 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Canon EOS 1D Mark II N
From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full frame. Plot is getting thick. WHO CARES?!! > From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? I > guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full frame. > Plot is getting thick. > From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? >I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full >frame. Plot is getting thick. Someone got clever and used the "liquify" feature in PS to create it out of a 20D. :) -Rich > From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? > I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full > frame. Plot is getting thick. Thick like you.  SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? > I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full > frame. Plot is getting thick. Funny, all three Canon bashers have been captured. >> From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? >> I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full >> frame. Plot is getting thick. > > Funny, all three Canon bashers have been captured. Funny as in "ha-ha" funny, or funny as in "queer" funny? I don't bash Canon all that much. Just the lamers who think they have somehow bought into a better line of products when they proudly announce how "superior" Canon is. Fortunately I have extensive experience with both systems, unlike most other protagonists on these forums. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >>> From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? >>>I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > how "superior" Canon is. Fortunately I have extensive experience with both > systems, unlike most other protagonists on these forums. At least a civilized person, like me, don't bash Nikon. The PDF is a HOAX and the mark II N is also a hoax. It is unlikey Canon would use a KM Trademark >>>> From the first page of the 5D Spec PDF. What spec do you think it has? >>>>I guess just a minor update like D70 to D70s, possibly won't be full [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > At least a civilized person, like me, don't bash Nikon. > It is unlikey Canon > would use a KM Trademark You can't trademark "5D." Too broad. "EOS 5D" or "Maxxum 5D" are a different matter entirely... Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> It is unlikey Canon >> would use a KM Trademark > > You can't trademark "5D." Too broad. > > "EOS 5D" or "Maxxum 5D" are a different matter entirely... There are at least two trademarks 5D registered on the USPTO, neither is for a camera. Why would Canon then chose to call a camera after a known entry-level product. 5D has been known as long as the 7D (also 9D) Is Canon marketing really that bad? What is happening on August 22, 2005? There will be a Nikon D200 announced sometime this year, but I don't see why they would issue a "full-frame" dSLR and a mk.II N which would presumably be a 1.3X FOV. Somebody is pulling someone's leg on this one. > >> It is unlikey Canon > >> would use a KM Trademark [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and a mk.II N which would presumably be a 1.3X FOV. Somebody is pulling > someone's leg on this one. I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch on Nikon to go full-frame. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>>>It is unlikey Canon >>>>would use a KM Trademark [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch > on Nikon to go full-frame. We are "pretty" certain Canon can deliver a full frame dSLR at 12 megapixels and under $5000 (maybe be even $3500). BUT for a 1DMK2, it has to be able to handle at least 8.3fps. It might not yet be possible with the current DIGIC II processor. Is DIGIC III coming up? My guess is it'll be just minor update. The next 1DMK3 will likely merge 1Ds (full frame) and 1D (fast frame rate) using the D2X technique. > The next 1DMK3 will likely merge 1Ds (full > frame) and 1D (fast frame rate) using the D2X technique. I wouldn't be surprised to see something along those lines. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR > came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch > on Nikon to go full-frame. Um, the Kodak DCS-14n was there several years ago. In Nikon mount first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels, in fact. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down > > I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR > > came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels, > in fact. Yeah, but it sucked compared to the 1Ds. Moire, noise, color balance. Plus, it wasn't built like a pro body. NIKON actually does make nice dSLRs, they should make one full frame so they can actually take advantage of the strongest area of their lens lineup: the wide angle zooms. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > > I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR > > > came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah, but it sucked compared to the 1Ds. Moire, noise, color balance. > Plus, it wasn't built like a pro body. Well, yes, I do know people said all those things. It sounded to me like people were quite happy with it as a studio camera, and not so much in other uses. Anyway, it didn't seem to be so bad that we should pretend it didn't exist. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down >> > Um, the Kodak DCS-14n was there several years ago. In Nikon mount >> > first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels, >> > in fact. > >> Yeah, but it sucked compared to the 1Ds. Moire, noise, color balance. >> Plus, it wasn't built like a pro body. >Well, yes, I do know people said all those things. It sounded to me >like people were quite happy with it as a studio camera, and not so >much in other uses. >Anyway, it didn't seem to be so bad that we should pretend it didn't >exist. I imagine that it would work best in situations where no cropping or only mild cropping were used, as zooming into its aliased pixels probably wasn't a nice experience. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.