matthew saville: Wow, I bet that 28mm + 21mm adapter is heavier, more expensive, and WAY less sharp than the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G. Further proof that Sony's business tactic is STILL to just throw BS at the wall and see what sticks...
problem with wide35mm rangefinder lenses (leica, contax whatever) is, that they having problems with aberrations etc on edges due to the shorter flange distance, so (d)slr wides works better in that area. and when we talking 20mlpix+, that matters.that's where mirrorles cameras also starts to loosing edge, because if you want top quality, you need big bulky glass with longer flange distances etc, and bulkines. but maybe they will start to use curved sensors more offen..
jukeboxjohnnie: Like more pixels but Canons are so DULL these days. What I want is a Nikon which takes Canon L lenses...
what i want right now is 6d with sony 20 mpix ff sensor. will do for me just fine..
Neez: That's one way to go about things, but you're talking about a jack of all trades, but master of none type of camera. I think the opposite, instead of making design compromises, it's ok to make camera's that are masters of their particular design.
High MP cameras are great for people that need to make huge posters or banners, wildlife photographers that need to crop their photos, landscape photographers, portraits etc.... People that need detail, more so than those extra few shades of color, or low light photography.
true, but it can be frustrating fact (well, fact is more scientific debate talk) that most lenses can't deliver something over 20 mpix optical resolution on leica format.but then again, they repeat this karma every time new high mpix count sensor comes out and every time i see some change in detail definition on pictures etc..
Brock10: Canon is pandering to the clueless. The megapixel war should have the aim of selling to the uninformed masses in the consumer market. Canon 5D buyers aren’t studio photographers. We shoot on-location. We don’t need more megapixels.
Hey Canon. Your largest group of 5D buyers would prefer you give us sensors with better low-light capabilities. Cramming 50.6 itsy bitsy photosites into a full frame sensor is going the wrong direction. Please develop for your established professional customers. We don’t need to print for billboards. We need cameras that can see better when the lights go down, and better, faster focusing.
Stop letting your marketing department rule your engineers. Yes, 50.6MP vs. 22.3 is easy math for clueless salesmen. Let them use that higher-number-must-be-better math on uninformed point-and-shoot consumers. Don’t insult your true 5D client base with this reasoning. We know better. I was hoping the "S" stood for sensitivity. Big letdown.
"Low ISO 35mm film is 50 megapixel or more" ..
hmm, that can be a long debate. personaly, i don't buy it (i do have some experience with scanning film, leica and mf fromat). yes, you can scan in way, that you'll get 50 mpix and even more, but true optical resolution si other thing, which derives from scanner optics and mechanincs etc, not to mention optics that was used on camera in first place. generally speaking, older lenses are not on some level as the newest top line models from sigma, zeiss, canon etc. yes, there are some great old ones, but there's not a lot of them and they're not all for leica format..but ok, if we pust debate just comparing sensor mpix and film course definition, than you're right. but problem with optics etc is still here, with maybe just a little bit more lense variety.
Light Pilgrim: Was super excited to read rumors and I was hoping it will be THE LANDSCAPE camera - I would get it in a heartbeat.
It looks like a MF competition, something that will help folks that print billboards.
I own a 5D MKIII and this new camera will have the same exactly AF and no improvement on the DR.
I am skipping it...I was really hoping it will be better than D810 in every area...
i agree, but to compare specialized 12mpix low light/video sensor with mark's III one, is not really fair. but again, i agree on bigger picture: sony sensors capture low light better, at least till the latest canon models aka 7mII,from which new mIII R derives in terms of pixel size level, sensor engine etc (according to interview).edit:sorry fot that, in my mind i switched sony R and S models. interesting to hear that, since for example not everybody is fond with let say d800 (which shold behave something like 7R) low light abilities. but hey, i belive you.
native dr is not big issue on canon cameras (and if you want, you can always use multiple exposures for that). it's just that sony sensors captures images, on which you can pull shadow areas, better.
mr.izo: main question with this two new models (and for all old ones for years now) is:what do they do with sensor technology in terms of color fidelity etc (i never like it too much, if i'm honest) and most importantly, with option tu pull dark areas out (where we now sony sensor do shine). i don't care much about all other things, but that i do and that is only reason i'm flirting with sony/nikon models for some time now (and i know a lot of others are doing same, if they didn't already jump to the other side).
we'll see about that, for mes its kind of ex minolta/ sigma story. they are always saying something revolutionary is coming, but when it arrives, disappoints a bit..but i wil take for ex. some foveon ff camera with good high iso, accurate colours, nice video and nice battery juice any day (but i don't think you can combine that in feoveon technology).if that camera comes in ef mount, i would be in heaven..
Light Pilgrim: In it is not to compete with D810, it is to compete with MF for a much cheaper price. I think they are targeting MF segment with this camera, no 5D MKIII od Nikon D810 users. Pretty sure.
canon don't have problems with lenses, if you ask me (you can find some realy great ones there), but it has "problem" with sensors in terms of color reproduction (for ex. reds are never right on money) and shadow areas, when you wan't to pull some detail out. and that is big thing when you want to mess in medium format field with hasselblads, phase ones etc. DR alone is not such big issue, it's ok.
main question with this two new models (and for all old ones for years now) is:what do they do with sensor technology in terms of color fidelity etc (i never like it too much, if i'm honest) and most importantly, with option tu pull dark areas out (where we now sony sensor do shine). i don't care much about all other things, but that i do and that is only reason i'm flirting with sony/nikon models for some time now (and i know a lot of others are doing same, if they didn't already jump to the other side).
the real questions is picture quality (barrel distortions, corner sharpness, vignetting and flare resistance). if that come out nicely with stabilised option also for video etc, it will be hit like 24/70/2.8 vc is.
phazelag: When I get bothered by the rude comments sometimes on a thread, all I have to do is come to one of these posts to realize the editors and writers take way more abuse any of us ever take. Its insane the lack of respect, thanks, or perspective.
@ ottonis:i disagree. if you ask me, quality of dpreview etc falls down (maybe they're tad saved by video reviewers) and average knowledge on forums etc went up.
@ howaboutraw:10 years of cmos. your call..http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&t=10_years_apsc_sensor
nice, good move canon. now put sony sensors (or somehow extend dr range in yours) in your cameras , and you're done.
it's like job application: dpreview is hiring!
and at the end:Please note - these roles are US (Seattle) based. We apologize, but we cannot accept applications from candidates outside of the United States.
cpkuntz: Apple has always had insufferable advertisements, but at least the company behind them makes products meeting contemporary standards of quality. They don't put Intel 150 MHz 486 processors in their iPad. Canon still puts ancient sensors in full frame cameras, leading to the laughable situation in which entry-level crop cameras from everyone else have better IQ than Canon's $3000-$7000 pro cameras.
dxo is nikon/sony fanboy machine, if you ask me. yes, they have gear to prove their claims, but its their's gear, right? they can make everything look bad, if they want..people actually using both systems etc, prove many times that there's no such a great difference between camera sensors today.just take a look in some test shots here, basically the same results in terms of colours, noise tetc. ok, so some nikon models can pull mora from shadows and have maybe nicer anti noise processing, but that's about it. difference is was over hyped in some cases..
mr.izo: ik, it's canon campaign, but dpreview basicaly make false idea on global scale, so canon usa site get more clicks..not realy fair towards dpreview users, id you ask me. but that was expected when site went to to texas..
i'm not saying it's dpreview fault for that kind of marketing, but for sure dpr helps a bit. this is international site with many users, which expecting news from more or less from digital photography/cameras. sarcasm was just smoke bomb so dpr can clear his name, but people knows better..
dahod: Just in case Canon is monitoring this forum
1) The photo community naturally assumed it was aimed at us and Canon allowed that perception to continue - bad decision and continues to feed the growing disconnect between Canon the company and their faithful following.
2) Has anybody tried that website? It took forever to load on my computer and then took me to a confusing interface that ultimately allowed me to connect with the pre-existing Canon website. Unfortunately I'm missing the point of it all - maybe we're supposed to "stay tuned" for Phase ll.
3) Whoever at Canon thought this was a good idea needs to reassess their priorities. I'm sure Canon has bigger issues to spend their time and resources on.
4) If it was even remotely groundbreaking we could probably cut them some slack but there are lots of examples of better done interactive websites out there that they could have used for ideas. Hopefully they didn't pay too much for this.
Sorry Canon - 0 kernels out of 5
dahod, you were little bit more exact, bit basicaly i agree with everything..
oh, plesase, spare me with that talking bs. why did dpreview make that big ad and starts forum talk? it's cheap trick to promote yourself, nothing else and dprview plays role here, for sure.
ik, it's canon campaign, but dpreview basicaly make false idea on global scale, so canon usa site get more clicks..not realy fair towards dpreview users, id you ask me. but that was expected when site went to to texas..
let me try:
why .usa page, not international?
Gosman: I don't understand why these are still USB 2.0 instead of 3.0? USB 3.0 is much faster and should speed up scan time tremendously!?
I guess there's firewire option on scanner, but i agree, usb3 now days is a must..Or to be exact: i wouldn't go scanning some big resolutions and big formats without usb3/firewire (800mbit). could take "hours", like on old drum machines..