PeterQ: I wonder how everyone presents his/her pictures.Is it on screen (36 Mpix?)Is it on paper (20x30 inches or more)? Wat lights are used to present them?At the end, the quality is what I perceive when the pic is shown, not what the computer says.Some judgements appear to represent more emotions than facts.
I have just compared the studio shots for the 5Mk3, and I must say it bests even the nikon. But lets face it, there will always be those who "believe' in the marque of their choice. That is their choice, not a reflection of which camera is better at a point in time. It should interest Nikon users to know that Canon has produced a 120MP sensor. Why don't they put it in a camera? Because they understand the trade off ( and there is always a trade off) between MP and the ability for the sensor to gather light with decreasing pixel size. For a good example of this, check out Nokia's 43MP phone...It has to interpolate its pics to get a good result, bringing it back to around a 5MP camera. So what's the point is the 43MP? People should just be happy with want they buy and forget the stupid bickering.
DaveMarx: Why does a camera strapped to a telescope, that's being pitched on the benefits of the camera's LCD display for viewing (hard to use an OVF when the mirror's locked up)... why does it need a mirror, OVF, and focal plane shutter (besides dust control)?
It's not sensor size any more. If I was Sony, and I was interested in making a splash in the scientific community, why not in astrophotography, with all its passionate amateurs? Save those budget-strapped folks a small bundle by ditching unnecessary mechanical systems, and it reduces weight-related stress on the telescope to boot. AND, it'll still do fine as a general-purpose camera.
Sure, for someone who owns a pile of Canon glass, and is using that camera for a whole lot more than astrophotography... it's another set of tools on the Swiss Army Knife. But this would have been a really cool way for Canon to introduce its mirrorless camera. It's not like they don't know how to make 'em. They're called pro video cameras.
Canon do have a mirror less camera. Have had for many years. The EOS 1V-RT (film camera) which uses a pelicle mirror and therefore does not need to move at all...It must only be a matter of time before they amalgamate the two technologies (digital and Pelicle mirrors) to drive the frame per second rate into orbit (please accuse the pun everyone) of digital cameras. Perhaps they are already working down this path. I find it difficult to believe, with all Canon's might in specialist imaging products and technologies, that they can't seem to produce a camera body like a Ford or Holden car, and then have various design or technology options when you buy it. Like when you want your Ford with Blue paint, 18" rims, Bull-bar, etc. Surely it can't be that hard to set up the production line, make 350,000 of these, then 600K of those with this in it. etc. They re-invest 8% of their GDP in R&D and have 70% of the world market. Why can't they make more options available to consumers.
Joshlovesphotos: And.....here we go again DPReview. You basically copy and pasted the advertising from Canon's press release onto your "Review" site. Only problem is, when you "review" something, isn't the point of the site to take another, more objective view of a product? You should call yourselves, DPAdvertisers.
Problem? Well, besides apparently being the only person here with an iq over 100, how about the fact that hydrogen-alpha light is NOT the true color of the cosmos. You know those galaxy and nebulae that you see on science shows in awe striking color? Yeah. Thats false color. That's not TRUE color, I don't care how subjective it is. The human eye does not see colors that way. This article's main title should read "CANON ANNOUNCES MODIFIED 60D (60DA) WITH STRONGER INFRARED SENSOR THAT PRODUCES FALSE COLOR IN ORDER TO MORE EASILY PHOTOGRAPH THE COSMOS".
So basically you just pasted NEWS and FALSE ADVERTISING onto your "review" site, that is just chock full of adverts really.
i wish...you would all just get over yourselves a bit. Those that do the business know what they want and what they need. Sure it may not have everything. But it has to be a good start. I applaud Canon for taking the big step and making the thing. Now if they would just answer my email, and make a similar unit for us archaeologists so we can photograph Near Infra-red emissions at sites to reveal water absorption in the ground and surrounding structures. Or perhaps those better in the know can tell me...would this camera suffice for the purpose described above???