Haha, just as well DPR commentators aren't professional image-quality reviewers! Every time new images are added, we see diametrically-opposed viewpoints, stated with absolute conviction, based on the same objective data.
What a w@nk.
Edit: lol @ DPR, firstly for treating "w@nk" as a "swear word", and secondly for bothering with such easily-bypassed censorship.
Slightly off topic, but does anyone have a link to a good site that describes the relationship between the number of photosites on a Bayer-sensor array, the MP rating for stills etc, and the resulting sensible movie resolution (to minimise moire etc) ?
Donnie G: Pixel peep all you want gang, this camera will make money for the professionals who use it and the rental houses who stock it. Its a small, lightweight, infinitely customizable, industrial strength body with AF that's supported by the largest selection of modern lenses the world has ever known, and that makes it a very cost effective tool for professional productions. Of course if you're not a pro, then none of that would matter to you. Different strokes!
Donnie, why not just answer his question, without the irrelevant preamble?
Sdaniella: lol.too many anti-larger sensor pro Cinematographey detractors are just pro smaller sensor videography centric users (two totally different areas for motion image capture)
great AF capable of pro-style smooth speed focus pull or focus push during moving or still fov, focus racking during panning, focus tracking of erratic moving subjects, was missing, and much welcome in Cine, where MF control required two operators instead of one with AF.
smaller sensor AF of videocamers is less demanding since dof is a whole magnitude deeper than their larger sensor counterparts with shallower dof used in Cine cams.
"told ya so": Canon upped the processing, without altering sensor pixel design (physics says no change will change sensing capabilities, so ... instead, work on offering us better processing! get it!?)
I like Canon products in general, but your posts are quite annoying.
Have you ever seen a Canon product that you didn't think was perfect, as you blissfully wish away any limitations the device may have compared to its competitors?
bmcdad: Its like saying AT&T will restart production of Rotary Phones... Art does not require a time machine. You can't reminisce evolution to a halt.
Thanks shoevarek, good point; I completely missed the ability to shoot large formats.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but why would you shoot film, if you're just going to scan it for processing?
Marcin 3M: At least these films are not treated as a "service for rent"...
Adobe CC, I guess.
maxnimo: From the samples I conclude that the camera has a lot of noise under ISO 800, and the photographer is a bit too addicted to wide angle lenses.
Cheers Rishi. I was just talking in general, responding to your earlier post about having to choose between default/RAW versus processed.
Rishi, maybe you could occasionally show both versions, i.e. the unedited /processed RAW, and the edited version?
Sdaniella: impossible?use 2007/8 FF 5DMkII DR 14.0 EV sensororuse 2011/12 FF 5DMkIII DR 14.5 EV sensor
and expand firmware so ML (magic lantern hack) is no longer needed to fully access the DR 14.5 EV
re-arrange the image sensor data outputs fully (all pixel lines, no line alternating) for dual-(tri+)-ISO real-time capture (probably use newer DiG!C7 processor; 1 or 2)
stuff in dual-pixel on-sensor PDAF like 7DMkII (unless, 5DMkIII/1DX already has it ... but needs to be unlocked with firmware!!!)
hm, ok, unlock 4k, too
and voila, upgraded 5DMkIII C,... and 1DX C ... woops, they could do that with 1DC, too.
pity, no one has been able to look at Canon sensors to see if older EOS models have hidden (unannounced) on-sensor dual pixel PDAF (5DMkIII, 6D, 1DX/C)
no one needs SONY sensors, really.
just better processing of sensor data (includes sensor circuitry rewired for full unlocked dual-ISO capture like ARRI ALEXA DGA, except Canons handle low light hi-res better than any other mfr.
Just a Photographer: Just a warning: Stay away from DROBO.
I have had two in the the past and both of them went into the 'death spiral syndrome' where the machine wants to boot up and then shuts down at the end of the boot process to start the boot process again and again, and again....
There was no way to retrieve your files from the DROBO due to their own RAID 5 implementation. Luckily I have backups at hand.
Just buy yourself a good NAS and save yourself money and frustration.
Fortunately, products from other manufacturers never fail.
Turbguy1: The foundation of a Wilderness Area is based on the concept of:
“An area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain".
Commercial activity of ANY type, can be trammeling! It is just a matter of degree on a case-by-case basis. That explains the reason for a permit.
Ask appropriate questions about the activity (what are you going to do, and for how long?).
Issue a permit that places reasoned restrictions on the activity. (No more than 4 persons in a party, no overnight camping within 500 feet of a waterway or lake).
Deny a permit if it is found to be reasonable to do so.
What don't you get??
misolo: I'll repost my comment here for replies in case anyone has thoughts on this: if there truly is a demand for optical zooms in phone cameras, why doesn't anyone do a module with three different lenses selectable from an internally rotating disk? The camera module would still be very compact (with no outside 'hump'), certainly not a problem to fit inside today's oversized phones and in tablets. It seems that 70mm is still amenable to 'pancake' designs, so something like 24/40/70 should work and would be a vast improvement over the usual fixed 27 or 28 designs. If such a simple solution is readily available with existing technology and nobody's doing it, is there really demand to justify the development of new technologies like the one described in this article?
"If"there is demand? Apparently you have never actually watched people using their phones, especially tourists.
As for your interesting suggestion, I dare say the space requirements would preclude that as an option.
RyanBoston: I'm with a lot of people here. The images I've seen from this camera posted everywhere are not impressive at all. I know it's only a pre-production model, but why would Canon put these out there knowing pictures would be published? I'm not buying the whole "it's a pre-production model". They have put years of research in this camera and have had plenty of time to get it perfect.
I've seen old Canon Jpegs that look better, let alone the competition these days. This camera has a lot going for itself at a good price, but Canon needs to improve this picture quality to be called a pro camera.
I did have this camera on my watch list, but I'm not convinced one bit. Not even close.
Wow, you're right!
They actually deliberately *decreased* the image quality compared to their previous cameras. Incredible, but true!
Or... maybe not.
If only the whingers here would show us some of their photographs, and demonstrate why their awesome images would be *so much* worse on each new Camera X or Y or Z that they love to complain about so much.
Sdaniella: hmm, necessary tripod required even in good light ... for stills
not for me
You type a lot...
smafdy: Boy, I sure hit a nerve.
Here's a good breakdown of professional photography incomes in the US (from the BLS):
In the US, the cost of this camera, at current conversion rates, would be $49,543.49
Note, that the highest decile income for US professional photographers is $66,360.
Good luck getting a bank to lend you $50K, based on a $66K income.
Don't hate on me, hate on reality.
Disclosure: I'm fairly well above the earnings of the top decile, so JDThomas' criticism of me seems to be based on little more than prejudicial disdain:
"you lack the talent, drive, contacts, or whatever, that there aren't thousands of photographers around the world working for a day rate that compares to your annual salary."
Name ONE, other than Annie L..
Either you hit a nerve... or your post was wrong and/or misleading, and people responded to that.
Referring to some statistical breakdown of photographer incomes is basically irrelevant in the context of this camera. Have you stopped to think that maybe agencies/studios buy the camera, not individuals? Agencies/studios for whom the capital costs of equipment re pretty small beer in the big scheme of things?
Sdaniella, right, because this camera can't take a single shot at 6400 ISO, if you don't want to (or can't) take advantage of the multi-shot capability.
Otherwise, you'd, like, TOTALLY have bought this camera.
Ellis Vener: There are some pretty stringent limitations on multi-step backs-the camera cannot move, even a tiny amount, between frames.-same thing with subject: absolute stillness required.- the lighting needs to be absolutely consistent exposure to exposure, during the sequence.
So is this camera for?
If you photograph fabrics , especially carpet and rugs;, or certain types of products including furniture, sculpture, and artwork.
Julian, read the article.