This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Canon EOS 7D Master thread
p.21 #1Canon EOS 7D Master thread
RalphJ wrote:
Well for heaven's sake, then sell your 5DII and buy a 7D! Otherwise you're in the same spot millions of others are in whenever a new model of anything has features that the older model doesn't have.
It is the nature of "digital" and "electronics" to offer more features for less money every year. If owners of the older models feel "shorted," they should buy the newer models.
Hallelujah! Amen!
I love seeing new models come out, and seeing technology march onward. It's absurd to see people feeling slighted by canon for coming out with a newer camera with better features.
I think this would be an excellent camera with a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and Canon 17-50 2.8 IS. Maybe I'll replace my 35/2 with a Sigma 30/1.4 and be in heaven. A 24-105 would also be an excellent walk around lens with this camera, giving it a great range, IS, and a somewhat more weather resistant kit.
The 1,699 price is tough to swallow for an amateur who will never make money from photography. However, at least in my case, the 7D represents a very attractive set of features to keep me happy with my DSLR for several years.
When I have the money and can snag one (used or new) for under $1,500, this will be the camera to buy. Until then, I'll happily click away with my 350D.
jamato8 wrote
I will say this. I wish my 5DII had the focus points and the flash control of the 7D. That does make me feel like I got shorted on the 5DII.It is the nature of "digital" and "electronics" to offer more features for less money every year. If owners of the older models feel "shorted," they should buy the newer models.
Hallelujah! Amen!
I love seeing new models come out, and seeing technology march onward. It's absurd to see people feeling slighted by canon for coming out with a newer camera with better features.
I think this would be an excellent camera with a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and Canon 17-50 2.8 IS. Maybe I'll replace my 35/2 with a Sigma 30/1.4 and be in heaven. A 24-105 would also be an excellent walk around lens with this camera, giving it a great range, IS, and a somewhat more weather resistant kit.
The 1,699 price is tough to swallow for an amateur who will never make money from photography. However, at least in my case, the 7D represents a very attractive set of features to keep me happy with my DSLR for several years.
When I have the money and can snag one (used or new) for under $1,500, this will be the camera to buy. Until then, I'll happily click away with my 350D.
Sep 03, 2009 at 09:14 AM
p.21 #2Canon EOS 7D Master thread
As a wildlife shooter, I have been hoping for a camera like this for some time. I want and need the 1.6 crop. I am hoping that the 7d improves on the high ISO noise of the 50d. In fact I would have happily accepted 15mp to achieve a big breakthrough. But after shooting the 50d I really appreciate the resolution in times when I physically can't get closer and must crop.
Sep 03, 2009 at 10:00 AM
p.21 #3Canon EOS 7D Master thread
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I think a lot of folks who have zero regard for MF have never tried using a 1.2 lens.
Dead right, and that's the point.
It's about using the right tools to do the job, and a short f/1.2 lens that needs MF tweaking most of the time isn't a birding set up, so I don't do it.
Likewise the 7D obviously isn't the right tool for the alt.lens/huge aperture crowd.
Done deal. So use something that is.
It's really that simple.
To be honest the landscape/tiny aperture guys have arguably got more grounds for complaint about the 7D because of potential diffraction issues at small apertures, but although it has has been mentioned a few times, nobody's beating that one to death.
Again - use what best does the job.
I feel no need to complain about the 5D (supposedly) only having so-so AF compared with some cameras; I have no inclination to wail about the fact that my 100-400mm isn't as fast to focus as the 400mm f/5.6 prime; I have no issues with the fact that the 40D isn't as "wide" as a 1D Mk IIs, or that the the 1D Mk IIs isn't as "long" as my 40D.
I pick and use the kit that I think will best do the job, and accept that there might be some limitations sometimes.
This MF Crusade has me baffled, not because I don't understand the benefits - really, I do - but because nobody's forcing the MF crowd to get rid of their current kit and use only the 7D for that kind of shooting.
Yet based on the great wailing and gnashing of teeth going on here, you'd think that every one of 'em had a Canon Ninja standing with a sword to their throat ready to start filleting if they even looked at their old - presumably perfectly functional - MFing kit...
And at the risk of repeating a point that has been made several times by others (still, if it's good enough to the MF crowd to bang on) - Third Party focusing screens. Is there any doubt that if the market is there for them, there'll be a Katz-Eye or similar soon enough?
Come on lads, let it go. It's nothing personal, and Canon didn't make the 7D focusing screen decision just to spite you.
Edited on Sep 03, 2009 at 10:17 AM · View previous versions
I think a lot of folks who have zero regard for MF have never tried using a 1.2 lens.
Dead right, and that's the point.
It's about using the right tools to do the job, and a short f/1.2 lens that needs MF tweaking most of the time isn't a birding set up, so I don't do it.
Likewise the 7D obviously isn't the right tool for the alt.lens/huge aperture crowd.
Done deal. So use something that is.
It's really that simple.
To be honest the landscape/tiny aperture guys have arguably got more grounds for complaint about the 7D because of potential diffraction issues at small apertures, but although it has has been mentioned a few times, nobody's beating that one to death.
Again - use what best does the job.
I feel no need to complain about the 5D (supposedly) only having so-so AF compared with some cameras; I have no inclination to wail about the fact that my 100-400mm isn't as fast to focus as the 400mm f/5.6 prime; I have no issues with the fact that the 40D isn't as "wide" as a 1D Mk IIs, or that the the 1D Mk IIs isn't as "long" as my 40D.
I pick and use the kit that I think will best do the job, and accept that there might be some limitations sometimes.
This MF Crusade has me baffled, not because I don't understand the benefits - really, I do - but because nobody's forcing the MF crowd to get rid of their current kit and use only the 7D for that kind of shooting.
Yet based on the great wailing and gnashing of teeth going on here, you'd think that every one of 'em had a Canon Ninja standing with a sword to their throat ready to start filleting if they even looked at their old - presumably perfectly functional - MFing kit...
And at the risk of repeating a point that has been made several times by others (still, if it's good enough to the MF crowd to bang on) - Third Party focusing screens. Is there any doubt that if the market is there for them, there'll be a Katz-Eye or similar soon enough?
Come on lads, let it go. It's nothing personal, and Canon didn't make the 7D focusing screen decision just to spite you.
Edited on Sep 03, 2009 at 10:17 AM · View previous versions
Sep 03, 2009 at 10:03 AM
p.21 #4Canon EOS 7D Master thread
Jay S wrote:
As a wildlife shooter, I have been hoping for a camera like this for some time. I want and need the 1.6 crop. I am hoping that the 7d improves on the high ISO noise of the 50d. In fact I would have happily accepted 15mp to achieve a big breakthrough. But after shooting the 50d I really appreciate the resolution in times when I physically can't get closer and must crop.
I agree...but the ability to AF at f/8 has been something I found invaluable when using a 1-series. Still, the 7D is an attractive option that I may seriously consider for wildlife and macro--now if I could only find an additional ~7K for the new 100/2.8IS and a 500/4...
As a wildlife shooter, I have been hoping for a camera like this for some time. I want and need the 1.6 crop. I am hoping that the 7d improves on the high ISO noise of the 50d. In fact I would have happily accepted 15mp to achieve a big breakthrough. But after shooting the 50d I really appreciate the resolution in times when I physically can't get closer and must crop.
I agree...but the ability to AF at f/8 has been something I found invaluable when using a 1-series. Still, the 7D is an attractive option that I may seriously consider for wildlife and macro--now if I could only find an additional ~7K for the new 100/2.8IS and a 500/4...
Sep 03, 2009 at 10:04 AM
p.21 #5Canon EOS 7D Master thread
You never know, maybe the 7D will work with a taped-pins TC like my 30D does but my 40D doesn't, but which I'm perfectly relaxed about either way and which I don't see as Canon deliberately trying to spoil my day..!
Sep 03, 2009 at 10:08 AM
p.21 #6Canon EOS 7D Master thread
keithreeder wrote:
And at the risk of repeating a point that has been made several times by others (still, if it's good enough to the MF crowd to bang on) - Third Party focusing screens. Is there any doubt that if the market is there for them, there'll be a Katz-Eye or similar soon enough?
I answered this earlier.
It seems obvious to me that there is something about this new overlay feature that makes it a technical challenge (or maybe even downright impossible) to swap out the focusing screen. Otherwise, why wouldn't Canon be offering different screens for the camera, as they do with 40D, 50D, 5D, 5DII, and the entire 1-Series?
If Canon can't offer screen replacements, what makes you think Katz-Eye or anyone else can?
Or, do you think Canon can offer them but simply refuses to?
If it is a technical issue, then Canon has sacrificed one feature for another. It is debatable about how either of these features could benefit different types of shooters, but I think it is safe to say that neither feature is essential for the AF sports/BIF shooting crowd. So, then, why the decision for the "new" feature? Precisely because it is a "new" feature.
If it is technically possible for them to offer replaceable screens, but they simply refuse to, then we can all draw our own conclusions about their intentions (and I agree that Katz-Eye and others will pick up the slack).
No gnashing of teeth. Just simple logic.
(For the record, my gut tells me it is a technical issue. More likely than not, the overlay is integrated into the screen itself and is connected electronically to a logic board in the VF area, removing all possibility of user-replaceable parts. Katz-Eye doesn't have a chance in hell, IMO.)
And at the risk of repeating a point that has been made several times by others (still, if it's good enough to the MF crowd to bang on) - Third Party focusing screens. Is there any doubt that if the market is there for them, there'll be a Katz-Eye or similar soon enough?
I answered this earlier.
It seems obvious to me that there is something about this new overlay feature that makes it a technical challenge (or maybe even downright impossible) to swap out the focusing screen. Otherwise, why wouldn't Canon be offering different screens for the camera, as they do with 40D, 50D, 5D, 5DII, and the entire 1-Series?
If Canon can't offer screen replacements, what makes you think Katz-Eye or anyone else can?
Or, do you think Canon can offer them but simply refuses to?
If it is a technical issue, then Canon has sacrificed one feature for another. It is debatable about how either of these features could benefit different types of shooters, but I think it is safe to say that neither feature is essential for the AF sports/BIF shooting crowd. So, then, why the decision for the "new" feature? Precisely because it is a "new" feature.
If it is technically possible for them to offer replaceable screens, but they simply refuse to, then we can all draw our own conclusions about their intentions (and I agree that Katz-Eye and others will pick up the slack).
No gnashing of teeth. Just simple logic.
(For the record, my gut tells me it is a technical issue. More likely than not, the overlay is integrated into the screen itself and is connected electronically to a logic board in the VF area, removing all possibility of user-replaceable parts. Katz-Eye doesn't have a chance in hell, IMO.)
Sep 03, 2009 at 10:20 AM
p.21 #7Canon EOS 7D Master thread
Keith, you make good points about picking the right tool for the job. There are other choices that include a selection of viewing screens.
But I hope that this new development does not become the de-facto technology for all future Canon models. This could happen: part of the electrical system contained within the screen itself. Maybe swapping screens is on its way out.
The finest focusing SLR I have ever used was the Pentax LX. The LX had a large assortment of optional screens. Third party screens, like the Beatie Screen were available as well. The LX also had a removable finder system with all kinds of optional finders that offered superior viewing options like action finder, magnification, swivel, etc. You could also remove the finder and focus on the upper mirror box glass. I used to do this all the time while resting the camera on the ground and focussing from above, like a Hasselblad. Other cameras of that period had finder systems, but none as nice and refined as the LX, IMHO. We have lost all of that as the technology has changed. Some miss it, some don't and some have no experience with interchangeable finders.
But I hope that this new development does not become the de-facto technology for all future Canon models. This could happen: part of the electrical system contained within the screen itself. Maybe swapping screens is on its way out.
The finest focusing SLR I have ever used was the Pentax LX. The LX had a large assortment of optional screens. Third party screens, like the Beatie Screen were available as well. The LX also had a removable finder system with all kinds of optional finders that offered superior viewing options like action finder, magnification, swivel, etc. You could also remove the finder and focus on the upper mirror box glass. I used to do this all the time while resting the camera on the ground and focussing from above, like a Hasselblad. Other cameras of that period had finder systems, but none as nice and refined as the LX, IMHO. We have lost all of that as the technology has changed. Some miss it, some don't and some have no experience with interchangeable finders.
Sep 03, 2009 at 10:56 AM
p.21 #8Canon EOS 7D Master thread
brainiac wrote:
...but Sony has two answers to both ;-) [ducks and runs to avoid flames]
So you are endorsing Sony Alpha now? If so, I need to take a harder look....
24mp and 5fps and in-body stabilization for starters.
kapytalyst wrote
Nikon has no answer for the 5d2 (other than the $8k D3x) and Canon STILL has no answer for the D700.So you are endorsing Sony Alpha now? If so, I need to take a harder look....
24mp and 5fps and in-body stabilization for starters.
Sep 03, 2009 at 11:14 AM
p.21 #9Canon EOS 7D Master thread
cogitech wrote:
If it is a technical issue, then Canon has sacrificed one feature for another.
There you have it, Canon made a choice based on what they think would be a better selling point. They looked at the relatively tiny percentage of users who ever change focussing screens vs the number of people who would think the new "gizmo" screen is a plus and decided it favored the new screen. Inevitably, not everyone likes it because it is a choice between 2 different things.
I would have preferred an 8 MP sensor that shoots ISO 6400 like a Mk2 shoots 1600. Didn't get that performance, but once again Canon made a choice. My small minority who would want it that way vs what Canon perceives as the much larger crowd who would rather have 18MP with a (relatively) noisier sensor. I've never used an 18MP camera, so no doubt there will be plenty of advantages there I don't know about that will help me make better pictures.
Everyone could look at a given camera and say "I wish they would have done something different." Few of us are in the business of designing and selling cameras (cutting edge or otherwise), so honestly we don't know what the best compromises are which would sell the most units and make the most profit. Easier to decide that a year after release, but Canon or Nikon doesn't have that luxury.
All in all, the 7D looks like a nice camera, nice enough that I hope to have one in the next month because on balance, the feature set works for me. Same for everyone else, find the camera that works for YOU, buy one and go enjoy. Sorry if this one isn't your cup of tea, but never fear, there will be another new one announced in 6 months. THAT is pretty cool IMHO.
If it is a technical issue, then Canon has sacrificed one feature for another.
There you have it, Canon made a choice based on what they think would be a better selling point. They looked at the relatively tiny percentage of users who ever change focussing screens vs the number of people who would think the new "gizmo" screen is a plus and decided it favored the new screen. Inevitably, not everyone likes it because it is a choice between 2 different things.
I would have preferred an 8 MP sensor that shoots ISO 6400 like a Mk2 shoots 1600. Didn't get that performance, but once again Canon made a choice. My small minority who would want it that way vs what Canon perceives as the much larger crowd who would rather have 18MP with a (relatively) noisier sensor. I've never used an 18MP camera, so no doubt there will be plenty of advantages there I don't know about that will help me make better pictures.
Everyone could look at a given camera and say "I wish they would have done something different." Few of us are in the business of designing and selling cameras (cutting edge or otherwise), so honestly we don't know what the best compromises are which would sell the most units and make the most profit. Easier to decide that a year after release, but Canon or Nikon doesn't have that luxury.
All in all, the 7D looks like a nice camera, nice enough that I hope to have one in the next month because on balance, the feature set works for me. Same for everyone else, find the camera that works for YOU, buy one and go enjoy. Sorry if this one isn't your cup of tea, but never fear, there will be another new one announced in 6 months. THAT is pretty cool IMHO.
Sep 03, 2009 at 11:20 AM
p.21 #10Canon EOS 7D Master thread
keithreeder wrote:
God, this MF blather is getting old...
I don't know about you but after using MF for over 30 years I was glad to go to AF. I sometime MF when the need arises but I have never needed a special screen to do so.
Jim
God, this MF blather is getting old...
I don't know about you but after using MF for over 30 years I was glad to go to AF. I sometime MF when the need arises but I have never needed a special screen to do so.
Jim
Sep 03, 2009 at 11:23 AM
p.21 #11Canon EOS 7D Master thread
brainiac wrote:
Don't worry - DPReview and DXO will do a great job of showing everyone how the 7D's 18mp noise is worse than other cameras even though it won't be. I agree it must be frustrating for Canon, and I'm glad that they keep pushing the Mpixels in the right direction. We just have to pray that the DPReview/DXO delusions don't influence Canon to take its foot off the gas in DSLR the way it has with the G11.
Perhaps an alternative testing/comparison method could be shown to Phil Askey. His tests, while not perfect, have evolved in a mostly positive way since he began the web site.
Don't worry - DPReview and DXO will do a great job of showing everyone how the 7D's 18mp noise is worse than other cameras even though it won't be. I agree it must be frustrating for Canon, and I'm glad that they keep pushing the Mpixels in the right direction. We just have to pray that the DPReview/DXO delusions don't influence Canon to take its foot off the gas in DSLR the way it has with the G11.
Perhaps an alternative testing/comparison method could be shown to Phil Askey. His tests, while not perfect, have evolved in a mostly positive way since he began the web site.
Sep 03, 2009 at 11:26 AM
p.21 #12Canon EOS 7D Master thread
Does anyone know if the vertical (battery) grip for the 7D is newly designed, or will the BG-E2N work with it? Thanks.
Sep 03, 2009 at 11:56 AM
p.21 #13Canon EOS 7D Master thread
David Israel wrote:
Does anyone know if the vertical (battery) grip for the 7D is newly designed, or will the BG-E2N work with it? Thanks.
It's a new grip that uses the same batteries as the 5DII. BG-E7
Does anyone know if the vertical (battery) grip for the 7D is newly designed, or will the BG-E2N work with it? Thanks.
It's a new grip that uses the same batteries as the 5DII. BG-E7
Sep 03, 2009 at 12:00 PM
p.21 #14Canon EOS 7D Master thread
Tom_W wrote:
Perhaps an alternative testing/comparison method could be shown to Phil Askey. His tests, while not perfect, have evolved in a mostly positive way since he began the web site.
Well, what would make the most sense to me would be to choose an arbitrary large print size at reasonable pitch, and rerez (up or down according to the actual sensor size) images to that size. For example, choose a 12x18 as an "ideal" large print size at a "good" pitch of 240 dpi. Resize images from the test cameras to those domensions (2880 x 4320), print, and compare. That would allow you to campare what you really want, which is the image that gets handed to a customer. My example is arbitrary and the stanard could be anything (8x12, 11x14, 180dpi, 300dpi, whatever), but the key point is that you need to normalize on something, and that something should be common and arrived at by common sense.
Since the pixel pitch of monitors is much less, for comparing onscreen images you'd have to chose different dimensions - but those dimensions would have to be the same for all images to be compared (say 864x1296 for a 12"x18" image at 72dpi). As brainiac said, this isn't magic it is just common sense.
brainiac wrote
Don't worry - DPReview and DXO will do a great job of showing everyone how the 7D's 18mp noise is worse than other cameras even though it won't be. I agree it must be frustrating for Canon, and I'm glad that they keep pushing the Mpixels in the right direction. We just have to pray that the DPReview/DXO delusions don't influence Canon to take its foot off the gas in DSLR the way it has with the G11.Well, what would make the most sense to me would be to choose an arbitrary large print size at reasonable pitch, and rerez (up or down according to the actual sensor size) images to that size. For example, choose a 12x18 as an "ideal" large print size at a "good" pitch of 240 dpi. Resize images from the test cameras to those domensions (2880 x 4320), print, and compare. That would allow you to campare what you really want, which is the image that gets handed to a customer. My example is arbitrary and the stanard could be anything (8x12, 11x14, 180dpi, 300dpi, whatever), but the key point is that you need to normalize on something, and that something should be common and arrived at by common sense.
Since the pixel pitch of monitors is much less, for comparing onscreen images you'd have to chose different dimensions - but those dimensions would have to be the same for all images to be compared (say 864x1296 for a 12"x18" image at 72dpi). As brainiac said, this isn't magic it is just common sense.
Sep 03, 2009 at 12:05 PM
p.21 #15Canon EOS 7D Master thread
RalphJ wrote:
Well for heaven's sake, then sell your 5DII and buy a 7D! Otherwise you're in the same spot millions of others are in whenever a new model of anything has features that the older model doesn't have.
It is the nature of "digital" and "electronics" to offer more features for less money every year. If owners of the older models feel "shorted," they should buy the newer models.
I'll sell my 5D II when they come out with something like LightShow detailed.
3D:
FF,
More Dynamic range than the 5D,
Less high iso noise than the 5D,
Less long exposure noise than the 5D,
Full weather sealing like 1D3, 1D4,
Between 12-18Mp
Better AF than 5D, 5D2, 7D, 50D,
Video controls and options like 7D, 1D4,
More fps than the 5D,
Although, I think it will be a higher MP count than he is hoping for. Can't wait for those 2 TB drives to come down in price.
In the mean time, I am looking seriously at the 7D for a replacement for my 30D, if the initial feedback is good. A happy coincidence, my neighbor may be finally ready to buy my 30D and my older sub L lenes. Karma is a good thing.
jamato8 wrote
I will say this. I wish my 5DII had the focus points and the flash control of the 7D. That does make me feel like I got shorted on the 5DII.It is the nature of "digital" and "electronics" to offer more features for less money every year. If owners of the older models feel "shorted," they should buy the newer models.
I'll sell my 5D II when they come out with something like LightShow detailed.
3D:
FF,
More Dynamic range than the 5D,
Less high iso noise than the 5D,
Less long exposure noise than the 5D,
Full weather sealing like 1D3, 1D4,
Between 12-18Mp
Better AF than 5D, 5D2, 7D, 50D,
Video controls and options like 7D, 1D4,
More fps than the 5D,
Although, I think it will be a higher MP count than he is hoping for. Can't wait for those 2 TB drives to come down in price.
In the mean time, I am looking seriously at the 7D for a replacement for my 30D, if the initial feedback is good. A happy coincidence, my neighbor may be finally ready to buy my 30D and my older sub L lenes. Karma is a good thing.
Sep 03, 2009 at 12:24 PM
p.21 #16Canon EOS 7D Master thread
M Vers wrote:
It's a new grip that uses the same batteries as the 5DII. BG-E7
Thanks Matt!
David Israel wrote
Does anyone know if the vertical (battery) grip for the 7D is newly designed, or will the BG-E2N work with it? Thanks.Thanks Matt!
Sep 03, 2009 at 12:33 PM
p.21 #17Canon EOS 7D Master thread
brainiac wrote:
...as long as those subjects are in the central 1/3rd of the frame.
Well yeah, that is the general idea when tracking fast-moving subjects. You have no time to worry about composition when trying to track a fast-flying bird, nor do you have the skill to MF on such a subject.
At least I don't.
Imagemaster wrote
I would bet that any DSLR's AF would be better than your MF on fast-moving subjects.Well yeah, that is the general idea when tracking fast-moving subjects. You have no time to worry about composition when trying to track a fast-flying bird, nor do you have the skill to MF on such a subject.
At least I don't.
Sep 03, 2009 at 12:52 PM
p.21 #18Canon EOS 7D Master thread
kapytalyst wrote:
...but Sony has two answers to both ;-) [ducks and runs to avoid flames]So you are endorsing Sony Alpha now? If so, I need to take a harder look....
24mp and 5fps and in-body stabilization for starters.
Except you pay more for Sony lenses than you do for Canon. Seriously, an A850 with a 16-35 and 24-70 is within $37 of a 5D2 with equivalent L glass. That's just two lenses and it's already offset the $700 discount that the A850 offers. Build up a whole Sony kit and your wallet will implode.
brainiac wrote
kapytalyst wrote
Nikon has no answer for the 5d2 (other than the $8k D3x) and Canon STILL has no answer for the D700.24mp and 5fps and in-body stabilization for starters.
Except you pay more for Sony lenses than you do for Canon. Seriously, an A850 with a 16-35 and 24-70 is within $37 of a 5D2 with equivalent L glass. That's just two lenses and it's already offset the $700 discount that the A850 offers. Build up a whole Sony kit and your wallet will implode.
Sep 03, 2009 at 01:07 PM
p.21 #19Canon EOS 7D Master thread
timbop wrote:
Well, what would make the most sense to me would be to choose an arbitrary large print size at reasonable pitch, and rerez (up or down according to the actual sensor size) images to that size. For example, choose a 12x18 as an "ideal" large print size at a "good" pitch of 240 dpi. Resize images from the test cameras to those domensions (2880 x 4320), print, and compare. That would allow you to campare what you really want, which is the image that gets handed to a customer. My example is arbitrary and the stanard could be anything (8x12,...Show more →
I agree - they need to be equalized as much as possible for comparison. I could accept up/down rezzing to a "standard" pixel dimension relating to some arbitrary pixel density.
Well, what would make the most sense to me would be to choose an arbitrary large print size at reasonable pitch, and rerez (up or down according to the actual sensor size) images to that size. For example, choose a 12x18 as an "ideal" large print size at a "good" pitch of 240 dpi. Resize images from the test cameras to those domensions (2880 x 4320), print, and compare. That would allow you to campare what you really want, which is the image that gets handed to a customer. My example is arbitrary and the stanard could be anything (8x12,...Show more →
I agree - they need to be equalized as much as possible for comparison. I could accept up/down rezzing to a "standard" pixel dimension relating to some arbitrary pixel density.
Sep 03, 2009 at 01:20 PM