Originally Posted by elmo_2006
Seems like Canon downgraded it specifically so that people would jump to higher end models. And they also profit if you buy the 60D; cheaper to build, same starting price (as 50D, etc).
Seems like Canon downgraded it specifically so that people would jump to higher end models. And they also profit if you buy the 60D; cheaper to build, same starting price (as 50D, etc).
To me, that would only make sense if the camera was the most expensive and important thing in my bag, but for me the lenses are more expensive and important, so I look at it much differently. Allow me to explain...
Imagine if you had an expensive lens projector like what lens makers use to evaluate lens performance. You take the 100mm f/2.8 L and put it on there at f/2.8 and project the test pattern image onto a 100-square-foot screen. Since it is optically excellent, you would see very little blur. Since there is no sensor involved whatsoever, the lens is not limited in any way, and it can show off the entirety of its resoultion in all its glory.
What happens when you introduce a Canon 10D into the system? Instead of projecting a test pattern through the lens onto the wall, do the opposite: start with a large, detailed test pattern on the wall and take a picture of it with the 10D and 100mm f2/.8 lens. Then, print it out at the same size as the lens projector. You will see that the resolution is far, far lower. Although 6 MP is enough for many purposes, it's clearly nowhere near enough to match the full capability of a lens.
Resolution is always going to be limited by something. It's either the lens, the camera, or a combination of both.
If the camera was the most expensive and important part, then you wouldn't want anything else holding it back -- you'd want to do your best so that the only source of blur is the camera, not the lenses, because getting a higher-resolution lens would be cheap.
If the lens is the most expensive and important part of the system, then you'd want to make sure that the only source of blur is the lens, not the camera, because getting a higher-resolution camera would be cheap.
For example, the DLA on the Canon 10D is f/11.8. So for everything from f/2.8 to f/11.8, the camera is providing 100% of the limitation in resolution. At f/16, the lens and camera are both partly limiting the resolution. Only at f/32 does the lens bocome the sole limitation.
The DLA on the Canon 60D is f/6.8. So at f/6.8, it provides the full expected benefit of 18 MP over 6 MP (which is about 1.7 times more linear resolution). At f/16, the 60D provides a nice boost in resolution over the 10D, but not as much as a boost. At f/32, the 60D provides the exact same resolution as f/32 on the 60D, because they are both fully limited by the lens, not the camera. In fact, the 60D becomes fully lens-limited at just f/19.
So I'm leery of any camera where the number of lens-limited f-numbers is squeezed down. On the 10D, f/32 and f/45 are the only lens-limited f-numbers. Everything from f/11.8 to f/32 is partially limited by the camera, and f-numbers faster than f/11.8 are completely camera-limited. That's a lot of camera-limited f-numbers...yuck.
The 60D is a lot better: only f/6.8 and faster are completely camera-limited. Between f/6.8 and f/19, the resolution is limited by a combination of lens and camera. Anything slower than f/19 is fully lens limited.
Ideally, my camera will someday have enough resolution that all the f-numbers I want to use will be fully lens-limited, so that my expensive and important glass is no longer held back by the sensor.
The lack of AF Microadjustment just seems like a huge step in the wrong direction to me. That feature alone is so important and was one of the reasons I upgraded my body. Weird...
It's a little "gimicky" for me right now but once a few reviews come out hopefully it'll have some good features.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ www.methodicallymuddled.wordpress.com
Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 5D Mark II | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM | Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM |Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II |Canon 2 x Teleconverter III | Canon 580 EX II Speedlite | Really Right Stuff TVC 34L | Really Right Stuff BH55 LR | Gorillapod Focus | Really Right Stuff BH 30
That is the word I was searching for earlier. I said plasticky, but I agree.
5D mark III, 50D, 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L IS, 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 Macro
I guess if you look at it from the perspective that DPR gave (and canoli echoed) - it's a 'SuperRebel' camera intended as an upgrade path for xxxD owners and not current xxD owners - it makes sense. The 60D is faster and more feature-rich than a T2i, and at the most basic level the same thing could be said of the 7D, since all three bodies use essentially the same sensor.
The 'lost features' are likely to drive those with current xxD bodies to consider the 7D more strongly now. I'll bet there are a lot of xxD owners who were waiting for the 60D as a potential upgrade. But, Canon knows how many recent xxDs they've sold compared to how many recent xxxDs they've sold - and I'm willing to bet that the 'upgrade pool' of Rebel owners is a lot bigger than for xxD owners.
I agree that the lack of AF Microadjustment in the 60D is not good. It was a big factor in my decision to move from a T1i to a 7D. But probably most Rebel owners don't know about that feature - even many people with cameras that have it don't use it. Add to that the fact that most Rebel owners will have consumer-level zoom lenses, where the nice, fat DoF even wide open will mask any AF issues with the lens (and if their nifty-fifty front-focuses a little bit, they'll just blame it on the fact that the lens only cost $100).
Still, I have to wonder why Canon would eliminate AF Microadjustment. I don't see it as a cost-saving measure - it's not like the adjustment requires mechanical changes, the camera merely checks a look-up table for the lens attached and tells it to focus a little further forward or backward than the AF system suggests. It seems to me that it's all software - so, it's basically free to leave in. I suppose their motives could be more sinister...if a consumer does notice an AF problem, they'll probably notice it as 'my pictures are blurry' and blame their lens, so they'll buy a new (more expensive) lens to 'fix' the problem. Maybe I'm too cynical...
So the 60D's DLA is f/6.8. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that meant that 6.8 was the narrowest you could go without incurring a DLA "penalty" - anything tighter than 6.8 you'd see image (pixel-level) degradation. But you say "only 6.8 and faster are completely camera-limited."
I can't pretend I understand the phenomenon completely; have I misunderstood your post?
When Bryan and others include a DLA spec in their reviews, aren't they saying (basically), "Here's the narrowest f/stop you can shoot at without seeing the effects of diffraction"?
Thanks Daniel!
Like everyone else, I question the sanity of downgrading the next x0D model. I think it is a step backwards for Canon making a replacement model of lower quality than the predecessor. Moreover, according to Canon, this is what they did. [:@]
I love my 50D and my next step would be an xD series move. However, I feel for anyone who was waiting for the new x0D release before acting. I can see Canon's desire to have a "Super Rebel", but I think if they are not going to start a new series they should more clearly state the repositioning strategy rather than announcing it asa "replacement".
I could not agree with you more, John. Once you see what the AF Microadjustment can do for you, there is no going back. Canon can get away with it with the wider aperture consumer zooms, but when you spend over $1000 for the body, you are a potential glass upgrade customer. I think this may give them more problems that they thought out. Someone who upgrades to an EF-S 17-55mm IS USM and gets soft images may be turned away from future purchases. "I bought a $1000.00 lens and the quality is poorer than my kit lens." I can see this scenario playing out.
I think we can learn one valuablelesson from this, though. Rumors are just that, rumors. The 60D is nothing like the rumors were making it out to be. []
Chris
Blah, blah, blah.
Here's my thought/suggestion: why don't we all wait until the 60D hits the streets, and we check the reviews? If you don't like the camera's specs, don't buy it. If you then read the reviews and you decide you like it, buy it.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Yes and yes. Unless you see some pixel-leveldegradation, it means your camera is holding back your lens. In other words, your lens has more detail and resolution to offer, but your camera is too dull to capture all of it.
Yes. The diffraction still happens, the camera's resolution is just too poor to capture it.
absolutely right!
however we not only have L disease but also have f(forum) disease. we need to talk about something exciting like the new cameras and lenses[]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote