>>2757883 I hope OP is referring to the shit being the look and not the specs. Although the looks shouldn't really matter I would rather he thought it looked shit than the full autismo of thinking the specs look shit like >>2757843
>>2757870 >14 fps / 16 fps in liveview It was already doing 14 fps before. Don't think that it's doing 14 fps with AF and metering. 16 fps in live view doesn't have the mirror interfering. >touchscreen wew >4k more pickles wow that was hard >>2757881 >14 fps RAW with 170 RAW frame buffer I had to look it up, and I found the 1Dx had a 30~ frame RAW buffer. About fucking time they soldered some more memory on the board. >CFast 2.0 at least nikon users had time to buy XQD cards >AF sensitive to -3 EV how many years has it been since Nikon and Pentax have had this? >1.6+ million dot display so we're approaching usable levels of resolution now? >802.11 AC support external dongle with modern bits
>>2757894 Actually I think with the specs it's supposed to be replacing both the 1DX and the 1DC, 4k@60fps is actually pretty good, considering it's usually only available on those gigantic cinema cameras like the Arris and Red, not to mention CFast is more widely available than XQD, which is proprietary and only used by Sony and Nikon
>>2757881 Brandfags still trying to say "but muh D5" even though that has only 4k@30fps for 3 minutes, because they still haven't released the new firmware
>>2757996 When you think of "the impossible" you think "amazing new technology" but the impossible that they're seeing is that they can make no improvement whatsoever, in the face of dramatic jumps in tech from other companies, while still maintaining the market dominance. It SEEMS impossible, and yet they're doing it!
>>2758016 exactly. for sports and journalism, most photographers shoot in jpg which goes directly to editors and then on to the wire services in a matter of minutes. there is simply no time to make radical edits.
>>2758562 well shit you're fucking right. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2291500142/canon-announces-flagship-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-full-frame-digital-slr wanna see how the video quality is, because this could destroy Canon's whole Cinema line.
>>2758608 I've been bashing Canon for years but 4K 60FPS is pretty impressive, raw or not (as long as it's actually FF video and binned rather than line skip). Dual pixel AF is pretty good for video as well. I say that they at least beat out the D5 this year. Only thing I'm worried about is DR (really hope they improved that sensor) and that they didn't cut corners with video.
>>2758562 >>2758607 >>2758608 >>2758616 Looked at the 4k video option, it's got the same issue as the 1DC, that issue being that the 4k footage is shot in motion jpeg, so prepare for xbox hueg file sizes
>>2758630 Yea the 4K 60FPS option looks to be rated up to 800Mbps. Looks like Sony still has a massive advantage since their XAVC-S 4K 30FPS with log profile only needs 100Mbps.So Canon files will be roughly 4x larger for same framerates.
>>2758616 >I say that they at least beat out the D5 this year. At what? Video? That much is obvious. Anything is better than Nikon video.
>14 fps with AF Using the new battery >touchscreen only for touch to focus in LV at least nikon put some other functions in >EV -3 AF welcome to years ago >only at center point in one shot TOP FUCKING KEK >AF point will light up in red how is this not standard
The only thing Canon has in its hat is video, and as of yet unknown improvements in sensor DR/noise handling.
>>2758616 >>2758630 >>2758645 More important is the actual video quality IMO. I don't know about high end, but 1080 on 5D and below is closer to 720 in terms of actual resolution. If you put it next to actually sharp 1080 (e.g. downscaled 4K from GH4), the difference is staggering.
ITT, and probably on forums and camera blogs everywhere, lots of faggots butt hurt because Canon neglected to consult them on their particular wants and needs before launching their new, highly specialised, top of the line camera.
I'm sure they did, however, listen to some of the seasoned pros who take these cameras, week-in, week-out to football, basketball and baseball games, tennis and golf tournaments, horse and motor racing and so on. They probably also listed to some of the naturalists who take it to remote and inhospitable parts of the world in the hope of snagging images of rare and elusive species.
Because these are members of the Canon Professional Services Program, the people that pay six grand a pop for a fucking camera. Not idiots sat behind their computers taking pictures of their dicks, the cat and the lamp post outside.
>>2758692 >Looks almost identical to my Eos 1n from fucking 1990 That's boring, but actually a good thing, since those ergonomics were and still are great for still photography. (For video, it's pretty awful, but you have to be pretty stupid to buy this camera primarily for video use)
>>2758737 You're both right and wrong. Listening to CPS members is great, but that's somewhat of an echo chamber, as these people already are Canon users. Now, if they also listened to users of *other* systems...
>>2758737 I agree with you, ita a camera only for sports and maybe some wildlife photographers - should Canon work on the dynamic range? Yes they should but I think, that people who buy this camera value higher fps, lower noise and fast AF over higher DR. In addition to that I think the 4k video (or video on DSLRs in general) is not a gimmick, if you are a freelance or you cover an event as single person you often have to take the photos, write the article and produce a small clip for the website/newspaper and if you can do that with one camera and the same lenses it saves you a lot of time and money.
For those who think you should buy a mirrorless: In DSLRs the AF sensor is separate from the image sensor and the mirror is reflecting the light only to one of them, so we wont see faster AF on mirrorless since they have to integrate the AF in the image sensor or use contrast only. If you have to carry 5 lenses a few cards and batteries the smaller body doesnt help anyway.
>>2757904 >amazing piece of equipment for professionals This is what forum dwelling faggots do not realize, Canon specifically caters to their professional customers for their flagship products and as such focus on what they want, not what a bunch pixel peepers who will likely never own the camera let alone utilize all it has to offer.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.