| oh yeah you're right, the article mentions the two grips in the same sentence and in my excitement... |
Canon EOS 5D Mark II announced at last • Page 2
-
ram 3,598 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years ago -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoram wrote:
Since when was the 1Ds MkIII close to the D3???
ayrtonsenna wrote:
But is it as good as the Nikon?
It's not review. But if the sensor is as good if not better than the 1Ds MkIII then it will knock the D700 out with a clean blow to the chin and take on the D3.
Take into account all it's extra features, (some wanted, some not) and that it is going to be approx £600 cheaper than the D3, then its going to be a right ding-dong battle.
The new 5D MKii battery grip has wireless capabilities, load images straight to a ftp. Zoinks that is good news. -
ram 3,598 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years agonot sure I know what you are talking about -
Dizzy 3,716 posts
Seen 14 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoAmazing machine... but too expensive for casuals like me. I still think I will go with a D90 instead. The first time in 20 years I have "betrayed" Canon. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoram wrote:
You said "But if the sensor is as good if not better than the 1Ds MkIII then it will knock the D700 out with a clean blow to the chin and take on the D3."
not sure I know what you are talking about
How will it knock out the D700 when it and the D3 have the best sensor around at the moment, better than the 1Ds?? -
I still don't use my 5D enough to warrant an upgrade. The Mk II looks very impressive though, think I'll sink my money into more lenses. -
ram wrote:
Shame Canon's are butt ugly and have horrible interfaces etc etc canonlol who really cares just pick one and make pretty pictures etc
ayrtonsenna wrote:
But is it as good as the Nikon?
It's not review. But if the sensor is as good if not better than the 1Ds MkIII then it will knock the D700 out with a clean blow to the chin and take on the D3.
Take into account all it's extra features, (some wanted, some not) and that it is going to be approx £600 cheaper than the D3, then its going to be a right ding-dong battle.
The new 5D MKii battery grip has wireless capabilities, load images straight to a ftp. Zoinks that is good news. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoFrame rate is much faster on the D3 so the 5D II isn't really a competitor to it. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoGallery of test shots here:
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/
The ones of the old camera at the end are at high ISO's, noise doesn't seem to start until ISO 6400 so maybe a D3 equaller/beater? -
ram 3,598 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years agowow, those 25600 ISO shots are of a similar quality to the original 5D's 1600 & 3200.
Mightily impressive at 6400 and highly useable. Bit of noise in the dark colours at 12800 but again very useable.
Amazing how digital cameras have come on. 10 years ago I remember the place I worked in Oz was getting a new digital camera and it was costing something like $50,000 AUS dollars. 10 years later you can get cameras that can virtually see in the dark for a £1000-2000. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoYup, I hope it doesn't take too long for those sensors to work their way down the product range. I also hope soon that somebody launches a genuinely brilliant compact camera with a proper sensor in it instead of just adding megapixels and making things worse. -
ram 3,598 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years agoWell I imagine it's going to be a while before the sensors big enough to make an awesome compact are cheap enough to go to market. 2-3 years perhaps? Who knows. -
terminalterror 18,932 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 20 years agoayrtonsenna wrote:
Yup, I hope it doesn't take too long for those sensors to work their way down the product range. I also hope soon that somebody launches a genuinely brilliant compact camera with a proper sensor in it instead of just adding megapixels and making things worse.
Olympus (and recently Samsung too) are one step ahead of you, planning to introduce ranges of interchangeable lens compact cameras with DSLR sized sensors. The size saving is made by the lack of an optical viewfinder, as they run solely in live view mode. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoNo I just want a compact with a good sensor, not changeable lenses; they're just confusing the market and they won't sell I suspect. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoMore new info here, apparently the video performance is game-changing...
Click -
terminalterror 18,932 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 20 years agoayrtonsenna wrote:
No I just want a compact with a good sensor, not changeable lenses; they're just confusing the market and they won't sell I suspect.
Part of the problem is that the bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens you need. So any compact with an SLR sized sensor will have a lens approaching SLR size (slightly smaller thanks to having a smaller flange-back distance, i.e. not having the mirror and pentaprism in the way).
I'm sure both Olympus and Samsung/Pentax will churn out tiny pancake lenses so that the whole camera/lens combo is no larger than today's high end compacts. You'll never see a DSLR sized sensor on an ultracompact though. -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago[code]5. This camera will sell for approx. $2,700 - and perform better than many $100K plus video cameras out there…[/code]
Fuck a duck.
This might be the sentence that persuades my work to buy one. -
Is that not just sales talk? I really doubt something designed to be a still camera can produce such good film.
/cynical -
terminalterror 18,932 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 20 years agoprawnking wrote:
Is that not just sales talk? I really doubt something designed to be a still camera can produce such good film.
/cynical
Economies of scale.
Market for high end professional video cameras at $100k+ is small, limited to TV production companies, maybe a few very expensive wedding videographers, no consumer market at all.
Market for high end professional DSLR body is much bigger, even within the professional market, but the price tag puts it within reach of wealthy consumers and part time professionals too.
Also, a video camera is a far more specialised tool. You only really use it to produce professional content for broadcast on TV, or if web content, the expensive kind. A DSLR can be used for many more things, for all sorts of commercial reasons as well as artistic ones. Again, makes for a bigger market.
It even applies to the low end. Almost everybody has a digital camera. Far fewer have a camcorder.
If the economies of scale worked the other way around, you'd be seeing $100k+ DSLRs and $3k video cameras, and sooner or later somebody would make one that produced stills to match the $100k DSLR. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoprawnking wrote:
You'd better watch this then!
Is that not just sales talk? I really doubt something designed to be a still camera can produce such good film.
/cynical
o_O -
askew 24,121 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 16 years agoWow. And I was impressed with the D90 vids...
Time to start saving. -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoYou mean the jelly cam?
-
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agoAny non quicktime versions of that? -
askew 24,121 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 16 years agoayrtonsenna wrote:
You mean the jelly cam?
Yes
-
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agosmoothpete wrote:
It wouldn't really work on YouTube
Any non quicktime versions of that? -
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agoayrtonsenna wrote:
I can't have quicktime on my work PC as it messes up TIF file preferences and I have to view tons of TIFs. Plus it's shit, it's the devil in media software form
smoothpete wrote:
It wouldn't really work on YouTube
Any non quicktime versions of that? -
ayrtonsenna 1,566 posts
Seen 13 years ago
Registered 14 years agoThat's PC's for you .gif)
-
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years ago"Thank you for installing QT. WOuld you like to set me as your preferred player of all types of media, or any kind whatsoever, forever?"
/clicks no
"I'm just going to go ahead and pretend I didn't see that. So, I'm set as default player for everything, right?"
/clicks NO
"Listen bucko, doesn't matter if you click "no", I'm gonna do it anyway"
/clicks NOOOOOO
"Great, glad we see eye to eye. I'm set as preferred media for everything. Good luck trying to right click and save videos. You can try and change preferences in the options tab but it doesn't actually work. Go ahead and try a few times though, I like to see you angry. It turns me on."
/clicks Uninstall
"Woah woah woah. What do you think you're doing, chump? You do realise that iTunes won't work without me? You're fucked, my friend. Proper fucked. I'm here to stay."
etc -
glol!
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
