Retro1976: Lovely samples: nice realistic color/tones and clean yet detailed images typical of Canon sensors. I know Sony and the like rank the highest these days in terms of sensor performance on paper, but in the field Canon still delivers the best looking output no question.
So you do or do not believe it to be objective truth? If you don't, we have no quibble; we all have our own personal opinions and biases.
However, if you do believe it to be objectively true, meaning that it's true for everyone no matter what, than I'll stick with my 'pretty funny' comment.
I'm not a fan of Canon colors. Never have been. Too difficult to correct in post even if the SOOC JPEGs are pleasing. I much prefer tones that are less pleasing upfront but much easier to work with after the fact, a la most Sony sensors. But, hey, that's just my opinion, not objective truth.
That's pretty funny. It's absolutely fine that you believe that to be true, but you don't actually believe it to be objective truth, do you?
Biggs23: This is pretty much what I expected based on early reports on the choices made by Canon. They've made a good first step into a higher quality sensor but will need time to refine it to the level that Sony/Nikon produce. It seems like, for its intended audience, this camera is a miss, but we'll have to wait and see on that front. It will be very interesting to see how the autofocus performs. If it's not at LEAST as good as the D5 I suspect there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Canon side.
@Zdman - According to this preview, I wouldn't call it an improvement in every respect. From the sounds of it, the performance at high ISO (which is a large portion of what the target audience shoots) is not an improvement at all. The JPEGs (which is a large portion of what the target audience shoots) may even be worse than those from the predecessor.
The 1dxii now has better DR at low ISO than the D5, true, but that's not a large part of what most of the target audience will be shooting.
I'm not saying this is a poor camera, not at all. Anyone who blames this camera for a missed shot is a fool.
I'm only saying a 'miss' compared to the competition. If the AF isn't at least as good there will be a lot of potential buyers who will be turned off because of its perceived value loss.
Anyway, we'll have to wait and see how the AF works! I'm sure it will be very good, the question is only whether or not it's equal to the highly praised D5.
This is pretty much what I expected based on early reports on the choices made by Canon. They've made a good first step into a higher quality sensor but will need time to refine it to the level that Sony/Nikon produce. It seems like, for its intended audience, this camera is a miss, but we'll have to wait and see on that front. It will be very interesting to see how the autofocus performs. If it's not at LEAST as good as the D5 I suspect there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Canon side.
stevo23: What a monster of a camera - specs are killer.
Just tired of Canon consistently lagging behind. Was hoping to see something that would challenge the D5. Why? Because innovation spurs innovation. When your competitor doesn't truly challenge you, you don't rise to your best.
Eh, not really. When compared side by side to the D5 it seems incredibly underwhelming.
sebasantos: Hello, I have a Canon 5D Mark III and I have focus peaking, zebras and lots of features that sony users say that canon are missing. And also my 5DIII has 14 stops dynamic range. It's free and easy to have those features. I don't use it for video, but there are also a lot of features for video like RAW video, etc, etc, etc.I am not going to buy this camera, I don't need it but i am very interested in the sensor performance, because I hope that 5DIV is in its way and use the new sensor technology. If the 5DS sensor without the new technology close the gap between sensors, I think that the new sensor could be a very good surprise. The patent for this new sensor was introduced in 2014, so they were working in it for a long period of years.
I'm just hear to read the comments from people defending Canon's years behind sensors and laugh. You people need to get your heads out of the sand!
ryanshoots: Still offering two basic colors of skin-tone, peach or grayish yellow. This is a wonderful camera in may ways. Nikon colors not being one of them. Do they offer one with a b&w sensor?
True, Nikon colors aren't the best. My preference among current production cameras is Sony. Nikon or Olympus second. Pentax next probably. Canon... doesn't crack the top ten lol.
Just a Photographer: A nice camera, but way overpriced for what you get.
How foolish must one be to buy this camera in Europe where it is still $500 MORE expensive then a D800E?
This in a time where the dollar is worth just 0.65 cents to the Euro.
More like .73 actually.
D1N0: low light champ (just)
I prefer the D4's files to the D3s's. More flexibility in my experience. I have the Df but haven't used it enough to really give a complete opinion about its files yet. Plus, as mentioned, the files have to be modified to use anyway.
What a total dodge of the important questions. This isn't quality journalism DPR.
Gesture: Longer time when posts are editable. On Amazon.com it is open-ended and you can delete a post.
If the ISO is not set to automatic the letter 'M' appears, correct? Why doesn't the actual ISO value get displayed? That seems like an easy code correction to me.
True amperez, many of these are definitely not decisive at all. Feel free to penalize those images that are not on theme with your votes!
Elinas: Cool... so the day that they will decide to make Camera raw available for the Fuji X-Pro1, this means I will need to buy CS6...
It's unlikely that LR3 will get an update but LR4 should work just swimmingly with CS5 with this update.
Fredy Ross: If I have no bugs and no new camera do I need to update?
Tomskyair: Couldn't agree more about DNG. But Adobe's policy to terminate support for older versions of Photoshop by just not issuing ACR updates for previous versions any longer does also upset me a little. To me this just looks like a marketing move rather than a real necessity. I'm happy with my current version of PS and would see no need to upgrade anytime soon. However, my next camera will probably be the Fuji X-Pro 1.
So I'm screwed, along with the acquisition costs for the new equipment comes the hefty upgrade price of PS if I want to carry on with my usual workflow and stay on the legal side as well. Clever move, Adobe - but for sure one that annoys the hell out of not to few customers.
Vista wasn't a disaster except in terms of marketing failure. Windows ME, now THAT was a disaster!
Skroob: Last for CS5. what a scam. "Sure, you can use this software you paid for as long as you wish. Oh, you want to be able to open your files? Well, you will have to pay for an upgrade then."
Exactly. DNG converter solves the problem. You want added convenience? Pay for it.
LaFonte: You have to understand that this is the "real" Zeiss, not a pay-for-rent name that is used on sony lenses. As such it actually isn't that expensive and will probably hold its value for a long time.
Neither does the 85mm for that matter Brendon. I'm a former Sony user (now Nikon) and the thing I miss most about the Sony system is the CZ85mm. The Nikon 85mm isn't nearly as good.