EOS 3D with 1DsM2

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark², Feb 18, 2006.

  1. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Mark², Feb 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John McWilliams, Feb 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56208075/original
    >>
    >> Here's a standing $10 bet to all takers that this is legit.
    >> :)
    >> Any takers?
    >>

    > Pas moi! But let's bet on the specs....


    Having some doubts now...after having identified too many identical
    particulars in lighting, patterns, and imperfections between the two camera
    images.

    Here's a much larger comparison photo:
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56229419/original

    Look closely at any portion that includes a particular pattern in the grip
    texture... I've found quite of number that are identical to the 1DsM2.
    There shouldn't be so many identical "bumps" and reflections.

    The most convincing portion is the vertical grip, since it is quite
    unique...unlike any other Canon body.

    If it's a fake, it's the best-looking fake ever.
     
    Mark², Feb 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Mark²

    Annika1980 Guest

    Both the 3D and the 40mm F/1.2L have been rumored so I don't doubt that
    this is on the way. But Eye Control focusing? I'd have lost that bet.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 18, 2006
    #4
  5. "Mark"" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56208075/original
    >
    > Here's a standing $10 bet to all takers that this is legit.
    > :)
    > Any takers?


    I'm not saying the the 3D itself could not be coming (although I doubt
    it very much), but this picture is a fake. It's an excellent fake, but
    it's a fake nevertheless.

    You can spot that by the following observations: The reflection of the
    flash systems in both lenses is very different, even a different angle,
    but the light on the bodies is exactly the same. There are many details,
    such as the two shutter release buttons, the DOF buttons and the lens
    release buttons that are identical. In fact, if you open the image in
    Photoshop, copy one camera to a new layer and set the layer mode to
    'Difference', you can see that some of these buttons are identical to
    the last pixel. On a real photograph that wouldn't happen.

    BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds doesn't
    have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the air, rather
    than standing on the same white table.


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Feb 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > Both the 3D and the 40mm F/1.2L have been rumored so I don't doubt
    > that this is on the way. But Eye Control focusing? I'd have lost
    > that bet.


    Ya, even on my EOS 3...I could take it or leave it...
    I'd rather have a 100% viewfinder than eye control...and wonder if there
    might be a trade-off there...
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    > "Mark"" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56208075/original
    >>
    >> Here's a standing $10 bet to all takers that this is legit.
    >> :)
    >> Any takers?

    >
    > I'm not saying the the 3D itself could not be coming (although I doubt
    > it very much), but this picture is a fake. It's an excellent fake, but
    > it's a fake nevertheless.
    >
    > You can spot that by the following observations: The reflection of the
    > flash systems in both lenses is very different, even a different
    > angle, but the light on the bodies is exactly the same. There are
    > many details, such as the two shutter release buttons, the DOF
    > buttons and the lens release buttons that are identical. In fact, if
    > you open the image in Photoshop, copy one camera to a new layer and
    > set the layer mode to 'Difference', you can see that some of these
    > buttons are identical to the last pixel. On a real photograph that
    > wouldn't happen.
    >
    > BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds
    > doesn't have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the
    > air, rather than standing on the same white table.


    Points all taken...and if you read my other post in this thread, you'll see
    that I voiced my own doubts for some of these same reasons.
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #7
  8. Mark²

    Annika1980 Guest

    >BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds doesn't
    >have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the air, rather
    >than standing on the same white table.


    All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 19, 2006
    #8
  9. Annika1980 <> wrote:

    > >BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds doesn't
    > >have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the air, rather
    > >than standing on the same white table.

    >
    > All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.


    Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I don't
    think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Feb 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Mark²

    l e o Guest

    Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    >>> BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds doesn't
    >>> have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the air, rather
    >>> than standing on the same white table.

    >> All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.

    >
    > Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I don't
    > think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.



    I don't see anything wrong about this leak. It fits the product line
    perfectly.
     
    l e o, Feb 19, 2006
    #10
  11. Mark²

    Annika1980 Guest

    > All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.

    >Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I don't
    >think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.


    Well don't you think that if someone had gone to all the trouble to
    fake the photograph of the 3D then adding a little drop shadow to the
    other cammy wouldn't be so tough? Or is it your contention that the
    1DsMKII was the fake?
    Anyway, it's fun to speculate, but I guess we'll have to wait until
    next month to find out for sure.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 19, 2006
    #11
  12. l e o <> wrote:

    > Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    > > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>> BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds doesn't
    > >>> have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the air, rather
    > >>> than standing on the same white table.
    > >> All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.

    > >
    > > Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I don't
    > > think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.

    >
    >
    > I don't see anything wrong about this leak. It fits the product line
    > perfectly.


    No, it doesn't. It would be a camera that appeals mainly to people who
    would otherwise buy either a 5D or a 1DsII. Why would Canon spend
    resources to compete against itself? The camera Canon needs right now is
    a competitor for the Nikon D200, and that would be a '35D' type of
    camera, not a '3D'. A '3D' would fall between the 1 series and the 5D,
    so it would be much too expensive to compete against the D200.


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Feb 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Annika1980 <> wrote:

    > > All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.

    >
    > >Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I don't
    > >think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.

    >
    > Well don't you think that if someone had gone to all the trouble to
    > fake the photograph of the 3D then adding a little drop shadow to the
    > other cammy wouldn't be so tough?


    Of course not. I think he was just a bit tired of all that work and
    forgot that. Just as he was too tired or sloppy to make the reflections
    in the lenses more the same, which would also be easy to do.


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Feb 19, 2006
    #13
  14. Mark²

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Of course not. I think he was just a bit tired of all that work and
    >forgot that. Just as he was too tired or sloppy to make the reflections
    >in the lenses more the same, which would also be easy to do.


    Shows what you know. I just ordered a new 3D from hotbuyselectronics
    in Brooklyn.
    The guy (I think his name was Jamal) said I should have it by
    Wednesday. And I know I will because they've already charged my credit
    card. So now who's the fool?
     
    Annika1980, Feb 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Mark²

    l e o Guest

    Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    > l e o <> wrote:
    >
    >> Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    >>> Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds doesn't
    >>>>> have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in the air, rather
    >>>>> than standing on the same white table.
    >>>> All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.
    >>> Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I don't
    >>> think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.

    >>
    >> I don't see anything wrong about this leak. It fits the product line
    >> perfectly.

    >
    > No, it doesn't. It would be a camera that appeals mainly to people who
    > would otherwise buy either a 5D or a 1DsII. Why would Canon spend
    > resources to compete against itself? The camera Canon needs right now is
    > a competitor for the Nikon D200, and that would be a '35D' type of
    > camera, not a '3D'. A '3D' would fall between the 1 series and the 5D,
    > so it would be much too expensive to compete against the D200.



    Nonsense. There is a full $4000 difference between these two models. And
    the availability of 3D doesn't stop 35D from coming out!
     
    l e o, Feb 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Mark²

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    I think it's a fake, but not nearly as well done as all those fakes of the
    5D last fall.

    :)

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:gyNJf.66$vd2.40@fed1read04...
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56208075/original
    >
    > Here's a standing $10 bet to all takers that this is legit.
    > :)
    > Any takers?
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Feb 19, 2006
    #16
  17. l e o <> wrote:

    > >> I don't see anything wrong about this leak. It fits the product line
    > >> perfectly.

    > >
    > > No, it doesn't. It would be a camera that appeals mainly to people who
    > > would otherwise buy either a 5D or a 1DsII. Why would Canon spend
    > > resources to compete against itself? The camera Canon needs right now is
    > > a competitor for the Nikon D200, and that would be a '35D' type of
    > > camera, not a '3D'. A '3D' would fall between the 1 series and the 5D,
    > > so it would be much too expensive to compete against the D200.

    >
    >
    > Nonsense. There is a full $4000 difference between these two models.


    True, but many people would either save 2000 more, or spend 2000 less.
    This camera would compete only to Canon's own offerings. To me, that's
    not good business sense. Last year April, Canon said that its present
    range was enough satisfy the market. Then it introduced the 5D as an
    extension to that range anyway. I would be very surprised if they would
    do that again so soon. I'm not saying the 3D will never be, but I don't
    think it will be here soon.

    > And the availability of 3D doesn't stop 35D from coming out!


    Let's wait and see. On tuesday Canon will announce its PMA news.


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Feb 19, 2006
    #17
  18. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    > l e o <> wrote:
    >
    >> Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
    >>> Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> BTW, did you notice that the '3D' does have a shadow and the 1Ds
    >>>>> doesn't have any shadow at all? The 1Ds seems to be floating in
    >>>>> the air, rather than standing on the same white table.
    >>>> All that means is that the image is a composite of two photographs.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if that '3D' was real. And I
    >>> don't think it is for all the reasons you removed from your quote.

    >>
    >>
    >> I don't see anything wrong about this leak. It fits the product line
    >> perfectly.

    >
    > No, it doesn't. It would be a camera that appeals mainly to people who
    > would otherwise buy either a 5D or a 1DsII.


    >Why would Canon spend
    > resources to compete against itself?


    They wouldn't be doing that, though.
    -I will likely never spend $7000 on a camera body...
    ....but I might spend $4000-$4500.
    There really is a HUGE gap between Canon's full-frame offerings.
    The 5D is $3000...the 1DsM2 is a whopping $7000.
    I see TONS of room in there for a mid-range FF offering.

    If they'd offer a 5D-type sensor...with built-in grip and sealing...but
    without many of the 1-series bells and whistles...I would gladly fork over
    an extra $1000+ over the 5D. As it is now...I'm buying neither the 5D nor
    the 1DsM2. If they were to offer a 3D, they'd make a sale to people like
    me...who have resisted both the 5D and 1 series.

    That's money Canon gets that I otherwise keep in my wallet.
    -Makes a great deal of sense to me.

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #18
  19. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    > I think it's a fake, but not nearly as well done as all those fakes
    > of the 5D last fall.
    >
    > :)


    :)
    Right.
    -Though I am now convinced that it is indeed just a very good fake image.
    Canon **should** release something like this, though.

    To those who say it makes no sense...
    ....How do you then explain Canon's release of the EOS 3?
    It was similarly "unnecessary" by similar logic.
    To the contrary...they sold 3's to people like me...who wouldn't spring for
    the 1N, but for whom a rugged, slightly lesser body made sense.

    It made sense to release a mid-range "pro-ish," mostly-sealed body
    then...and it makes sense now.
    -And the 5D isn't it.
    There's room for the 3D...absolutely.

    >
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:gyNJf.66$vd2.40@fed1read04...
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/56208075/original
    >>
    >> Here's a standing $10 bet to all takers that this is legit.
    >> :)
    >> Any takers?
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #19
  20. "Mark"" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > They wouldn't be doing that, though.
    > -I will likely never spend $7000 on a camera body...
    > ...but I might spend $4000-$4500.
    > There really is a HUGE gap between Canon's full-frame offerings.
    > The 5D is $3000...the 1DsM2 is a whopping $7000.
    > I see TONS of room in there for a mid-range FF offering.
    >
    > If they'd offer a 5D-type sensor...with built-in grip and sealing...but
    > without many of the 1-series bells and whistles...I would gladly fork over
    > an extra $1000+ over the 5D. As it is now...I'm buying neither the 5D nor
    > the 1DsM2.


    Right. And if the price of the 3D turns out to be $5000, you gladly wait
    for the 4D? The question for Canon is: Is the 1DsII still worth the
    $3000 difference if a 3D would have most of what the 1DsII has, except
    for a few more megapixels and a few 'bells and whistles'? For many
    people it may not, and that would mean that Canon would shoot itself in
    the foot with the 3D. It would stop the sales of the 1DsII almost
    completely. Canon might just as well bring the price of the 1DsII down
    to $5000.

    > If they were to offer a 3D, they'd make a sale to people like
    > me...who have resisted both the 5D and 1 series.
    > That's money Canon gets that I otherwise keep in my wallet.
    > -Makes a great deal of sense to me.


    I'm not saying the 3D will never be; I just don't think it will come so
    soon after the 5D. And I'm saying that picture is a fake, even if the 3D
    turns out to be real after all.

    Anyway, let's wait and see, shall we?


    --
    Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
    Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Feb 19, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,706
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
  2. Rob James

    Upgrade from EOS 500 to EOS 300D - keep lenses ?

    Rob James, Jun 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    708
    Skip M
    Jun 27, 2004
  3. fatboybrando

    EOS 300D & EOS 300D Rebel

    fatboybrando, Mar 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    588
    fatboybrando
    Mar 26, 2005
  4. Ivan

    EOS 20D vs. EOS Rebel XT?

    Ivan, Aug 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    498
    Go-dot
    Aug 23, 2005
  5. schalten1000

    biete canon eos 650 zum tausch gegen eos 350 digital

    schalten1000, Dec 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    399
    schalten1000
    Dec 30, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page