Forza5: No viewfinder - no sale
The usage for this is professionals, and they has external monitor in most cases. So you are quite off the mark in my eyes.
oysso: I remember that Canon EOS 350 D had same issue. The serial number disappeared from the body in some days of use. No problem regarding warranty issues though. As long as I had a valid receipt there was no problem. And it should also be no problem with this camera too.
It is only a problem if the manufacurer does not value its customers. Canon was not causing me any trouble even if the serial number was gone just a couple weeks after I began using the camera.
Barry Goyette: Let's put this plainly. There isn't a print process in the world that can reproduce more than 7 stops of DR. The vast majority of electronic displays reproduce about the same amount. (The coming hdr displays will change this, true). Whether you are dealing with 10, 12, 15, or 19 stops of captured DR, any excess will need to be compressed into a smaller range or simply thrown away. The more you compress thru the mid-tones the worse it looks...and so the more DR you have to compress...well let's just say it's not adding anything to final image quality. Both canon and Nikon produce profiles that display 7-8 stops of dr withe the remaining range buried in compressed highlights and shadows. This provides a generally optimal look in most situations, as it matches the output capabilities of the vast majority of devices. Just because you can pull more of that range into the middle on a Nikon/Sony.. does not make the final image look more realistic.
DR matters because you if you take a photo with 11EV DR then you will narrow that to 7EV in the final result that you print. And you get details in image that had been lost with less DR on sensor.
kryten61: Alternatively , I wonder if Sebastiao Salgado realises his award winning work is shot on a sensor that is not quite state of the art. Maybe if he know he would rush back to all those recent locations and take much better images. :-)I wonder if he cares?
Canon need to improve from a Pixel peeping point of view, or do they? Of course improvement is welcomed but needs perspective.I know many working photographers who have no idea what is being discussed in here, who are oblivious to any of this PP. It doesn't seem to be quite as big an issue to them and or they are more than happy with their gear, lenses , performance etc offered by their systems. And I suppose more importantly so are their Clients.
I wonder if clients will start demanding a Nikon or Sony shooter because of their much better images?????…I think not. :-)
Pro photographers are more concerned with durability and good service agreements. All DSLR gear of this date gives good enough end results for almost any professional application.
I remember that Canon EOS 350 D had same issue. The serial number disappeared from the body in some days of use. No problem regarding warranty issues though. As long as I had a valid receipt there was no problem. And it should also be no problem with this camera too.
Mikael Risedal: Off course you get better shadows if you overexpose 1 stop, but you are clipping the high lights also with one stop.
Eleson, that depends on what the dynamic range in the scene is. If all is grey and you are far from clipping point, in fact you can over expose and get better quality image. ( expose to the right ) But if the sun is in the picture, it makes finding correct exposure very difficult. And it also depends on how far up in the sky it is and also how much clouds and mist are in front of the sun. You have to test it on the site you take the photograph. There is not one answer to how much stops you are from clipping.
russbarnes: Simply put, this is always the risk in buying a product early. Hasn't everyone learned yet? And in case you're thinking Canon's QC process is any different to Nikon, this proves 100% it absolutely isn't. I wonder if all the Canon apologists forgot about the 5DMKIII light leak and recall of the top of the line 1DX too? It's one model after another whoever you're buying from....Fuji have released endless firmware fixes (yes, they are fixes) for their products too. No more pre-orders for me, let the price settle, all the issues to be ironed out and buy after 6 months.
Actually I bought 40D early, and had no trouble with that camera.
Forever Young: I am a Canon fan boy, see my gears, and I still think that Canon is great, but how is it possible that they start selling a camera with such obvious problems? And it happens from time to time...! Yes, other companies, incl. Nikon, also had serious issues in the past, but my question is the same to all of them. How is it possible that Canon, or Nikon, etc. sell defective products?
All brands has their issues from time to time. But Canon usually fix this kind of stuff with no charges.
oysso: I really hope there will be a 5D IV coming soon, because I had expected a 5D III successor that actually was an upgrade regarding video handling. For me this is a kind of dissapointment.
I would rather have 30MP 7 images pr. second, and enhanced video than this 50MP camera.
Nontheless, I hope there will come a 5D IV successor soon.
I really hope there will be a 5D IV coming soon, because I had expected a 5D III successor that actually was an upgrade regarding video handling. For me this is a kind of dissapointment.
If there will be no 5D IV, then this camera is in many ways a downgrade of the 5D III. That is quite unfortunate.
mpgxsvcd: Canon to all of their customers: "Everyone complained so much about the new features in the 5D MKIII that we just took them all out. Your WELCOME!"
At least they are not hiding it.
Chev Chelios: So on the 5DSr, Canon's top US marketing man says:
"It has a different kind of low pass filter compared to the standard one in the 5DS...which basically cancels out the blurring effect..."
Ah I see, so Canon, you're telling me that on one of your highest-res dSLRs to date, the 5DS, the image is slightly blurred?
Sounds good, where can I buy one??
AA filter is always blurring the image, but at the same time also ensure that the moire effect is lessened. If you buy the edition without AA filter you also run into the risk of having to handle that artifact yourself.
Lou P Dargent: It is all over but the crying. DSLRs will be as popular as film at some point.
These things take time; DSLRs are mature, and MLSCs are just coming into their stride.
However there is no escaping that mirrors are a solution to a problem that no longer exists.
Are the mirrorless cameras equally good as the top DSLR in focusing capabilites when shooting stills?
Wubslin: Great, a list of things not to consider buying.
great for you. But still many will consider them. Neither me will consider any of these. My next buy will most likely be a full frame Canon camera.
stern: DPR says in its introduction to this article: "What follows is our enthusiast-level DSLR roundup. The cameras included all sport APS-C sensors and pull some pro-level features from their more-established counterparts."Well, this might hold true for the big two, but certainly not for Pentax. The Pentax K3 is in no way artificially crippled like her Canikon-counterparts. The only major "pro-feature pulled" from the K3 are the extra pixels (54 Mio.) of the rather expensive medium-format 645. Anyone wonder why so-called "full frame" sensors are smaller than "medium format"? Canikon have NO offer beyond "full frame". Full stop.
But non the less, the Pentax is an enthusiast camera, not a pro camera in the sense the flagship models of Nikon, Canon and Sony are far beyond the Pentax camera. Medium format cameras are not for enthusiasts, but you will have to buy new lens system to use the medium format pentax. You can use a low end Canon, and upgrade to a pro later and use the same lenses. That is true that Canon and the others do not offer anything beyond small format cameras ( Full frame DSLR ). But as far as I know medium format is a very narrow marked, in which there are very few potential customers. Most pros are very happy with the 32 mm sensor or even the APS-C format sensor. Medium format is a niche that if you have a camera ther it is more for showoff then money into the company.
Yes, medium format is better than small format cameras for studio work. It is bulkier and you are much more restricted in the tele end. And it is far more expensive.
raztec: Here's a question that's always plagued me: Why does DPR not adjust the sizes of the studio samples to all be equal? I recognize that the size we see depends on the number of MPx that camera's sensor has, but for a fair comparison they should all be viewed at equal sizes. Surely that's easy enough to do without us having to download the samples and do it ourselves.
If you had equal sizes, someone had found some argument regarding that too. If they take image at same distance, at same focal length is the best when you compare two cameras regardless of different sensor resolution. The sizes will differ because of different resolution, but are comparing for real life situations. You don't go farther away if you have a higher resolution camera.
maxnimo: What we should be striving for is 240 fps video on true 240 fps monitors. The result would simply blow you away.
@maxnimo For sure we might see that movies and cinema will go into 60p or even 120p since it is still details to gain. And especially in scenes with lots of movement todays 24p is way too little to convey all the details. What the ultimate is, I don't know. Data have never been the ultimate solution, it is about the solution that is possible at a given time. There might be a future where all films are shot at 240fps and all cinemas support the same fps. But it is still a way to go. And if you at the same time goes to 4K or even 8K film, you talk about 160 times the required disk space for the same length of 1080 film at 24p. One TB of disk space could fill 26 minutes of movie at 8K resolution and 240 fps. Would I want to film that kind of film today? No. Because I don't have large and enough disks to accommodate so much film. In the future? Maybe. But really not relevant for me now.
@maxnimo I know that bandwitdh are getting broader. But our human eyes perceptional limits are the most important one when you choose the number of frames you send. There is no point sending five times more data to the eye than what can be percepted.
That is NOT the goal here. The goal is to take video that are played back in slow motion so the video are not bad when played off then.Human eye are not so very fast. Even at 24 fps that are used in cinematic films today are enough to make a film that looks fluid. To send ten times the ammount of data to the screen can make it better but at a cost of bandwidth.