7D Real!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

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!

---

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

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.

---

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

@Sean


I don't know about others but on my 40d I've never seen auto iso @ 200 even in the brightest conditions.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Daniel Browning - How many pixel do you think is still reasonable for APS-C?

---

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

In other words, at what resolution do you think we'd better stop and focus on doing something else at this format?

---

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

I think the current 15-18mp is quite enough already considering one may only need 1MP for internet and 15MP to print to 11x16'!

---

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.

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