uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Liquidstone wrote:
Robert_SS wrote:
I would definitely go for a 7D type again if it maybe had a few less mp, or was able to control the noise a bit better. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly high mp count and be no better on noise.
I have a slightly different view.
I would definitely go for a new 7D type again if it maybe had much more mp (say 36 mp or more), even if control of noise stays the same on the image level. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly low mp count and be better at pixel level noise at the expense of "reach".. 
+1
A problem with threads like this is that there are very few people, I suspect, who follow the entire thread, and, thus, if there are things to be learned from the thread in its entirety, many will will never learn them. Instead, when people only read the first couple of posts, they maintain whatever incorrect notions with which they may have started.
When I look at 100% crops of 7D images on the screen, I might be inclined to be concerned about the noise, even at relatively low ISO. However, when I look at the image level or at prints, I shake my head in disbelief at those concerns about noise.
If 7D images, at the image level, are comparable to, say, 40D images at the image level with regard to noise, but the 7D images have clearly better ability to show detail, that is a step up for the 7D that I consider valuable. And, thus, if a 7D Mark II could take advantage of improvements in technology that would allow it to have significantly more pixels and show even more detail but still be comparable to the 40D or 7D at the image level with regard to noise, I would welcome such a camera. While others would, I'm sure, complain about noise at the pixel level, that noise will be irrelevant to me if it is comparable to that of the 7D at the image level, and I, too, would be disappointed if a 7D Mark II had fewer pixels or a similar number of pixels as the 7D.
Les
|
