DSLRUsers.com

Good find, thanks!
The game of FF is now started in the DSLR mid-range from both Canon & Nikon.
Surely, Nikon will have FF body late this year or early next year.
The Canon 5D is:

- 3 frames per second with a 60 frames JPEG burst speed. 17 frames RAW. (slow for me IMHO).

- The 5D will be compatible with all EF lenses, but not EF-S.
Lenses upgrading path

Retail: US$3495.00 closely to the Nikon D2x

So, we're waiting for what Nikon will respond to this.

Finally, we all are the beneficiaries, be happy & ready, top up your wallet and lust and be in the game.

That certainly looks somewhat authoritative; thanx for finding and posting it.

It contains a couple of rather interesting discussions - one of which refers to the yield fac tors for production of sensors of various sizes. I'd commend that discussion to all here to read, as it provides a very clear insight into a major cost factor associated with the production of a DSLR.

well that doesn't look overly impressive to me. I expected more, unless these specs are wildly incorrect. Perhaps they are releasing this camera first, to test the waters, with plans for a big monster to arrive next year ??

I did have a chuckle when I read this:
"For some Nikon users, this camera might be compelling enough to switch to a Canon system. However, they might find issues with the the build quality, user interface, focusing system, slower flash sync of the 5D and select Canon lenses."

Perhaps they were talking about Nikon P&S users ???

...and the game continues

Dave,

What is impressive for folk like me is that it provides a 24x36 frame at a lower cost. Why is that impoortant? I shoot a lot of architecture and I would dearly love to utilise the range of canon Tilt/Shift lenses. At 1.6 crop factor a 24mm is not really of much use to me - with no crop factor it is very useful. Before you tell me that I can re-instate parallel verticals in PhotoShop let me say that the tilt aspect is equally as important allowing the placement of a plane of sharp focus pretty well wherever I choose.

Desirable features must vary from person to person and from application to application. For some time now I have been asking why they don't just make a top-grade digital camera with simple, straightforward manual controls; no immense list of options or party tricks, just sensitivity setting, white balance, aperture and shutter controls and, if you must, autofocus. As most of us are not professional sports photographers nor, thank God, paps, we could probably get along just fine with even two or three frames p/s. A histogram display would rounds up the specs and photography would be simple again. Sadly I feel there is little chance, when things get sold on the number of options!

Cheers,

Very true SheetShooter. I am sure this camera may appeal to alot of people, even if only for it's "wow factor" of having an FF sensor (I am not implying this is why you may like this camera - just people in general)

Within 6-12 months, assuming the FF sensor really takes off (which I'm sure it will), Nikon, Olympus, Kodak.....basically everyone will be introducing their own cams with the FF sensor inside. For those that have a large investment in Nikon lenses, dont get antsy and look to jump ship just because Canon are bringing out their "latest & greatest"......it wont be long before Nikon will bring out there own and Canon will be running to bring out a v2.

I also agree about producing a camera without all the whizz-bang function, half of us we don't even use (eg. AUTO ISO ?!?!?)

For many years, I have been saying the same thing about televisions. Going back before plasma/LCD were introduced, I always wondered why manufacturers didn't make their "top-of-the-line TV's "without speakers". Everyone that could afford such a TV would also have their u-beaut surround stereo system hooked up, and would have the TV speakers MUTED.

Same analogy ???

PS...I'm not stating that Auto ISO is not functional or useless, but majority of people simply prefer to control this function manually (just before any AUTOISO wars begin )

A manual digital camera would be great........but one with lens shift would be better......... Automatic digital have been around for quite a while, and film point and shoot a long time for those that can remember, so as much as it would be great to have a manual digital, it would be a very small market for sales, as big companies are money driven. I doubt if I will see this in my life time.....

Sheetshooter wrote: For some time now I have been asking why they don't just make a top-grade digital camera with simple, straightforward manual controls; no immense list of options or party tricks, just sensitivity setting, white balance, aperture and shutter controls and, if you must, autofocus.

Leigh and I have discussed exactly this on a number of occasions. Take the venerable Nikon FM body, replace the back with a FF digital one, and you're there.

Then again, there's the Epson RD-1, if you're looking for something to buy me for Christmas.

gstark wrote:Then again, there's the Epson RD-1, if you're looking for something to buy me for Christmas.

.......looks like I might get to see it after all.......':P'

gstark wrote:
Then again, there's the Epson RD-1, if you're looking for something to buy me for Christmas.

Gary,
Smile! I thought Leigh is your Santa this Xmas

Birddog114 wrote:

gstark wrote:
Then again, there's the Epson RD-1, if you're looking for something to buy me for Christmas.

Gary,
Smile! I thought Leigh is your Santa this Xmas

Leigh .... Sheetshooter ... you .... do I care ???

Dave - that was a selective quote

In the interests of balance

for those who didn't read the full piece it said, among other things:

"For photographers using Nikon bodies, the D2X and D2H may have suddenly appeared to have become a tad unappetizing. The 5D has trumped Nikon with full frame and 3200 ISO with a price tag below 4000 $. For some Nikon users, this camera might be compelling enough to switch to a Canon system."


and then went on to mention the problems which you quoted.

But that of course is just that writer's opinion. Although I could understand it prompting strong responses among people who love their Nikons.

These big companies continue to bait with high tech then switch and move the goal posts on us poor consumers.

Are the cameras good value? Well not if you look at the record profits being made out of them.

To quote Yahoo:

"Nikon, the world's second-largest maker of digital single lens reflex (SLR) cameras, said group operating profit totaled 13.94 billion yen ($124 million) in the April-June first quarter, up from a profit of 3.13 billion yen in the year-ago period.

Earnings at Nikon have been boosted by robust demand for digital SLR cameras and the interchangeable lenses used with them, as well as improved profitability in its stepper and instruments divisions.

Boosting digital SLR sales has been key to Nikon's strategy of shifting away from intense price competition at the low end of the camera market. Digital SLRs yield fatter margins "

I think in a recent thread someone said we wouldn't see full frame sensors because they'd cost too much. I suspect they're making so much money out of these cameras the cost of components is not an issue.

And they just drip feed us the technology, knowing years ahead what their release schedule will be.

Sure if you're willing to pay a certain price then that's the value you put on the product. Yes there are sometimes massive costs in developing new technologies.

And I'd like one of these full frame Canons, too.

But are you starting to get the strong feeling that we're all the bunnies...

'Twas ever thus!

Sheetshooter,

And so it has been with computers!


(although are they beginning to flatten out in price - that's why Apple invented the ipod)