Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · Oct 20, 2009, 07:49 AM

Today was a great announcement date for Canon. They've thrown down the video gauntlet... That makes three dSLRs in Canon's lineup so far with 1080p24 and 720p60 video:

1D Mark IV
5D Mark II
7D

The 1D Mark IV is 10 fps x 16.06 MP = 161 MP/s.
The 7D is 8 fps x 18 MP = 144 MP/s.

That makes these two cameras the fastest two dSLRs in existence. Both of these cameras have 2 x DIGIC 4 CPUs. The 5D Mark II has only one DIGIC 4 CPU, and consequently can "only" achieve 21.1 x 3.9 fps = 82.3 MP/s.

richwig83 · Oct 20, 2009, 07:59 AM

As of yet the 5DII doesnt do 1080p24!

The IV looks like a great camera.... but £££££££

Eug · Oct 20, 2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by richwig83

As of yet the 5DII doesnt do 1080p24!

It was announced today. It's coming in 2010.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised. Perhaps this means the 5D Mark II won't be replaced any time soon (meaning within the year). Cuz if it were, I suspect they would have just left it at 1080p30 only.

mattyb · Oct 20, 2009, 09:07 AM

There are quite a few b1tching about the fact that its not FF in the dpreview forums.

1kg though. Thats a beast to have hanging around your neck.

Eug · Oct 20, 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by mattyb

There are quite a few b1tching about the fact that its not FF in the dpreview forums.

Meh. If it had been full frame, we'd have yet another group beetching about the fact they no longer have as much "reach".

I think we can expect in 2010 a dual DIGIC 4 based 1Ds Mark IV at 32.1 MP and 5 fps.
That's the same 161 MP/s that the current 1D Mark IV can achieve.

I have to admit I was predicting a full frame unified 1D Mark IV series camera at high resolution and full frame and 9 fps, but that prediction was based upon a hypothetical DIGIC 5 processor. Maybe for the Mark IV replacements. At that point, perhaps dual DIGIC V can give 1080p60 video and 320ish MP/s.

Oisín · Oct 20, 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

It was announced today. It's coming in 2010.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised. Perhaps this means the 5D Mark II won't be replaced any time soon (meaning within the year). Cuz if it were, I suspect they would have just left it at 1080p30 only.

That pretty much clinches it for me. One 5D Mark II for me in the new year it is.

Brien · Oct 20, 2009, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Meh. If it had been full frame, we'd have yet another group beetching about the fact they no longer have as much "reach".

I think we can expect in 2010 a dual DIGIC 4 based 1Ds Mark IV at 32.1 MP and 5 fps.
That's the same 161 MP/s that the current 1D Mark IV can achieve.

I have to admit I was predicting a full frame unified 1D Mark IV series camera at high resolution and full frame and 9 fps, but that prediction was based upon a hypothetical DIGIC 5 processor. Maybe for the Mark IV replacements. At that point, perhaps dual DIGIC V can give 1080p60 video and 320ish MP/s.

Yeah, I'd have thought APS-H would die by now. Maybe, like you said, with the MkV.

Although, most likely I'm going for the 7D.

OreoCookie · Oct 21, 2009, 03:58 AM

Me thinks Eug likes his chips

It's certainly a nice camera, not too long ago, the `big' model had 16 megapixels (although I'm not sure most sports pros will need the extra resolution). I'm sure it'll be a worthy upgrade over its predecessor and a great camera. Regarding full frame vs. APS-H, I think if you like the camera as it is, you'll rationalize by saying that the smaller sensor gives you more reach while others will say that the move to full frame is overdue. In terms of speed, nothing much has changed, 9~11 fps seems to be the technological limit (especially if you want to use the AF). In any case, it's plenty.

Personally, I belong to the latter camp, but don't really care that much. I don't think I'll ever shell out that much money for a body. And to be honest, I can't think of too many inventions they can add to make cameras in this class any better. I'd like to see a built-in GPS module, for instance, or WiFi.

Originally Posted by Eug

Quite frankly, I'm surprised. Perhaps this means the 5D Mark II won't be replaced any time soon (meaning within the year).

Why should it be replaced any time soon? It has just been released and all its limitations (lackluster AF system, fps, lack of proper weather sealing) are intentional. I don't expect an upgrade for another two years or so.

Eug · Oct 21, 2009, 06:47 AM

I'm surprised they updated it because it's extremely rare for Canon to do something like this, and some Canon product managers were even saying that it's unlikely that the 5D would get 1080p24 even though it was technically possible.

OreoCookie · Oct 21, 2009, 10:08 AM

What do you mean by `something like this,' that Canon intentionally omits features (marchitecture)?

Eug · Oct 21, 2009, 11:51 AM

No, it's rare for Canon to intentionally leave something significant out AND then add it in later with a firmware update. 1080p24, 1080p25, and 720p60 is a huge feature update, and usually stuff like that gets "added" in only through a new model release.

It's shocking (but good) that the 5D II got manual video control through a firmware update.
It's shocking (but good) that the 5D II will get a whole bunch of new resolutions through a firmware update.

The 5D II really is unique in this regard in Canon's recent dSLR history. I think this confirms the claim by some Canon higher ups that Canon's brass really didn't know what they had with the 5D II's video support, because it's rare for the brass to approve something like this even once. To approve it twice is unheard of.

OreoCookie · Oct 21, 2009, 12:01 PM

Ah, ok, I understand.
Yes, it's rare that digital cameras get added functionality through firmware updates. I've heard that there is a whole community doing their own firmware for some Canon P&S and they have enabled and added lots of functionality. For a dslr, this is even more interesting.

You could think of more efficient noise canceling algorithms (just compare Nikon's D3x to Sony's Alpha 900/850: both use a similar (almost the same?) sensor, but the Sony has visibly more noise). But why should you buy a new camera if some of the improvements are due to newer software?

Eug · Oct 21, 2009, 12:14 PM

My favourite is the Nikon where you can add 8 fps just through a software hack.

OreoCookie · Oct 21, 2009, 12:17 PM

Which one, the D300? (Or rather, please tell me it's the D80 and post a link

)

Eug · Oct 21, 2009, 12:21 PM

I believe it is the D700.

However, you don't get metering.

Oisín · Oct 21, 2009, 04:48 PM

So, in following these discussions about fps in the 7D, the 5D Mark II, the new 1D, and various Nikon cameras, there’s one question that’s been bugging me the whole time:

Why?

Seriously, what could you possibly need more than nine individual shots per second for? I shoot RAW with my 40D and I’d say it gives me something like 2.5 or 3 fps. And that’s plenty. I could imagine sports photographers might need more, to capture really quick movements; but when you reach three or four times what I’m getting, I don’t see the point in even trying to get any more. You might as well just film it, then.

OreoCookie · Oct 21, 2009, 04:50 PM

The D700 officially reaches 8 fps with battery grip and 5 fps without. I heard of a hack that allows you to reach 8 fps without battery grip, is it possible you are thinking of that?

analogue SPRINKLES · Oct 21, 2009, 04:53 PM

I think you get the award for the most amount of numbers, roman numerals and technical specs in a thread title alone

Eug · Oct 21, 2009, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Oisín

So, in following these discussions about fps in the 7D, the 5D Mark II, the new 1D, and various Nikon cameras, there’s one question that’s been bugging me the whole time:

Why?

Seriously, what could you possibly need more than nine individual shots per second for? I shoot RAW with my 40D and I’d say it gives me something like 2.5 or 3 fps. And that’s plenty. I could imagine sports photographers might need more, to capture really quick movements; but when you reach three or four times what I’m getting, I don’t see the point in even trying to get any more. You might as well just film it, then.

3 fps isn't great. I'm no action shooter, but the few times I shoot it I find 3 fps too slow. I'm more than happy with 8 fps though.

But yeah, shooting RAW at 8 fps is pretty frickin' storage intensive. I shot 15 GB worth of shots in a matter of a couple of hours... and most of it was garbage, because I'm an action shot n00b.

As for filming it, there is no dSLR in existence that can film 18 MPs at 24 frames a second.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The D700 officially reaches 8 fps with battery grip and 5 fps without. I heard of a hack that allows you to reach 8 fps without battery grip, is it possible you are thinking of that?

Yes, that is the hack I was thinking of.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

I think you get the award for the most amount of numbers, roman numerals and technical specs in a thread title alone

Heh. I noticed that myself after I posted it.

---

P.S. 102400 on the 1D Mark IV looks pretty terrible IMHO. I think they would have been better off just stopping at ISO 51200, but then they wouldn't have the paper-spec of "matching" Nikon's D3s paper specs.

Oisín · Oct 21, 2009, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

3 fps isn't great. I'm no action shooter, but the few times I shoot it I find 3 fps far too slow. I'm more than happy with 8 fps though.

I can’t even count eight times in a second. Just seems unreal to me to take more pictures than my brain can keep up with, without it being continual video.

Eug · Oct 21, 2009, 05:24 PM

Video with less than 24 fps is too slow IMHO.

For stills, I found with 3 fps, I'd miss the shots. Mind you with 8 fps I still miss many shots, but it's obviously easier. You just delete the ones you don't want afterwards... which may mean deleting 98% of your shots.

Luckily, we're not on film anymore, so it's no big deal. You can get 16 GB cards for uber cheap these days.

The pros seem to like 8-10 fps. 5 is too slow, which is one reason most action shooters don't buy the top-of-the-line Nikon D3X or Canon 1Ds.