Canon Unveils EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR (canonrumors.com) 160
It's been a little more than 4 year since Canon unveiled the EOS 5D Mark III. Today, Canon took the wraps off its successor -- the EOS 5D Mark IV. The Mark IV features a 34-megapixel, full-frame CMOS sensor and Digic 6+ processor with support for capturing 4K video at 23.98, 24, 25 and 30 fps. In addition, it features a 61-point autofocus system, built-in digital lens optimizer, NFC, Wi-Fi and an ISO range of 100-32,000. The continuous shooting mode is set at 7 fps, compared to 6 fps on the 5D Mark III. It will also take both CompactFlash and SD cards, and there is GPS included in the body for geotagging images. Canon is selling the Mark IV in early September for $3,499 for the body only. They're also selling two new L-series EF lenses -- the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Standard Zoom Lens. President and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc, Yichi Ishizuka said in a statement: "Canon's EOS 5D series of DSLR cameras has a history of being at the forefront of still and video innovation. And today, we add to this family of cameras the EOS 5D Mark IV -- the first in our 5D series to offer 4K video and built-in Wi-Fi and NFC connectivity. In developing this new DSLR camera, we listened to the requests of current EOS users to create for them a modern, versatile camera designed to help them create and share beautiful still and video imagery." Here's a blast from the past: Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. Slashdot reader LoudMusic submitted this story back in 2004, highlighting the camera's "802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities."
Pixels density (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pixels density (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pixels density (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah. In signal processing mathematics and technology, things are more subtle than that. Even if each individual pixel receives less light indeed, and thus proportionately more noise, the correlations between adjacent pixels makes it possible to better reduce noise overall. And thus, especially if the final resolution is slightly downsized, the resulting image can be better.
In other words: Canon engineers are not idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if Canon properly implements some sort of binning [andor.com], they could get the best of both worlds: high resolution when read noise isn't a problem (i.e., bright scene) and good SNR in dim scenes, albeit at lower resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Realistically, thermal noise is almost irrelevant except for long-exposure photography (e.g. astrophotography). For normal photographic purposes, it's the shot noise that kills you in low light. When the difference between one and zero photons makes a visually noticeable difference in the resulting value, individual pixels are going to have noticeably different values than the pixels next to them e
Re:Pixels density (Score:4, Insightful)
True but the image will always suffer from less thermal noise on an equivalent sensor with larger photosites.
We don't need to have this argument again. We had it a few years ago when Nikon released a 36mpxl camera. Canon people shouted from the hilltops that it will be noisy crap, they were wrong and Nikon's cameras ended up besting them by a large margin as a result.
You can do far more with noise distributed over an oversampled image than you can do with a perfectly sampled image that has less noise. Yes in raw physics the larger photosites win. But when applying image processing to get the results you want the higher resolution wins, especially since having the extra resolution allows you to do all sorts of fancy other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't. The 5D Mark IV sensor uses a gapless microlens array. There are no boundaries between the pixels, period. All light that hits the sensor's surface goes into the sensor except for any that gets reflected when it hits the surface.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of actual DSLRs of today, a higher pixel density means better colour separation despite the Bayer-pattern sensor. That's to say: the debayered colour triples will be less wrong than they used to be.
On the other hand, 36MP (where each pixel is a single colour channel) does eat up the gigahertz rather quickly. On the third hand, don't DSLRs today have absolutely sick buffers? Like 100 frames if shooting raw, as on Nikon's D500 for example.
All this being said, none of this beats true-blue black
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Raw has greater colour depth than jpg. Even the least compression of jpg is not able to handle the same level of manipulation as raw. shadows will be more noisy, gradients less smooth.
I agree that if you are just posting images on Facebook, there may be no advantage to shooting raw. If, however, you are printing large prints for display in a gallery, there is a huge difference between starting with 8-bit jpg and starting with a 14-bit raw.
Not to mention other advantages such as more accurate colour b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back [dpreview.com]. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.
Pffft Is that all? [pcworld.com]
But really it's a lot of naval gazing and penis compensation. High-end reprographic work hasn't gotten any better in the past 5-10 years. The same arguments were made back when medium format backs were 30mpxl and DSLRs were 8mpxl. The same argument is being made now. Interestingly the pictures are still the same quality which really puts the whole "*really* need" thing into perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch...a bit of bad taste there.
But back more to subject. If you're shooting a concert and its one of those where you're relagated to the pit, and only have the first 3 songs to shoot and you're fighting with a bunch of other photographers to shoot the band from down there, with poor lighting....yeah, it is a bit of a battle and you have to shoot best you can under stress...and by shooting RAW, you can easily make
Re: (Score:2)
If you're shooting ONLY for the web, which is mainly what I was referring to...then a DSLR like the 5Dx is overkill.
Now, I do realize that most any great image taken, for print, etc...will *also* likely end up on the web too, no problem.....always nice in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 3D mk IV is still conservative compared to Nikon's four year old D800 at 36 mpix.
Re: (Score:2)
However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here).
This is the same argument that was used when Nikon came out with their 36mpxl sensor. It turned out to be not relevant at all in the field, and turned out to also be quite wrong when you start processing photos for noise reduction. An oversampled photo can have more effective oversampling than an undersampled one. It turns out to be quite the net win in terms of final image quality.
Anyway this isn't news. 36mpxl isn't exciting. Nikon has had this for years. The Canon 5DSR is 50mpxl and Canon showed a protot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an amateur photographer but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.
Re:I'm an amateur photographer but... (Score:5, Informative)
Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.
The 5D series is notable because the Mk II revolutionized video production. Everyone from teenagers to AAA Hollywood production units were using them. They weren't a replacement for cameras costing tens of thousands more, but they were close enough for most shots.
Re: (Score:3)
So? It's not the first camera with video. It's not the highest resolution camera, heck it's not the highest resolution in the 5D series. Everything else is borderline incremental.
Just because they released a camera that revolutionised the industry with some weird feature that most photographers still can't figure out why they have, doesn't mean that they should suddenly get ever little incremental advance advertised here.
This isn't news for nerds, and it's not stuff that matters. People interested in this p
Re: (Score:2)
Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.
This class of camera is stuff that matters to nerds like me. Heard it first here on Slashdot, thanks folks.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they can get 4K RAW Video working on this thing....?
Has a Digic 6+ processor (Score:3)
Re:Has a Digic 6+ processor (Score:5, Informative)
"Digic X" vs "Digic Y" tells you which is newer, and whether Canon thinks the newer one is enough better to deserve a bump in the major version number. You do still need to get other stats to decide whether, for you, the cost delta is worth the performance delta.
Re:Has a Digic 6+ processor (Score:4, Informative)
Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.
The Digic processor is known for being very, very good. Yes, it's proprietary and unique to Canon. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's presence is a feature, and not all Canon cameras have it.
is it worth the upgrade? (Score:3)
Menus on cameras are terrible (Score:3)
Have they made changes to the 1980's menu system for example?
That would be shocking if someone actually fixed that problem. I have yet to run across a camera menu (Canon or otherwise) system that doesn't make my eyes bleed. While I'm not a pro photographer by any means I've handled enough cameras across enough brands to realize the menus are pretty much universally shit. Just horribly designed with terrible interfaces. Buried settings with little rhyme or reason to them, clumsy navigation, poor descriptors, idiotic menu choices, etc. I'm not looking for pretty -
Re: Menus on cameras are terrible (Score:3, Insightful)
The menus are fine. If you know what you're doing you won't be using them much anyway. You only need the muscle memory to set speed, aperture, ISO settings and flash modes by dial/button combination and that frankly takes only a little practice. I only ever need the menu to clean the sensor and sometimes format the card but that's all. If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. The UI is poorly organized for my needs (Rebel T5 owner)
i.e. Some of the options I use more often then the others are buried across _multiple_ menus.
Thankfully you can put the menu items under a custom "Favorites" menu to help with the poor design / layout.
> If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.
_Your_ workflow _isn't_ the same as mine.
Re: (Score:3)
If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone.
No. NO NO NO. Photographers already have to deal with their gear being fiddly. They don't want to have to have their phone out so that they can get the full interface to their camera. That would be beyond idiotic.
It's very easy to fix this kind of problem, make people drill down further for the more advanced features. There's no need to take anything out.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone. Let people load the menus they actually need and want on to the phone and put an interface on the camera that doesn't suck
Yeah, make it so another piece of equipment is REQUIRED to change settings, that sounds like a menu that I want..... NOT.
Wrong. If the menu isn't useful then it was designed wrong. A feature that isn't efficient is a bad feature.
The menu on Canon hardware is just fine. As stated before, all commonly needed adjustments are available on the outside of the camera body. If you don't want the options to control the little details to set up the camera to YOUR personal photography style ( that you generally change major components of very few times in the camera life ) then go buy a point and shoot instead of a mid / hi
Re:Features you don't need (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a EOS 6D and think the menus are just fine. The menus are grouped by function and color coded, and customization options are all at the end on three pages (microfocus adjustment, button assignments, etc.). And if that's too much, there is one user customizable menu page where you can assign any function you want to that page and re-order them as you please. Most settings are done from the buttons on the body (ISO, drive mode, AF points, etc). When I do use the menu, I use my custom menu the most, which includes things such as turning on/off the WiFi and GPS, mirror lock, and create new SD folder.
Re: (Score:2)
I started buying Canon gear specifically because of the UI. I had a cheap P&S and liked the menu (It was a massive improvement over Olympus). The UI has been consistent and in the same format on every Canon P&S and DSLR I've owned since then.
Re: (Score:2)
The menus on Canon cameras are actually one of the best features and one I tout when people ask me for camera suggestions. Every Canon digital camera I've owned since the late 90's, whether various models of point and shoot, or five different dSLR models (including the 5Dmk3) has a menu system consistent with the other models. There are more options in some cameras compared to others, especially the 5, but they all work the same. If you've used any Canon camera you can pick up another model and immediately
Re: (Score:3)
If you really want to see a goofy interface, pick up a pentax DSLR.
Pantax? Goofy interface? Pentax users navigate between captured images with a d-pad, and zoom in and out using the rear scroll, unlike the unfortunate canon and nikon users that have to contort their thumbs to reach to tiny zoom in and out buttons at the edge of their camera bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Buried settings with little rhyme or reason to them, clumsy navigation, poor descriptors, idiotic menu choices, etc.
So no reason you can discern, doesn't mean there's no reason for them to be where they are. On my camera they make perfectly logical sense to me.
Clumsy navigation? You mean like up down left right for all navigation from a tree that starts on the side, and only deviating to hitting ok if something is going to potentially effect stored data like a card format?
Poor descriptors, WTF, how would you describe something if not by the name of the feature?
Idiotic menu choices? Like putting all playback under playbac
Re: (Score:3)
Checklist marketing (Score:2, Interesting)
What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use
There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all? One could remove most of the menus on any given camera and nobody would even notice because they never get used. Those "features" exist on the camera because it provides a checklist for marketing purposes, not because it makes a better product.
Canon does a pretty good job at it on such a small screen, IMO.
Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? Y
Re:Checklist marketing (Score:5, Informative)
What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use
There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all?
Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists. Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem. If you find DSLR settings confusing, you would almost certainly do just fine with a super zoom compact.
You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?
Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands. I might be on a moving vehicle. I might be in a constricted space where I can't let the camera go and let it hang on its strap. I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.
Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu (Score:2)
Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists.
There are hundreds of settings on an SLR camera that even a pro photographer isn't going to touch routinely if ever. And there are settings they do use with some regularity that are hard to get at and/or difficult to customize. The fact that they've learned to use a crap interface with the greatest possible efficiency doesn't change the fact that it's still crap.
Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.
How does this excuse having a terrible interface? Even if only pros used it a better interface benefits them most of all. Furthermore what you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are hundreds of settings on an SLR camera that even a pro photographer isn't going to touch routinely if ever
Nearly all of those are buried in a specific submenu.
And there are settings they do use with some regularity that are hard to get at and/or difficult to customize
Subjective. Each setting on my camera that isn't hotkeyed to the thumbwheel is equally easy to customise and no more than 2 clicks of the d pad in.
The fact that they've learned to use a crap interface with the greatest possible efficiency doesn't change the fact that it's still crap.
The fact that you think an interface that exposes all options of a camera to the user in the field is crap doesn't change the fact that many people think it's perfectly good.
Even if only pros used it a better interface benefits them most of all.
Better in who's opinion? The wedding photographer who has two different bodies on his shoulder which now has menu settings that are differ
Re: (Score:2)
"So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast. They've done some of this but they refuse to finish the job. Sometimes you do need to change things quickly, that is true. That doesn't describe a very substantial proportion of the menu options. Probably >80% rarely if ever get touched even by the pros."
The settings you might want to change will vary depending on what / how you're shooting. Landscape, wildlife, portrait, sports, etc. etc. etc. Someone who shoots in a studio might
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.
How does this excuse having a terrible interface?
You only think it's terrible because you don't need what it does. If you did, then you would think it's a great interface, because it does what you need. This is how I can tell you don't need a DSLR. You need a simplified, Fisher-Price camera. Sometimes those are great, and I have one. When I am just taking snapshots, that's what I use, because it is simple and good and small and light. I don't use the DSLR at all unless I need something it's got that the super zoom doesn't, like RAW. It doesn't have any mo
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use
There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all? One could remove most of the menus on any given camera and nobody would even notice because they never get used. Those "features" exist on the camera because it provides a checklist for marketing purposes, not because it makes a better product.
I think we found the Gnome 3 user!
Re: (Score:2)
Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?
While not having used this camera, I'm not going to comment on the merits of its interface, I don't really see why you think that the mere existence of an interface on the camera to change these settings harms you. If these settings really don't need to be changed often (/ever), then bury them in some sort of "advanced settings" menu that you can then ignore. Yours is the same mentality that we see from a lot of UI "experts" -- they proclaim that the way they want to use a product is the right way, and pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a 6D user, in my experience, the Wi-Fi is really nice if you're part of a group trip. You can have your cell phone out, and once in a while when there's a pause, you can snag a photo off your real camera and upload it to Facebook so that the folks back home can see what you're all doing. It's much easier than trying to take photos with two devices at once, because the extra time spent fiddling with your phone is while you're on a bus riding somewhere or whatever instead of while you're out sightseeing
Re: (Score:2)
"That's the way we've always done it" is idiotic (Score:3)
The menus basically have to be where they are now, because old photographers expect the MS-DOS menu experience
"Have to be"? Baloney. They don't have to be anything. Who gives a shit what the old timers expect. Give them something better than what they expect. The camera manufacturers have just been lazy and can't be bothered to invest the money into designing a decent interface because they know theirs is as "good" as anyone else's and they have people locked to their platform via hardware.
That argument is the "that's the way we've always done it" argument which drives me absolutely bananas. If they had tried
Re: (Score:2)
Then set up the MyMenu section and add what you want. Or, fire up MagicLantern and be done with it. My question is, will this finally drive some of the MK II prices down?
Good design is better than workarounds (Score:2)
Then set up the MyMenu section and add what you want.
How about the designers of the camera doing a decent interface to begin with instead. You are suggesting a workaround to a stupid system. I prefer that the system not be stupid in the first place.
My question is, will this finally drive some of the MK II prices down?
Unlikely but a good interface probably would capture some amount of market share for the first company to get it right. Since camera buyers tend to be sticky to a particular platform it seems like it would be a worthwhile way to grab market share
Re: (Score:3)
A faster horse (Score:2)
The camera manufacturer will typically give at least two shits about what professional and semi-pro photographers think.
If anything they care a little too much. They're afraid to try anything wildly new. That's the problem. It's like the old Henry Ford line "if I asked my customers what they wanted they would say 'a faster horse'". Companies need to listen to their customers but even more so they need to figure out what customers actually need rather than what they say they need. Most people are actually rather bad at designing work flows that are different than what they are accustomed to. Sometimes that is fine but t
Maybe I will finally upgrade (Score:3, Informative)
To some other ancient camera body... still rocking the 300D here. Still works. Still takes more than adequate photos, since I'm not doing print.
I use an Olympus E5 (Score:2)
and used my E-1 for 8 years before I got the E5 second hand. Although camera have improved vastly since the E5 there's not much in that tech that would have improved my photo skills. I debated about the EM-1 for my 4/3 legacy lenses but not FAS screen no sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Still takes more than adequate photos, since I'm not doing print.
Ironically enough, printing photos is far more forgiving than letting someone see them on the computer.
Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment (Score:3)
I'd rather get a Pentax K-1 [dpreview.com] for half the price. Full frame, 36MP, image quality way up there, superior in some cases (particularly for static scenes using Pixel Shift [petapixel.com]), in-body stabilisation (doesn't need new lenses). Video facilities not as good, though: the K-1 doesn't do 4K but does do Full HD @ 60fps.
It doesn't do everything, but what it does, it does very well. Besides, why get what everyone else gets? Canon and Nikon are the Toyota and Nissan of camera companies. Boring. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually been shooting with Pentax since the early 70's. For me, runs rings around canon and nikon. K20 rocks. K3... actually not as well as the k20 for me. And their new full frame is supposed to be amazing. And of course, they're all built like tanks. The problem, I feel, with Pentax is... they rarely advertise. So most folks think they're a low end piece since they never heard of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a lot more invested in lens kit than bodies
So do I but then I am still using an old film SLR and what I have is so old that to change at this point would require changing everything. Also an f4 that is awful I think the worst lens I have is a f2.8 and that is my 200mm (it has been a while since I used that one), but then I did say I have spent a lot on lenses over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Occasional second shooter here
They seem to pretty much all use 24-70 f/2.8 95% of the time with an 85 f/1.2 for soft portrait shots.
Even with the high iso capabilities of modern dslr's, I've still found situations (not at weddings) where the f/1.4 on my 50mm and 85mm lenses hasn't quite done the job to my liking.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the high iso capabilities of modern dslr's, I've still found situations (not at weddings) where the f/1.4 on my 50mm and 85mm lenses hasn't quite done the job to my liking.
Really? I have a tough time imagining that situation. If you need f/1.4 and ISO 12800 (any modern DSLR should be able to do this passably) things can be so dark that it becomes difficult to compose a shot because you simply can't see. At that point the camera system is rivaling or exceeding the capability of human night vision. That becomes "good enough" in my book, because even if I could get noiseless, focused images with f/1.2 and ISO 52800, I'd just be pointing and clicking in random directions in a pit
Re: (Score:2)
A reasonably dark church that has been set up for swing dancing is a prime example.
There is a night and day ;) difference between trying to shoot static things in the dark vs things that still have significant motion blur on a tripod at 1/100
My camera is capable of over iso 100,000, but I would never use above 6400 generally and 3200 in situations where I want to underexpose a little. If I were going for a little overexposure I'd go 12,800 perhaps because the amount of light collected would still be half re
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're trying to keep shutter speed high, I can see the need for that. I've shot plenty of wedding receptions that are painfully dark though - and the majority of the time, the best answer is just off-camera flash, or bounce flash if the situation is right. I'm mainly saying that because a lot of times the camera is physically capable of focusing and I could, in-principle, crank up the ISO and shoot without extra lighting, but in situations like that your colors are so muted and there's so little d
Re: (Score:2)
and the majority of the time, the best answer is just off-camera flash, or bounce flash if the situation is right.
I find that kills the natural lighting of the place, and makes everywhere look "samey" not to mention drawing attention to yourself and distracting the people from what they're engaged in. Flash is an enemy of candid natural photography imho. Most people can't pose well, so I try to blend in and just always be around with my camera doing things. Making bright flashes every now and then can be kind of distracting and not appreciated in a lot of places.
Everybody has their own style, but for myself I find that all my favorite dark reception hall shots are made with a setup along those lines - and honestly, the wide aperture is more of a hazard than a benefit so I find myself at 4.0 as often as not, because things are moving so fast that getting a razor-thin DOF dialed in exactly where you want it is next to impossible. The off-camera lighting provides the drama and subject isolation that you usually rely on bokeh for.
Before I was using the 85mm f/1.4 I was using an 85mm f/1
Re: (Score:2)
I think you must work a dance hall very differently than I would, based on your focal length. I'm generally at 35mm or wider (on APS-C) so I'm pretty close and mixed in among the action. In that context, if I have a need for flash (which means the house lights are way down and the DJ has some effects going) then it inherently blends into the existing atmosphere of pulsing music and strobing lights. Ceremonies I shoot almost exclusively with ambient lighting because that's a quiet, subdued event where I don'
Re: (Score:2)
Well for starters I'm always on full-frame, so your 35 is basically my 50 and your 50 is basically my 85
It does depend greatly on the lighting setup of the venue, but while a poor lighting setup can be made better with external lights anything where it's workable it will kill it.
I do consider the two examples you gave as fairly samey.
Here's an example [deviantart.net] I took on the weekend on a dance floor, I cannot think how a flash would have improved this situation. The lens was full open at iso 6400. While it isn't an
Re: (Score:2)
The ironic thing is that Canon used to offer a 50mm, EOS f1.0 lens. It is a monstrosity, but for getting shots in low light, it was unbeatable. I wish they still made such a thing, but I guess it probably didn't sell well. It would be nice though.
Similar with Nikon's 2000mm telephoto lens that was sold for a bit and then discontinued.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife is a photographer and I'm her second shooter for weddings - we've got Pentax K-5 bodies (APS-C) and yep, a 17-70mm/4.0 is my workhorse, which translates about the same. She tends to use the 16-50mm/2.8, which is decent but honestly her and I both prefer to have a backup body with a prime. The humble 50mm/1.4 actually does really well, I also really love the FA Limited 31mm/1.8 and the 35mm/2.0 (the best $300 we ever spent on photo gear).
I honestly never feel like there's something I want to do in th
Shut up and take my money (Score:2)
Anyone want to buy a 5D Mk II body?
Wait Amazon bought Slash? (Score:3)
and turned it into DP review?
Still a shitty camera (Score:2)
My Minolta X-700 SLR from the 70s takes better pictures than most DSLRs today. Fluorite lenses FTW.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait to hear from the field (Score:2)
Nothing matters about camera announcements until we hear hands on experience from folks in the field.
They'll tell you all you need to know about the camera and if it's worth buying or not. This will also allow for all the defects
to come out in the open. I personally wait at least six months before picking up a new camera body for this very reason.
In my experience, the higher density pixel packed sensors are great for things that have plenty of light to play with.
Not so much when low light becomes a variab
Re: (Score:2)
Not really like Apple, but more like Microsoft - Canon is the de-facto standard, unfortunately. Sigma even uses the Canon protocol in their line of DSLRs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the high end DSLRs, but at the low end point and shoots, they seem to be the best from what I've tried. They turn on very quickly, focus quickly, and take the picture when you press the button. That last camera I bought from another company was a Nikon point and shoot, and it was a very bad camera is those respects. I've bought 4 point and shoot Canon cameras (1 for each person in my family) and they have all held up very well. Long lasting even with the kids handling them, and they tak
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how Canon manage to sell small megapixel non-stabilized sensors with low ISO today
Canon puts the stabilization in the lens instead of the sensor and that's a legit design trade off; I'm sure they're sad you don't agree. My Canon's ISO goes to 25600 in normal modes and 102400 in emergencies, how high do you want?
Re: (Score:2)
Canon puts the stabilization in the lens for a good reason. Sensor-based stabilization is only useful on point-and-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders. As soon as you have an optical path to your eye, sensor-based stabilization is worthless, because it won't help you frame the shot. By contrast, lens-based stabilization locks the image in place so that you can actually see what you're taking a picture of.
This makes a huge difference even at 300mm. By 600mm, you'd be hard pre
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, it might be worth clarifying that at high MP counts, a hybrid system might be preferable, using sensor-based stabilization for fine correction after your finger hits the button.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canon puts the stabilization in the lens for a good reason. Sensor-based stabilization is only useful on point-and-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders
Well, I think the folks at Sony, who make fine DSLR cameras with sensor based stabilization, would disagree with you on this point. I suspect the GP is a Sony fan. I prefer Canon myself but I also stand by my assertion that either way is a legit method with different trade offs
Re:5 years old news ? (Score:5, Funny)
You're right. You're not a photographer. Thanks for your lack of insight.
full frame -- smaller depth of field (Score:2, Informative)
Full frame (35 mm format) cameras give you a smaller depth of field at the same aperture, because the focal length of the lenses is longer than it would be with a smaller sensor. And, you can get a larger depth of field without diffraction at higher apertures -- f/16, f/22 than you can with a smaller sensor. Better yet, look at a medium format camera -- like a digital sensor equipped Hasselblad, and you will see that larger sensors have advantages.
Re:They ARE stablized (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: 5 years old news ? (Score:2)
I not here to make advertising, but if you ask I have now Sony A7 series cameras, and I can manual focus my old m42 lens faster that my canon 5D3 or 70d focus my Canon L (uxury) lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 5 years old news ? (Score:2)
I didn't that I have a camera that use m42, I have lenses that are m42 and m39, and older. I also have others MF lens (minolta mc, nikon, pentax). On the Canon side, my biggest lens is EOS 500 f4 mk-I, I also have other "fast" Canon lend.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed a correlation between the people who complain about too many pixels and the people who can't afford such a camera
Well (post above), not complaining... Just that to post pics to a web site, i don't need 30 MP. And btw I own a 5D mk II... Re. 50 MP, does your lens catch up with the MP resolution? Really? Besides, interesting post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You *DO* know they make A-to-K mount rings, right?
Re: (Score:2)
asking for a full frame DSLR with a k-mount for over 10 years. Still nothing but shady rumors. I guess it's time to ditch 40 years worth of collecting Pentax lenses and switch sides.
Do you mean this? [ricoh-imaging.com]