I simply want to double my 1Ds2 resolution, which puts the number at around 32-34MP. I like the various size of RAW files -- three graduations would be good. 8-16-32 MP would be good for me.
Can you try to compare processing a 5D.2 file with the D800 files? It seems like you're comparing 5Dc for which processing D700 files might be more fair.
arbitrage wrote:
Nope. It's 4fps in FX and then 5fps in dx with the grip. It's only 6 fps in DX with the grip AND with a D4 battery or AA batteries or plugged into AC.
why is their battery technology so horrendously bad?
or is it all marketing making sure to get another $1000 if they deliver some decent speed along with the otherwise D4-like specs?
Gunzorro wrote:
I simply want to double my 1Ds2 resolution, which puts the number at around 32-34MP. I like the various size of RAW files -- three graduations would be good. 8-16-32 MP would be good for me.
Megapixels are a unit of area and not a unit of resolution. To actually double the resolution you'd need 66.8 MP, unless I am mistaken (which I could be).
More than 36 obviously. It always felt good when I was out shooting and some Nikon guy showed up with his meager 12 MP camera while I was using the 21MP 5D mark II and doing multi-images stitches on top of that. Yes I'm a nerd.
I have marked 18-21 MP - which is exactly what I already have (in a 60D and a 5D II). I'm going to stick with my current bodies for a couple of years (yes, I'll be strong! ) and see what I really need after that. Also, the Canon 24-70L I is pretty good for my purposes for now
36MP? I don't know. Yes, that would be nice to have. And I'm lusting after the best and the utmost as much as the next gearhead. But what would I need 36MP for? yes, more cropping capability would be nice, especially for those longer shots. And the more detail in a landscape the merrier, for sure. But I've been kind of focusing more on portraiture lately, and the Flickr D800 sample floating around the forums is just outright ugly as a portrait (although detail in the the kitty next to the model is very nice ) Even with better lighting, a MUA would probably have to work much harder to make someone's face look good at that level of "magnification."
Quickly looking at the recent discussions, it seems to me the MP count, and I fail to understand the reason for this.
I often print 13"x19" with files produced by my 5D (not 5DII). Even then, I notice I can get along with some cropping, and still get a nice print.
I can see myself printing at the double of this size (say 17"x24"), but I think I could almost do that with a perfect 5D file. I guess a 5DII would work perfectly for me.
To summarize, I fail to see how I would make a decent use of more than 24MP on a regular basis. I will most likely get either the 5DII when the price goes down or its successor (and keep my 5D of course), but I think a very high MP 5DIII would make it more likely than I go for the 5DII. I have no interest in 75Mb raw files where each conversion into a jpeg will take minutes on any computer I own.
Also, we may want to keep in mind that 36MP vs 24MP just means about 22% more linear resolution. Similarly, 36MP vs 21MP is about 30% more linear resolution. Noticeable for sure, especially for those who print at the limit of what their camera can do, but I would tend to assume it is a low percentage of the users (few of the 5D or 5DII users I know print as large as I do).
In the other hand, I would welcome even better high ISO capability and higher dynamic range.
The 5D3 will have to match the D800 in all major respects. Resolution, high ISO performance and AF. Nikon have delivered and at a stunningly realistic price point. Nikon have delivered big time!
Indeed the only thing that made the 5D mark II stand out were its high resolution and application of live view. Nikon have outdone the resolution part and overall they now have a superior package.
Xavier Rival wrote:
Quickly looking at the recent discussions, it seems to me the MP count, and I fail to understand the reason for this.
I often print 13"x19" with files produced by my 5D (not 5DII). Even then, I notice I can get along with some cropping, and still get a nice print.
I can see myself printing at the double of this size (say 17"x24"), but I think I could almost do that with a perfect 5D file. I guess a 5DII would work perfectly for me.
To summarize, I fail to see how I would make a decent use of more than 24MP on a regular basis. I will most likely get either the 5DII when the price goes down or its successor (and keep my 5D of course), but I think a very high MP 5DIII would make it more likely than I go for the 5DII. I have no interest in 75Mb raw files where each conversion into a jpeg will take minutes on any computer I own.
Also, we may want to keep in mind that 36MP vs 24MP just means about 22% more linear resolution. Similarly, 36MP vs 21MP is about 30% more linear resolution. Noticeable for sure, especially for those who print at the limit of what their camera can do, but I would tend to assume it is a low percentage of the users (few of the 5D or 5DII users I know print as large as I do).
In the other hand, I would welcome even better high ISO capability and higher dynamic range....Show more →
Xavier I would only use more than 30MP if I wanted to replace 7D with a new high pixel density FF. 36MP FF would be about 14MP in 1.6x crop and that would be pretty good for birding and other FL challenged scenarios. Other wise for me 24-27MP would be nice, around 40D pixel density, as long as it's got pro AF, and is at least 6fps.
RobertLynn wrote:
As many as I can get, and if I don't use them, guess what! I can use M or Sraw!
BRING IT BABY! BRING It!
So assuming they upsize the 21mp to 36mp and keep the SNR the same (which already is a good achievment), using Mraw will get you the same size and per pixel noise as the 5D2.
stanj wrote:
As many as possible. I love the way Nikon split the lines - fast, high ISO D4 and slow, high MP D800E. If I can get 40MP I'll take them.
Even if they're terrible quality?
Megapixels, as stated so many times, is not the most relevant single figure which determines quality of image print.
Camera manufacturers did a Very Bad Thing by making everyone focus on one value which is not the be all and end all of image quality
Feb 08, 2012 at 06:06 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
18-21. I am very happy (and overdone but like the flexibility) with 21 now. And I would prefere to stay with enhanced ISO instead. 25k at 5D mk IIs ISO 6800 would be my dream. And evrything else this amazing mixture of the sighted 7D II/5D III/§d. Means 45 working AF points, sealed and EFC instead of the pixels.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Which is the the most relevant single figure which determines quality of image print according to you Just so we know
For most things in life, a single figure is not an adequate measure of anything.
There are, of course, some exceptions. For example, a mere binary figure can be an important measure of some things like: do I have a camera that can take good pictures, am I still alive, is my creativity really limited by my hardware or am I just not trying hard enough?
Don't get me wrong. I think the Nikon D800 sounds wonderful and, if I had 10 Nikon lenses I'd probably be ordering one. But, as it is I have 10 Canon lenses, I'll just wait around and try improving my still limited photographic talent with the excellent gear that I already have.
. It always felt good when I was out shooting and some Nikon guy showed up with his meager 12 MP camera
Just so we know