Digital BW, The Print

In the end we'll have to live with these new features and pay for 
them -- even if we don't want them.  The market will be flooded with 
these devices in probably a year or so. Its good ol' marketing 
designed to increase profits, period.  Some things never change.  
And, as they get more still photographers into video they can also 
produce and sell more video widgets (like tripod heads etc), software 
etc., so ultimately it will produce new revenue streams... My Mamiya, 
Leica, and Holga are looking pretty good <gr>.  
SteveB 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers" 
<dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce Watson wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > The camera does have "motor drive" mode at something over 3 shots 
per
> > second at full resolution (RAW mode) IIRC. If I'm wrong about 
that I'm
> > sure someone will correct me! ;-) If that's not good enough to 
capture
> > the "perfect moment," perhaps one should work more on one's 
timing. ;-)))
> > 
> > What you are suggesting is using a 21MP camera to capture a 2MP 
still
> > (1920 x 1080), but at a rate of 30 frames per second. This to me 
is a
> > poor use of this camera; a 2MP sensor would be much cheaper to 
produce
> > than this 21MP sensor for example.
> 
> Certainly, if the goal was to build a video camera, the 5D MkII
> is obscene overkill.
> 
> > To get the video capability they had to do a fair amount of work 
to the
> > hardware as well. They had to get it to move the data this fast 
inside
> > the camera for example. It took a fair amount of software work as 
well.
> 
> What makes you think they didn't have to do those things in
> order to build a 21MP camera that sustains 3.9 frames/sec?
> Let's just do some really rough estimation; 21MP * 3.9 frames/sec
> = ~82MP/sec.  2MP * 30 frames/sec = ~ 60MP sec.
> 
> Doesn't sound like Canon had to much (at least in terms of raw
> bit twiddling) to enable high-res video capture.  Sure, there's
> some software NRE.
> 
> > None of this is a value add for me, but it drives the price of the
> > camera up as if it were. In the end then it makes the camera a 
lesser
> > value to me ([value = needed functions / price] in my definition).
> 
> I doubt Canon drove the *cost* of the camera up appreciably in
> adding video, but they have increased the *value* of the package
> in general, so they may charge more for it.
> 
> Alternatively, all of the high-end DSLRs may soon feature video
> capture anyway - so omitting it would be a disadvantage in the 
market.
> 
> > I didn't buy a 5D because it was missing some things I really 
wanted
> > (automated sensor cleaning being one of the biggies). I may not 
buy a
> > 5D2 either, because it costs too much for what it is. It's too 
early to
> > tell because we don't know the real street price yet.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Dana
>