Really a simply thing for the camera to detect an IS lens and turn off in-camera IS when the in-lens IS is one.
I kinda thought I spelled a few of them out right above your question.
Sure, sure. But inasmuch as the 30D, 10D, 300D, and 5D were pretty big jumps in one way or another, that's what I meant.
Well, in the past three years, Nikon's been a lot more "progressive" than Canon.
Well, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus have in-camera IS, so what do we make of that? Canon now has anti-dust and Live-View -- ditto.
Yes.
I don't think the assumption is odd at all. What reason, given the releases of both lenses and bodies in the past three years, leads one to expect otherwise?
Never thought of that. Clever. However, what I have thought of is in my profile, although I like your idea a lot.
I think both are important.
I believe we are on the same page. : )
My thoughts exactly. And if that's the case, the 5DII might actually be more appealing, at least to me.
I'm with you on this one too. But I'd like to think of myself as an 'extreme indoor enthusiast'
Likely to me as well. I don't need fps, weather sealing, or 51 AF points.
That is the critical feature that I need over all others. When people ask why I "need" a better camera than what I have, it is for that. I often take pics at very shallow DOFs in low light, and having fast and accurate AF with off-center AF points would be of immense utility to me. I'd also like a lot less shutter lag.
I would characterize myself as an "exteme shallow DOF candid photographer" in any level of light. As such, ultra fast and accurate AF is top of the list in improvements that I "need", and, to lesser extent, but still important, as little shutter lag as possible. All the other features I want pale in comparison to that.I'm with you on this one too. But I'd like to think of myself as an
'extreme indoor enthusiast'
This is not really true. In the deep shadows at high ISO the read noise becomes important and the read noise after resampling will be 1.5 dB worse for the 24 MP resampled to 12 MP image. Also the 24 MP image will normally have somewhat lower fill factor and thus lower QE than the 12 MP image since most non-imaging pixel structure will take up a fixed amount of area independent of pixel size. Comparing between manufacturers or between generations from the same manufacturer can see improvements that swamp these second order effects though.
I think some form of improved low ISO dynamic range is the next obvious IQ advance that Canon should concentrate on. Whether that means improving their amplifiers/A-D front-end so that they actually get the increased DR that 14 bits should allow or they simultaneously perform a low and high ISO conversion from the same capture to get the exposure bracketing you mention wouldn't matter as long as the resulting DR is 2 stops or more better than what the 5D can do.
The 1D mkIII could be said to be the innovative one, since it came out well before the D3.
40D, 450D?
And what about high ISO performance. No one has matched Canon on that, as yet, and that's far more important to getting an image than sealing or shaking.
Much of what the competition is doing is in response to other cameras. The vibrating sensor dust removal thing is Oly's trick, Live View is an import from P&S cameras, full frame is a response to Canon, etc. I don't really care about "innovation" unless it solves a specific problem. Pulling whistles and bells out of a hat merely for bragging rights is impressive in a PR sense, but if it doesn't really help the cause of getting the best image it's not pertinent to what I do.
No doubt.
you do have the essense of it. cameras are not the extension of our psyche nor should they be - they are a means to an end. they are the tool that allows us to creatively capture a moment in time and freeze it forever.
--
