Earthlight: Quote from the article:
"As far as I can remember though, Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"
But what about the 18 mp sensor they used for years in their crop bodies?
also the oddity of noting that these new rebels have an additional 2 MP than the 3 year old 5d3, forgetting the even more expensive 18MP 1Dx. Canon has quite often offered higher resolution on cheaper models.
Should have had a word count on this article. Trying too hard.
kelpdiver: Noting the comments already that Canon announced this a long time ago.
The resolution given is just a stone's throw away from 15360x8640, which sampled in 2x2 pixel bins would give you rather nice 8k video. (well, the slightly smaller 2 x UHD resolution). That would be 132MP.
Obviously 9fps doesn't cut it, unless it's a gopro. But eventually eventually there will be demand for such a sensor. Good 8k is said to be as close to our own vision as it gets, or so it was claimed about the displays of the swimming at the London Olympics on such screens.
4k on the hero3 was 15fps.
oscarvdvelde: It is only 1.5 times the resolution of the 5DS. Explain the drama?
nonsense, zorgan. You made the first "there is only one correct definition" posting and it was the wrong one at that.
Noting the comments already that Canon announced this a long time ago.
@zorgan - sorry, you're wrong. If you want to pass a "there's only one meaning" type declaration, then linear resolution is the winner. Ultimately you want to print or display an image and dpi doesn't care about the square, it cares about the actual resolution.
Fish Tank: PLEASE do not take this as a Sony fan-boy rant - I graduated over to SONY after getting entrenched in/used to the Minolta system, and quite appreciate all cameras for their own merits - but this is a serious question. Are any of you Canon users disturbed by the lack of care Canon seems to have for things even as simple as the rear view screen? How long has Canon been using the flush-mount viewfinder/screen? I own the a77, and find the multi-hinged screen a pure joy to work with, and though some may call it unnecessary, one really can't say that unless you have used it. Even a simple flip down and around screen that is offered on many compacts and P&S cameras is extremely useful for overhead shots, or foot-level shooting (and of course the nauseating selfies). As an outsider it seems that Canon is doing the least amount it can for its users based even on that ONE simple bonus feature. I look at Canon bodies and I see "good-enough" thinking, not "forward".
j900 - sure - but what foot level shots are you taking? up-skirts? Seriously, I'm sure there are some uses for hand held foot level shots, but they're not a priority to me. I'm using the OVF for 98% of my shots. The LCD is for review.
viking79: Looks like they are going for possible 645D and other medium format audience.
Nice cameras, sensor/processor upgrade to 5DIII? Too bad about the price, a 50 MP sensor doesn't really cost any more to make than a 20 MP sensor. I suppose they can justify it being the highest resolution, but I never thought MP alone should up the price of a product.
Sony did this with the A7R and A7S as well, ask dramatically more for the same camera because of different sensor. They did a good job of modeling Canon's business plan :)
the cost to produce a new sensor is considerably higher than the cost to produce a 3 year old design. Huge difference in yields, just from maturity alone. And if they finally moved past 500nm fabs, considerable cost to recoup there as well.
Wild Shooter: Can you believe a 50MP camera that doesn't do 4K video?
the resolution for this sensor is wrong for 4k - a little bit too wide, but way too tall. You want to be able to use every 2x2 array of sensor pixels to be one pixel in the 4k image, so you want a bit over 8000x4000. Otherwise, you're effectively putting in a crop factor.
The other reason of course is market segmentation.
Scales USA: I remember when jpeg replaced gif images. It was painful.
Changing over the web browser infrastructure will be much more difficult than it was in the early 1990's. It was a clear choice due to very limited bandwidth, but the image quality suffered due to artifacts.
I'd go for a new standard, but likely won't live long enough to see it.
yeah, I miss 256 color photos too!
PNG is supported by nearly all browsers with no effort on user side. It is still rarely used, because it rarely makes sense, but adding BPG would be no different....UNLESS IT HAS A CRAPPY LICENSING MODEL. Then it's DOA - virtually no one is going to use it because no free browser is going to pay to include it, and a vicious circle continues.
kemal erdogan: Nice shots, but all the pictures look like the ones we saw elsewhere.
In what ways these pictures are different?
yes, the saving the sharks theme as been well established for a couple decades now, so no real new ground, and I suspect few new people open to conversion. That said, many of us enjoy getting these shots personally, even if it would be far cheaper to just buy one. (a week to Guadalupe Island is 2-3k)
alcaher: I like the pictures, specially #5 its a nice portrait. I like alot the idea of shooting with only natural light source.
Sharks are beautiful creatures of nature and they are here for a reason. Sadly they are dissapearing. I recommend people to watch Sharkwater"docummentary, It shows the nasty things some people and fishermen are doing to the sharks in some places like where i live (Costa rica)
there's really not a lot of choice on natural light, unless you're just doing a head shot. Water limits the working distance for strobes to roughly 6ft, and white sharks are 2-3x this.
gail: ''Canon USA no longer lists the EOS M on their website, so it seems unlikely that the lens would see distribution in the US.''
If this is true, then Canon played US photographers for fools by selling their EOSM cameras at firesale prices then abandoning us. I'm stuck with an EOSM brick and apparently won't even be able to by the telephoto lens I like to have since it apparently won't be available in the US. I've been purchasing Canon cameras for close to two decade, but I doubt I will buy another Canon. There are a lot of other fine choices out there.
I bought it at the firesale price thinking I got myself a higher quality compact camera for the same money I once spent on the S90. And it's pretty easy to order these other lenses on Ebay from japan or china.
If the object truly is a waterproof camera, not just something that is ok if dropped in the pool, you can take almost any Canon or Olympus model and then buy the truly "waterproof" (130+ft) housings. The housings are 150-200 over, but if you don't care about 1080p video, there's an abundance of cheap older used models whose jpg output is just as good.
peevee1: What's with people demanding RAW on a camera with 16 million pixels on a tiny 1/2.3" sensor? Look at the pictures, they have noise (VISIBLE IN JPEG!) even at base ISO! What do you expect from RAW, more encoded noise? Because JPEG at max quality already encodes 12 bit/pixel, and those tiny pixels don't have even 10 bits of information (as opposed to noise) in them!Want to correct the picture - go ahead and correct the JPEG. Same thing. RAW is not going to turn these 16 mpix into 16 mpix from D4s! Besides, except on Oly and Pentax at the very wide end, these pixels are way smaller than Airy disks, and even then Bayer-interpolated! Downscale 4:1 and stop fooling yourself.
If you ever used these compact cameras for underwater use, and doubly more if you ever used an SLR as well, you'd know why RAW is attractive. In wider angle shots where no subject is within 5 or 6 ft of you, the end result is a blue-green mess that is extremely difficult to fix on jpg, and easy with RAW.
springsnow: I wonder if it's better to just use your smartphone if you have waterproof ones like the SGS5 or the Xperia Z lineup. I mean none of these have anything particularly stellar in terms of image quality, and since most people would downsize them anyway, imo a smartphone would be good enough.
smartphone is a much more expensive loss if it floods. That SGS5 is only rated as water resistance to 1m, which means that even skin diving to 10 ft is a questionable drill. And don't forget that dynamic pressure (swimming up and down) is very different than static pressure.
mgblack74: So Panasonic comes out with a camera that does just about everything a GoPro does except they add a fragile cable that attaches to a Sony Walkman like device to strap to your arm. Or that necessitates 2 points of contact on any board sport. Or is not quad copter friendly at all. But hey, your aunt can film her hat making and your dad can get close ups of his carburetor like its 1983 again. Wicked.
Gopro's 2013 model can't do 30p, no. But that's an easy next release feature. I never used 4k on mine. The LCD is helpful in many circumstances (no guessing at aim), but at a cost of battery life and having a far more awkward double mount. Since I used my gopro to depths of 150ft, this panasonic isn't going to do me any good.
wus: Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.
guys, when you see a rating like 5 or 15m, it often is static pressure. A watch rated at 50m in theory should be fine for most divers, but they routinely flood because the dynamic pressure is higher.
Given the cost, and the limited rating, I'd be reluctant to push it.
erichK: Kalin,Your assessment of Woodford shows a more objective analysis of what he actually did and its effects than most.
Please do the same for the convicted three. Liars they certainly were. Crooks they were not. There is no proof, and at this point no credible allegation (this has been investigated pretty thoroughly) that they ever lined their own pockets.They kept hiding embarrassing losses that they hoped they could recuperate, but the hole just got bigger and bigger.
I do agree that no one involved looks good, and thought the worst of all of them, until I actualy researched K's career. Brilliant engineer and visionary, especially in imaging, and came in as a reformer. Could likely have got a top job anywhere. Continued, or at least approved the accounting fraud. Will likely be lucky to get an engineering job. Sad story indeed, especially for those of us who really enjoy Olympus cameras (and look forward to further miniaturization and streamlining of their end-o-scopes!)
absolutely they are crooks - you admit it yourself: "they kept hiding embarrassing losses"
Peet Venter: We may not like it, but this is the future of ALL software. rather get use to it. Adobe, let me have it please, Why kick against facts, why try and dry the oceans with a plastic bucket. Guys, in 12 months all of you have come around. This is not nice, not good and not right. but this is the way of our brave new world.
Subscriptions are a trend enabled by the emergence of the cloud. Note however the similarities to mainframe computing in the 60s and 70s, which gave way to the PC era where users were free to do what they wanted. Vendors would love to get as much lock in as they can and then be able to charge even more, but ultimately it's the ones paying that will collectively vote.
Just a Photographer: Luck is on our side that there is still a huge economical downturn.
Companies rather cut on expenditure then too raise them by adopting (Adobe's) ransomware model.
Most companies will stick with their current version until it can't be used anymore. So will the average small business owner (designers and photographers) and the advanced amateurs who adopted to use Photoshop as their editing tool.
Adobe needs 20 million users to make this a viable profitable business.They recently only had 500.000 cloud customers. So that is by far not enough.
Even if they get to 2 million in a years time that would not be enough for Adobe to make this model profitable. So Adobe is taking a great risc in times that are not so bright.
what's the basis for your 20 million figure? Last year their revenue was 4.4B, a company high. It would only take 7.3M at the 50/month rate to meet that, and at this point Adobe still gets revenue from other sales. (The Marketing Cloud and Document Services groups account for 1.5B of the total) So it would be 4 or 5 million to stay even.
In Q4 2012, they were adding 10k subscriptions a week. With no other choice now, that will increase. If it doesn't not increase fast enough, then we can probably expect to see a CS7 box next year. Bear in mind that on the old cadence, we'd only be seeing 6.5 right now. This is them trying...and our response will drive the next step.