«

On 15/04/2012 4:10 p.m., Rich wrote:
> Alan Browne<> wrote in news:
> _:
>
>> On 2012-04-13 12:15 , Bowser wrote:
>>> If Canon continues on their "video priority" path, I may switch to
>>> Nikon for my next upgrade cycle. More and more it seems they're
>>> sacrificing still photography for video, something in which I have no
>>> interest. Damned shame, too.
>>
>> "What" has been sacrificed?
>>
>> To me video is an add-on that doesn't subtract from the whole.
>
> Do we know that?
>
In the case of the "C" series cameras/lenses, probably not.
Canon appear to be /very/ serious about this system.
The "compromise" seems to be that they still use a 35mm still format
(36x24) sensor, when the sensor is designed for optimal performance (at
4k resolution with 1:1 pixel mapping and no downsampling/pixel binning)
at about APS or Super 35 format size. The EF-C lenses also don't cover
36x24mm frame size.
You could shoot 36x24 format (but only at 1080p) and using dslr lenses
which aren't designed for cine, and use the cameras for stills, but for
the sake of a few thousand dollars, a 5DIII or Nikon D800 might do a
better job of it anyway.

Me <> wrote:

[EOS-1D C]

> You could shoot 36x24 format (but only at 1080p) and using dslr lenses
> which aren't designed for cine, and use the cameras for stills, but for
> the sake of a few thousand dollars, a 5DIII or Nikon D800 might do a
> better job of it anyway.

Nooooo. I'm shooting at 8 MPix on APS-C now (old 20D,
landscape trigger's starting to misbehave), I wanna be
machinegun-photographing 8 MPix at 24 FPS!
Never again miss the critical moment more than by 1/48s[1]!

Really!


And I do tell you, 8 MPix is good for most common sizes (OK,
if you're shooting for huge prints, you want large format ...)
and more MPix is no reason for an upgrade (for me, that is).


I'll expect such a camera to be quite a success where 20-25 fps are
needed to capture the moment --- or where not enough training will
be allowed for photographers to properly anticipate that moment.[2]

-Wolfgang

[1] If you're holding the camera in the right direction, are
filming, are focussed, etc, etc. etc.

[2] Crossbows and even early fireams were slower, shorter ranged
and less accurate than, say, the English longbow. But it took
a decade or two to properly train such an archer (i.e. from
childhood up), so they made do with crossbows which could be
trained in a couple of weeks.

Early firearms were worse: not only they could blow up, the
smoothbores were too inaccurate to be properly aimed at a
man at most ranges (rifles without breech loading or minié
ball were slow and laborious to load --- too slow for the
battlefield except for, say, snipers) and thus every rank,
after loading, aimed in the general direction of the enemy
and fired as one, creating a killing field.
But firearms were easy to train, just follow the drill.

Worse solutions that are much easier to mass train tend
to replace better, but hard to train solutions, when
masses of them are needed ...