Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
Actually, the Vivitarswould still be my primary lighting tools. However, I'll be shooting a wedding in the not-so-distant future and having ETTL exposure would be a nice touch. I could have Amber walk around the reception area and simply point the flash at whatever I'm pointed at (making sure the body is facing me), and get decently lit (consistent) off-camera flash results. Plus video...that'd be a nice touch.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]I could have Amber walk around the reception area and simply point the flash at whatever I'm pointed at (making sure the body is facing me), and get decently lit (consistent) off-camera flash results. Plus video...that'd be a nice touch.
This approach works suprisingly well. I put the 420 EX in my daughter's hands and let the 580 EXII trigger both. I refer to her as a voice activated flash stand.
LOL Sean, that would be interesting - not the "walking flash" but what I'd tell Amber to make her do that for you! [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallasphotog
Yeah, I wasn't sure if the people here would get the VAL reference if I dropped it. As far as getting Amber to do it, I'm sure it'd be quite easy--one reason I like her is that she's highly suggestable. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
"Amber - you are a voice activated flash.... you are a voice activated flash....you are a voice activated flash" haha [:D]
got a 50d now, can't say I am that excited about the 7d. Think I will wait for my 5dII, III or what ever else is available in full sensor when I get the money.
It is unclear to me, asa new photographer, what the reference to "sealing like an EOS-1N" implies. Is this 15 year-old camera a bell-weather (sorry, couldn't resist) in weather sealing, or does this imply that the 7D, while weather-resistant, is not exactly up to the standards of the current 1D/Ds bodies? In other words, is this basically a higher resolution 1D Mk. III without the grip and the dual card slots, or what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
DPReview's hands-on preview says that it's the same as the 5D2, which is decidedly not up to the level of 1D. [:(]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Just a warning. You will need a really good tripod with really smooth head or IS lenses. I hear video on these DSLRs makes the Nissan commercial (10-15 yrs ago) look smooth. Look what Laforet has gone through filming stuff with the 5D. I call it insanity. If Canon is going to turn our DSLRs into video recorders they could at least be real engineers and give us sensor based image stabilization like Pentax and Sony. That doesn't take away from the need for IS lenses but would definitely make the video a lot smoother. I suggest, before you jump on the "I'm goingjustify this new 1700.00 bodyI bought by doing video at weddings" look at a resonably priced 3 ccd Panasonic or JVC camcorder and see what the benefits of video are. Most of these now film in 720p -1080p and use digital storage. I know , I know, they don't use Canon lenses...........but they are specifically designed for what a Canon DSLR is not.
Sean, It's your money, I just know that when the 5D MkII came out Iwas saying the same things. If I was going to do video at a wedding for a client I would hire a third person videographer. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the still frames.Just take this as thoughts and insights from a fellow strobist. And keep on making that beautiful art!
Wow, the 7D looks like a great camera. I wish it were 12MP... [I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
You're right Chuck. The cost simply isn't worth the benefit right now. I've got a solid tripod, but I don't have a smooth video head for it. And I'd insist on a battery grip--and then I'd have to upgrade my computer because it will barely render HD video let alone edit it. And I really don't want to have to worry about taking video and pictures at the same time while doing a wedding.
If I start shooting a little more regularly (and making more money), I'll certainly consider it. It does have some feature I'd love to have, but those features simply aren't have-to-haves at this time.
I wonder if a kidney is worth 1700 bucks.... :D
Wow. . . to me this appears to be a slightly scaled down 1ds mk II, which is awesome because I was considering getting one! hopefully I can scrape the necessary $ together. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Whewww!! Another needless upgrade narrowly avoided.....[:D]
No, in all seriousness the 7D looks very exciting. I had a feeling a few weeks and canonrumors ago that if they didn't produce another FF it was going to be a enhanced APS-C. For 30D and 40D users it may be just the upgrade they were looking for. For the 50D crowd I'd say your still good for a year or so unless you shoot alot of BIFs or sports. I looked at some of Rob Golbraiths samples of high ISO club shots and I can't say I was terribly impressed. It was a beta firmware, so I wouldn't base my buying decisions on just those photos but compared to the 5D MkII images at the same ISO it would to me be well worth saving the extra coin for the FF. Canon claims that the Digic IV makes 6400 as clean as 1600 on Digic III. Well I have to say that the 5D MkII 3200 ISO images were as clean or cleaner than the 7D 1600 ISO images. The images on dpreview looked alot cleaner and they were using what appears to be a newer firmware and the in-camera Digic IV processor rather than DPP. The low light high ISO (3200) photos were extremely bland and IMHO not a very good example. Image Resource has the skinny. Just need to go compare.
It was hilarious I was looking at some sample's on canon's site and none of the pictures were above iso 200. If you put the camera into auto ISO it defaults to at least 400 iso: unless they changed it.
Doesn't Auto ISO start at 200?
I have a 50D, I love my 50 D, my clients and myself are happy with my 50D results, and it has features I rarely use. Good reason to get another L though, convince the minister of war & finance (wife) I could upgrade to 7D or get another L, yes tricky smart people from Canon. Sorry it just doesn
@Sean
I don't know about others but on my 40d I've never seen auto iso @ 200 even in the brightest conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosbyharbison
As far as the 50D is concerned, the AUTO ISO range changes depending on the shooting mode. When shooting with a flash or when the camera is set to manual mode, then the ISO is fixed at 400. In Portrait Picture Style, the ISO is fixed at 100. In P, Tv, Av, and just about every other mode, then an ISO between 100 and 1600 is automatically chosen by the camera. *Note: If fill flash results in overexposure, ISO 100 or a higher ISO will be set.
At least 100 MP. The existing digicams (e.g. LX3) prove that 2 micron pixels have performance that is superior in dynamic range to the existing 5+ micron DSLR pixels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Sensor designers have not focused only on increasing resolution. They have been optimizing all sorts of things from the beginning (read noise, QE, FWC, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
You don't even need 15 MP to print 11x16. Plenty of people print less than 1 MP on 11x16. In fact, some people attend theaters where 0.7 MP is projected to a 50 foot screen, and they sit in the front row and enjoy the image just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
So clearly, resolution is not necessary to make a large print. The more interesting question is: At what point does more resolution fail to make any difference at all?
The answer to that is *much* different than most people think. It is very common to greatly understate the impact of resolution. 15 MP is not the ideal resolution for 11x16". 30 MP would provide higher contrast and resolution.
I started a new thread to discuss the topic:
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2025/15448.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
Why is that? It would have worse noise at low ISO (lower dynamic range), based on Canon's typical sensor design. (It might have slightly less noise at high ISO, but are you willing to trade dynamic range and resolution to get slightly better low light?)
Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc.
If it's because of the file size, then you should wish that Canon had better software, not less resolution. All the file size and processing speed issues have been solved already in other cameras and raw converters. (REDCODE is one example: 9.5 MP 12-bit raw files at less than 2 MB each.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
I agree, peety3 (I own one, after all). I just meant that selling the 7D for $2000 might mean the bar will be raised.
7D, looks interesting. Read some of the specs. Like 8fps and 1.6 for sports (dual processors), 18mp is better than my 30D. Is IQ better than my 5D? Don't need the video. Like the 3'' display and super imposed grid etc. Think I will get a 1Ds MKII. Still think the 7D may be great. Will the new focus system be accurate (1D MKIII)?
JeffersonPoster
Looks like a real winner.
If I was in the means for a new camera, I'd jump on it.
But I'd want a 5D2 first...
Looks real impressive - But I still think I'll stick with my 40D and upgrade glass. Maybe 5D II/7D combo ultimately... [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffersonposter
I too would like to see an IQ comparison between the 7D and 5D. I do prefer the perspective I get from a FF. My next upgrade will most likely be a 5DmkII maybe in a year.
I have seen several IQ comparisons 5D -vs- 1Ds mkII. Most show the IQ to be pretty close with the 1Ds being slightly sharper. Shootsmarter.com did a DSLR shootout several years ago with 8 cameras. It was controlled headshot, all cameras using the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. The images were printed on 16x20 for the judges to compare. The comparison was mostly focused at color, skin tone and contrast. The 5D came in first and the 1DmkII came in second. The 1DsmkII was close to last place even being beat out by the 30D. I downloaded the full file images and I agree the 1DsmkII is sharper but the 5D has better overall IQ based on this test.
I have recently searched Shootsmarter.com for this article in their archives and can no longer find it.
Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
On the 50D auto ISO starts at 100 and goes up to 1600 (unless you are in manual mode, then it defaults to 400)
*EDIT*
Sorry Sean, I replied before I read this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
HOw is the 7D size-wise compared to he 5D and rebel series? i cant tell if its small or large?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffersonposter
More pixels is better, but not necessarily better than the 5D. The 5D will certainly let you get more optical resolution out of EF-lenses, as well as effectively 'faster' apertures, due to the larger light gathering surface....
I'd guess that the image quality on the 7D is absolutely stellar, though I'm not going to sell my 30D and 5D to trade in for a 7D in the hopes that it has everything (and more, whether sealing, video, etc.)
Still, if i had money, and if there weren't any serious problems with it, I'd get one to replace my 30D, in a fraction of a heartbeat, or at least as quickly as I could.
If it was full frame, it'd be a done deal :)
The 7D looks awesome and I want one when my 40D dies (or when I win the lottery, whichever comes first.)
But, I'm kind of curious where this fits into Canon's product line. It's like a mix of the 1D series (weather sealing, dual processors, 19-point AF) and the xxD series (size, 1.6 crop). I wonder if this is the 1D mk IV??
LOL no, this is not the 1D mk IV.
Can't wait for Bryan's review. Looks like a nice piece of kit. I like the sound of the Dual Axis Electronic Level in the viewfinder. Would be great for landscape work. 8 FPS at 18mp is lovely as is the speedlight transmitter.
It's certainly going to be a difficult decision between it and the 5DII once the old 40D dies. High ISO performance is going to be a big decider.
Good work Canon! [Y]
Daniel,
Aside from the conventional wisdom that increased pixel density decreases DR, increases noise and DLA becomes more of a factor (the D700 seems to be performing well at 12mp FF [:D]), other concerns are things Bryan pointed out in his review of the 50D. Exaggerated camera shake, magnified lens aberrations are two concerns over lower resolution bodies, storage and computer upgrades going from 10mp (40D) to 18mp files might warrant are another area of concern for me personally. I realize that many of these issues are taken care of when downsizing the files... Currently, I have no real problem with printing reasonable size prints at 10mp. Therefore I have no realneed of 18mp.
There seemed to be a general feeling that the 50D was 10# of crap in a 5# bag. Now we have Canon adding another 3mp to the APS-C sensor. I love the improvements they obviously made. Its going to be a nice camera. I'll wait until some objective testing is done before deciding if it is any real IQ improvement in the APS-C world.
Well, I'm in the final stages of hopefully selling my 40D and making the jump to a 5DII and when the price drops on this sucker, I'll probably pickup a 7D as a backup/telephoto lens ;)
Thanks for the response.
I kindly disagree. Diffraction is always there. It's always the same, no matter what the pixel size. When the f-number is wider than the DLA, it means that the image is blurred so much by large pixels, that it's impossible to see the diffraction blur. Smaller pixels simply allow you to see the diffraction blur that was always there.Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
Furthermore, the DLA is the point at which diffraction *starts* to visibly affect the image. It is not the point at which further improvement is impossible. That would be the diffraction cutoff frequency, and it is much, much higher than most people think. For example, the 7D doesn't hit the diffraction cutoff frequency until f/18! That means if you compare the 50D and 7D and f/11, you'll see an improvement in resolution, even though the 50D DLA is f/7.6.
High-res bodies (50D) never have worse camera shake than low-res bodies (e.g. 40D). At the very worst, they are only the same. Same with lens aberrations. Along with diffraction, the worst thing that these issues can do is cause diminishing returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
If you avoid diffraction (stay below DLA), camera shake (tripod), lens aberrations ($$$), and all the other sources of diminishing returns, then you will get the full return: 100% of the increased megapixels.
But if you need the DOF of f/16, or you don't use a tripod (shake), or you use coke bottles instead of good lenses, then you will get 0% of a return from more pixels. The image will not be any worse, but neither will it be better.
Agreed! But the storage and processing speed problems have already been solved in software. There are proven raw compression and demosaic schemes that lose absolutely zero image quality but cut file sizes in half (or more) from what they are now. sRAW is Canon's attempt at compression, but it's much worse than the alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
So instead of asking for less megapixels, ask for more intelligent software, so that more pixels can be added with no negative effects on storage or speed.
Those feelings were all based on common misconceptions corrected in the "small pixels myth" link I gave above.Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
Agreed. I'm looking forward to Bryan's review.Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
Thanks Daniel.
We'll see how the 7D shakes out soon enough. Come on Bryan, aren't you done with that review yet? [;)] lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by District_History_Fan
You probably can't avoid computer upgrades. They're a necessary (and, desirable) part of life's work with digital photography.
As far as storage, you can buy HD space so cheaply, you shouldn't have an issue with storage. Buy a docking station that operates with both USB and eSATA, get yourself a 1 or 2 TB internal drive, and you'll be able to store 10's of thousands of full sized RAW files, and gobs of TIF and/or JPGs.
Seems like a popular thread. LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
I'd be shocked if the 7D has anywhere near the high iso performance of the 5DII since the 5DII's sensor is 2 1/2 times as large (unless you're talking about comparing at similar dof f/ stops... ie compare the 7D at f/2 with the 5DII at f/3.5, in which case the 7D may have the edge)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Totally agreed... but then again I'm a computer g33k before a ph0t0n3rd ;)
But I work in IT and I'm amazed at how much the price of storage has dropped in the past 10-15 years, I still remember when I made my first big purchase when I went to College and paid $1300 for a 4.3Gb Seagate SCSI drive!?
Now, I have a NAS with 1TB in RAID-1 and the 2x1TB drives would cost me $180 today! But soon time to upgrade the NAS to RAID-5 model ;)
Back to the point... agreed for an average Joe user, pickup a HDD dock that does eSata for ~$20-30 and a couple of 1.5TB drives (good price range these days) and you'll have TONS of space and can easily duplicate your storage and never worry about losing your files unless you're juggling your HDDs!