As a Canon user (with a quite an investment in Canon gear), I was at first too disappointed to see lower specs of Canon 5d3 and 1dx, in comparison to D4 and D800. To add to this, DxO Marks declared D800 sensor as the new 'Best' sensor leading even PhaseOne IQ180 (previous best).
From the sensor quality and image quality point of view (ignoring all other aspects like focusing etc), is D800 sensor really that good?
When I looked, like hundreds of samples images.. I am not convinced at all. I still think D3s and 1Ds3 produce more stunning images than D800/D4 and 1Dx respectively. Hell with the metrics some people use to compare those sensors..
In this case, I think I will just go with my eyes. I will continue to be Canon...
Joed700: I think Canon is a month too late and a dollar to short. With the Nikon D800's having 36 mp at $3000 a piece, why would Canon expect customers to pay $3500 for a 22 mp body (hardly any differences compared to the 5D Mark II in terms of megapixels)? Someone is really screwed up at the marketing dept in Canon...
@BeanyPic, can you explain how 5DIII sensor is miles away from 5DII sensor? Neither me or you or anyone without a 5DIII in hand can answer this. From the specs, I can speculate it is just a few meters away.
Yes, I do wish my 1Ds3 had a few more megapixels. It makes a difference in large prints.
I am beginning to lose faith in Canon. 1Dx was a disappointment, and now 5DIII -- both from tech-specs point of view and pricing point of view.
vegwolff: I have an idea for a competition. No prizes though. How many of you can take a similar shot, using similar techniques? I'm sure the court system would love to be clogged up with similar lawsuites being filed. Everything just seems so similar these days. On a similar note, I'm surprised that Lieca hasn't filed a similar (copyright) law suite against Fuji, (M9 V's X-Pro 1.) A black camera, with interchangeable lens', a viewfinder, image sensor, shutter speed dial, aperture ring. Mind you, apart from the image sensor and interchangeable lens', that is a similar description of many similar film range-finder cameras from yesteryear. Anyone got any similar ideas? If so, then sorry, you can't publish them here, those ideas are now copyright on my behalf.
I'll sue you guys for thinking (using ur brain).. sorry, u just did it again.
srimano: IMO, the key feature is "focus later". Out of a thousand pictures I take (with 10lb canon professional dslr and also point and shoot), there are hardly few 10 images that result in miss-focus.
Should I buy this Lytro point and shoot that gives me SD res images just for post refocusing??? That too, to be effective, the foreground and background needs to be distance apart..
Perhaps for a small segment of people who take pictures in haste, not worrying about framing or focusing... and you expect them to spend time and energy later processing large files???
I can't seem to understand who is the customer, what's the need of the customer, and the actual utility of this camera (when one needs to pay $400).
If there was an option to remove the microlens array and use the camera with f/2 lens and high res sensor, I'd def keep it in my pocket.
I do agree with you that this technology has amazing potential (I myseff work partly in this area of science). I was only referring to this particular camera. I'd be happy to use this if it were to come packaged into an existing device, eg: iPhone. A separate camera solely for this purpose seems to me like a overhead -- all of this my own opinion. No offense.
IMO, the key feature is "focus later". Out of a thousand pictures I take (with 10lb canon professional dslr and also point and shoot), there are hardly few 10 images that result in miss-focus.