There's definitely a use for this tech/product, but I don't see it as a must have, or even something that would be used very often.
Tazz93: I'm mostly curious how this feature will work? I often wish the AF points were a fair bit wider in coverage.
" In fact, it's the same AF system that you'll find on the D5. Since the AF system was developed for a full frame camera it provides coverage that extends almost to the edges of the frame."
I shoot Canon so I wouldn't be able to get that period, just curious if the idea works as well in practice as it does in theory.
Note: The comment was specific to the D500.
I'm mostly curious how this feature will work? I often wish the AF points were a fair bit wider in coverage.
wetsleet: ISO (ASA) 3000000?Is it time for a return of the DIN logarithmic scale instead?
(obviously, I understand the marketing dept prefer impressively big numbers)
AKA, Nikon Night Vision... but all jokes aside, that type of jump suggests to me they may have got most of the native range into the "usable" range. If so, that's pretty impressive.
Lars V: ISO 3.2M... Nighttime pinhole, anyone? :D
A usable 100K or 200k would be pretty insane.
3 million ISO...
beavertown: D750 scored 90 and this scored 83?
Eyes checked by a back or foot doctor... Ok... It appears you missed the reference on the "soft challenge". The difference you mentioned in some of the other MF cameras likely have more to do with the lenses than the sensors. I'd assume the test lenses from Canon are not quite level with some of the $5,000 standard focal length lenses of the MF world. Once again, Canon only makes one lens (at least that has been tested) that comes even close to resolving the sensor's level of detail and it would never be used in a comparison with a MF camera.
Its a niche camera... kind of a one trick pony. That's the reason it is scored in that range. I still love mine, honestly, I could care less if it isn't optimized for video, or "only" has 12,800 ISO abilities. I bought it for the resolution and it delivers there in spades. Its a DSLR camera that challenges Medium format's digital detail supremacy (a soft challenge, but still a challenge). Not to mention, Canon only has one lens that can reproduce 90% of its senor's rated resolution, the rest are a fair bit lower ranging from 25-70% of the theoretical resolution. IMO, that suggests there's still quite a bit of performance on the table.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS PHONE!
I hate to say it, because I liked it, but the fact remains its just too fragile. The plastic body is just not up to par. I broke the LCD in my pocket purely from tension from my jeans and my leg. No contact with anything else. A hard case may help but you shouldn't need it.
Wow, they're having problems selling a $600 software suite... Who'd of thought that?
So it sounds like they finally found a way to do 'native' HDR blending/variable pixel exposure on the sensor. I've often wondered what types of challenges there was to that, hopefully someone will explain.
I think they are great products... but unfortunately they alienated their customers. Its gonna be a long tough haul for them at this point.
I like the idea of the lens but, due to the recent devaluation of the 24-105, re-sale isn't really an option. So unless I break or lose my 24-105 I can't see myself buying this one. I like it though - the size, near 1:1 magnification, and IS are great features.
I am happy with my current 24-105. But... too bad they missed on the price point though, (kinda tough considering buying this one at an elevated price and selling the other at a greatly devalued price) at the right price it would almost be tempting.
HenryTt: My wife purchased a 5D3 over the D800. They are obviously both top notch cameras. However, she felt the 5D3 was a more functional camera for use outside the studio (and not landscape). However, the D600 has given her pause and made us feel like we made a mistake in going with Canon. Here's why:First, the D600 is a lot of camera for the money. I think the sensor is slightly better, and otherwise, the camera is 95% as good as the 5D3 for a lot less money.Second, Nikon seems to have upped its game. One reason why my wife chose Canon was that they have a history of being at the leading edge while Nikon always played it safe. (Example, that 12MP is enough cr@p)Third, Canon seems to be really bad at playing catchup. This firmware is an example of a half-ass attempt at rectifying some of their errors.
These firmware changes are a welcome update. But Canon needs to: A) lower the price to $3000. B) Put out the firmware sooner. C) I'd like to see better auto ISO handling.
I agree with... Canon being a little slow to react to market shifts, Nikon upp'ing their game, and the D600 being 95% of the camera (if not more) the 5D3 is for a lot less money.
The main factor and inclusive of all three you mentioned is price point. It seems Canon is a little stuck on the original 5D pricing and they feel its still an accurate price point today. At that time, it fit, mostly because there was no other choices (except an $8,000 1DSII). That is far from the case now. It appears they have recognized this by introducing the 6D, but are possibly stuck to play out the financial game plan that was laid down previously for the 5D3. Just my 2 cents.
I too took a little offense to the D800 question, but then realized his pain when he is asked this question left and right. The truth is, MF does have an intangible value that isn't validated through pixel-peeping. And I fully agree with his assessment that the "characteristics" are different. Never shooting either camera, I can still see differences in the characteristics of either's format. But the fact remains, many are switching to the 'bridge' cameras now that resolution and quality of image on par or at least close. The "characteristics" seem to be slowly being outweighed by other aspects.