Post by: Elkman on October 20, 2009, 12:56:07 PM
But who can afford it? ;)
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/10/19/lights-out-camera-action/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/10/19/lights-out-camera-action/)
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dm4/ (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dm4/)
Post by: huntnphool on October 20, 2009, 12:57:30 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 20, 2009, 01:08:49 PM
Post by: Elkman on October 20, 2009, 01:10:14 PM
Post by: Elkman on October 20, 2009, 01:12:23 PM
16 megapixels and aps-H. Nothing revolutionary but looks like a good camera. I'm surprised it is only 10 fps. I think the latest D300S from Nikon is doing 12 fps. However, that's 12 fps at 12 megapixels vs 10 fps at 16 megapixels. I think I would rather have the extra megapixels but if I was a sports shooter I'm not so sure... There better not be any autofocus problems like the Mark III...
I will always, or should I say prefer the full frame, and a crop for the second body.
All that aside, being in my profession, just look at the quality of the video. Insane!
By the way, it's $5k.
Post by: Jeffrey on October 24, 2009, 08:44:57 AM
16 megapixels and aps-H. Nothing revolutionary but looks like a good camera. I'm surprised it is only 10 fps. I think the latest D300S from Nikon is doing 12 fps. However, that's 12 fps at 12 megapixels vs 10 fps at 16 megapixels. I think I would rather have the extra megapixels but if I was a sports shooter I'm not so sure... There better not be any autofocus problems like the Mark III...
I will always, or should I say prefer the full frame, and a crop for the second body.
All that aside, being in my profession, just look at the quality of the video. Insane!
By the way, it's $5k.
Isn't that "front pocket" money for a guy like you, Elkman? :dunno:
Post by: sako223 on October 24, 2009, 09:23:03 AM
Post by: Elkman on October 25, 2009, 03:11:10 PM
[/quote]
Dude! what have you been smoking? :o :chuckle: