Canon EOS 1D Mark II N

In article , says...
"Brian Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article , says...
It is unlikey Canon
would use a KM Trademark

You can't trademark "5D." Too broad.

"EOS 5D" or "Maxxum 5D" are a different matter entirely...

There are at least two trademarks 5D registered on the USPTO, neither is for
a camera. Why would Canon then chose to call a camera after a known
entry-level product. 5D has been known as long as the 7D (also 9D) Is Canon
marketing really that bad?

What is happening on August 22, 2005? There will be a Nikon D200 announced
sometime this year, but I don't see why they would issue a "full-frame" dSLR
and a mk.II N which would presumably be a 1.3X FOV. Somebody is pulling
someone's leg on this one.

I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR
came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch
on Nikon to go full-frame.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Brian Baird wrote:
In article , says...

"Brian Baird" wrote in message
...

In article , says...

It is unlikey Canon
would use a KM Trademark

You can't trademark "5D." Too broad.

"EOS 5D" or "Maxxum 5D" are a different matter entirely...


There are at least two trademarks 5D registered on the USPTO, neither is for
a camera. Why would Canon then chose to call a camera after a known
entry-level product. 5D has been known as long as the 7D (also 9D) Is Canon
marketing really that bad?

What is happening on August 22, 2005? There will be a Nikon D200 announced
sometime this year, but I don't see why they would issue a "full-frame" dSLR
and a mk.II N which would presumably be a 1.3X FOV. Somebody is pulling
someone's leg on this one.


I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR
came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch
on Nikon to go full-frame.


We are "pretty" certain Canon can deliver a full frame dSLR at 12
megapixels and under $5000 (maybe be even $3500). BUT for a 1DMK2, it
has to be able to handle at least 8.3fps. It might not yet be possible
with the current DIGIC II processor. Is DIGIC III coming up? My guess is
it'll be just minor update. The next 1DMK3 will likely merge 1Ds (full
frame) and 1D (fast frame rate) using the D2X technique.

In article et,
says...
The next 1DMK3 will likely merge 1Ds (full
frame) and 1D (fast frame rate) using the D2X technique.

I wouldn't be surprised to see something along those lines.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Brian Baird writes:

I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR
came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch
on Nikon to go full-frame.

Um, the Kodak DCS-14n was there several years ago. In Nikon mount
first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels,
in fact.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ Much of which is still down

In article , says...
I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR
came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch
on Nikon to go full-frame.

Um, the Kodak DCS-14n was there several years ago. In Nikon mount
first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels,
in fact.

Yeah, but it sucked compared to the 1Ds. Moire, noise, color balance.
Plus, it wasn't built like a pro body.

NIKON actually does make nice dSLRs, they should make one full frame so
they can actually take advantage of the strongest area of their lens
lineup: the wide angle zooms.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Brian Baird writes:

In article , says...
I'm not holding my breath. It would be interesting if a full frame dSLR
came in at 12 megapixels and under $5000. Certainly would put a crunch
on Nikon to go full-frame.

Um, the Kodak DCS-14n was there several years ago. In Nikon mount
first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels,
in fact.

Yeah, but it sucked compared to the 1Ds. Moire, noise, color balance.
Plus, it wasn't built like a pro body.

Well, yes, I do know people said all those things. It sounded to me
like people were quite happy with it as a studio camera, and not so
much in other uses.

Anyway, it didn't seem to be so bad that we should pretend it didn't
exist.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ Much of which is still down

In message ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Brian Baird writes:

In article , says...

Um, the Kodak DCS-14n was there several years ago. In Nikon mount
first (though they did do a Canon version too, later). 14 megapixels,
in fact.

Yeah, but it sucked compared to the 1Ds. Moire, noise, color balance.
Plus, it wasn't built like a pro body.

Well, yes, I do know people said all those things. It sounded to me
like people were quite happy with it as a studio camera, and not so
much in other uses.

Anyway, it didn't seem to be so bad that we should pretend it didn't
exist.

I imagine that it would work best in situations where no cropping or
only mild cropping were used, as zooming into its aliased pixels
probably wasn't a nice experience.
--


John P Sheehy