD. I don't see the point of that. And I'm amused to see the Direct Print button hasn't been retired (although at least it's multi-function).
If I cannot afford/justify the 1D-X I will at least be ditching my 40D and going FF this year. :)
METROMODEPHOTO: OH, YEAH" I WOULD LIKE TO UPGRADE FROM MY AWSOME 7D APS SENSOR TO A FULL SIZE SENSOR SOME DAY AND END THE GET THE LATEST AND THE NEWEST "RAT-RACE" SOME DAY BUT, I AM WELL DISAPPOINTED WITH THE RIDICULOUS "ONE" MORE MP 21MP 5D-2 TO A 22MP 5D-3 UPGRADE. YES,IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE SINCE NIKON OFFERED 36MP WITH THE NICE OPTION OF GOING DOWN TO 22MP FOR EXTRA FINE DETAIL AND SOME DAY IF YOU LIKE TO BLOW UP LARGE PHOTOS AND GET THE EXTRA DETAILS WELL ITS ALL THERE AND READILY AVAILABLE. ITS JUST LIKE HAVING AN SLR THAT SHOOTS HD VIDEO.I DO NOT DO VIDEO YET BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, IT IS NICE TO HAVE THE OPTION TO. "YES, OPTIONS ARE GOOD.
I haven't bothered to compare the IQ or specs of the two cameras, but if they're both FF (and therefore same sensor size), then the photosites on the 5DIII are larger than those on the Nikon. Yes?
This means more light gathering per 'pixel', and theoretically better IQ. I realise that there's more to it than that, and I'm not really that interested in the technical aspects of sensor function.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. By the same token, I'd like to see images taken with the two cameras under same, difficult conditions.
(BTW, is it possible for you not to 'shout'? Or are you just vewy angwy too?)
With the high prices of some of the new lenses launched recently, and now the high price of the 5D, Canon are getting very expensive.
The old 5D2 was a nice sensor in a cheap body. Most pros had 5D2 for that reason - a great sensor and if the body broke they just got another one. The new 5D3 seems to be a nice sensor in an expensive body.
At least now, there is a clear difference in the offerings between Nikon and Canon so people will know what suits them best, more easily.
And please, will the pathetic fanboys, haters, paid shills and other losers just get the hell out of here. You know who you are. Just shut the hell up.
Thank you so much.. :)
You felt the need to post that invective? You must be very angwy.
Joed700: I think Canon is a month too late and a dollar to short. With the Nikon D800's having 36 mp at $3000 a piece, why would Canon expect customers to pay $3500 for a 22 mp body (hardly any differences compared to the 5D Mark II in terms of megapixels)? Someone is really screwed up at the marketing dept in Canon...
MP isn't everything though, IQ is more important for some of us.
Hmmm, I thought it was an iPod ad
Debankur Mukherjee: I have compared the Leica M9 with the Nikon D3s - I have found the D3s better in every respect.......Leica has become more of a fashion brand camera system for the rich and the famous........
I've never used a rangefinder, but for those who appreciate it, that might be difference enough.
Superka: Do somebody notice that Leica S2 is.... ugly
So are the Sony alphas, but that doesn't stop people taking beautiful photographs with them though.
Agree with LeeStar (meant to post as a reply). Better than the winner.
Pretty enough, but soulless. It would have been more interesting with people in it, if only on the recliners.
Fellowpedestrian: I had been an Adobe photoshop follower since PS4 up until CS3. I then realized that every other year, they'd bring a so-called upgrade and ask for more money. I think in all, that software caused me a lot of money. I now work mostly with Corel. I've had all their photo apps up to the latest and it works fine and it's a lot cheaper. All the fancy Mac users will have you believe that you're not a real photographer if you don't use Adobe. My clients could not care less!
> All the fancy Mac users will have you believe that you're not a real photographer if you don't use Adobe.
Hey, I'm a 'fancy Mac user', and I lament the fact that PSP isn't available for Mac (I used to use it years ago on Windoze, but that was when is was still JASC).
somename: Adobe puts down real money in developing their software, and while it can be debated how much they're actually spending... if you did not update to the previous version, then you did not support the development of the next version... and hence, you're rather freeloading your way with the reduced upgrade price.
To try and simplify it further:You buy CS3 when it is released, and this helps pay for the development costs for CS4 and recover costs from CS3's development.Adobe goes and makes 3 more iterations of the software, during which time you do not offer any financial support to Adobe.
Now WHAT do they owe you?Adobe is doing nothing wrong... the reduced update costs are a REWARD, not a right. For supporting adobe by updating before, they reduce the price to update again.
Try "Upgrading at a reduced price" your DSLR next time, say that you bought a P&S 5 years ago so you deserve a reduced price. If this sounds absurd, why doesn't Adobe's practices sound sane?
>Try "Upgrading at a reduced price" your DSLR next time, say that you bought a P&S 5 years ago so you deserve a reduced price. If this sounds absurd, why doesn't Adobe's practices sound sane?
That's a fallacious argument, though. Both Adobe and the camera producers have to cover R&D/marketing costs and make a profit, but the hardware producers also have to maufacture/distribute the product. Adobe's distribution costs are reduced by software download, for example.
To directly compare software and hardware producers' practices is irrelevant.
Kuppenbender: We 'have' used HDR since.....
While I don't that is true, it's no excuse for the publisher not to have used a copy editor for what is a commercial work.
stanginit: Then they wonder why people use their software illegally. Why not try making it affordable.
As a photographer, what is it that PS does that PSE/LR do not? PS is expensive because it's a pro app with a lot of power. Probably too much for most people. Affordability is driven by the market, and tight-fistedness (or otherwise lack of money) is no excuse for piracy. There are legal alternative options out there.
Luke Kaven: Adobe broke good faith.
I have $500 for anyone who can develop a viable alternative to Photoshop. If a million people did the same, we could fund the development in entirety. I'd rather do that than buy-in again with Adobe under duress.
Photoshop has an outdated architecture. Professional video post production tools use more advanced dataflow architectures, something that Adobe should have done themselves long ago. Photoshop is a dead-end architecture. I won't shed a tear when it's gone.
George, you're bang on the nail!
It's not unlike buying a DVD and having to sit through the ads and admonishments that piracy is killing movies.
And you're sitting there thinking "hang on, I _bought_ this! If I just downloaded it I wouldn't have to sit through this ****!"
Not that I'm condoning piracy, I most definitely do not. But it does make you think that the ones that get 'punished' are the honest customers.