This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
p.26 #1EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
RobertLynn wrote:
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping you
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping you
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
Oct 18, 2011 at 03:44 PM
p.26 #2EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Whatever Canon USA marketing might say now on that AF limit, it doesn't sounds plausible to me on at least two counts:
* Increased light and contrast sensitivity of 1DX AF points should actually allow AF at smaller apertures than before, for example like having all f/2.8 AF points active at f/8, not just the center AF point like in the older 1D models.
* Canon Japan has been emphasing improved performance with MkIII TCs on MKII telephoto lenses in all of their literature, to the point of making it a strong MkII supertelephoto lens selling feature. Therefore, why would the new pro camera those very lenses and TCs will be used with, somehow cause a step backwards with the TC use/application ?
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 03:54 PM · View previous versions
* Increased light and contrast sensitivity of 1DX AF points should actually allow AF at smaller apertures than before, for example like having all f/2.8 AF points active at f/8, not just the center AF point like in the older 1D models.
* Canon Japan has been emphasing improved performance with MkIII TCs on MKII telephoto lenses in all of their literature, to the point of making it a strong MkII supertelephoto lens selling feature. Therefore, why would the new pro camera those very lenses and TCs will be used with, somehow cause a step backwards with the TC use/application ?
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 03:54 PM · View previous versions
Oct 18, 2011 at 03:50 PM
p.26 #3EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
john_edwards wrote:
Did I calculate 10 stops of ISO correctly?
ISO runs from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 in "normal" + two levels of expansion: 102400 (limit of the 1D Mark IV) and 204800 (new and shiny!). That's 10 stops in normal and 12 stops including the expansions.
Did I calculate 10 stops of ISO correctly?
ISO runs from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 in "normal" + two levels of expansion: 102400 (limit of the 1D Mark IV) and 204800 (new and shiny!). That's 10 stops in normal and 12 stops including the expansions.
Oct 18, 2011 at 03:52 PM
p.26 #4EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Hmmm, maybe this is just the first salvo in a series of announcements over the next 3-4 months?
Very possible.
Oct 18, 2011 at 03:53 PM
p.26 #5EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Finally, I can sell my 1DIV and 1DsIII and just use a single body. The price point at $6500-7500 is a good one for me considering I can replace two bodies with one and use either a 5DII or a 7D as a backup. As long as the video specs are good with current video capabilities I'm sold. A $10k price would be too much and don't think it will be that high until it is able to support medium format resolutions. Now we just have to wait for inventory (and the first batch of inevitable firmware updates and engineering fixes)
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:01 PM
p.26 #6EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Sp12 wrote:
Yes I have pet features, the reality is that they are features required to keep up with the competition. That's not the issue here. This body is a failure from market research's side. They've failed to make an upgrade for either the 1D or 1Ds series, and the body is basically misdirected in filling the market it was designed for.
It has lower pixel density than the 1DIV, combined with no AF capabilities at F/8, making it a much worse choice for BiF/Sports than the current 1DIV despite the AF and FPS improvements.
Lower megapixel count than current 1Ds, requiring significant improvement...Show more →
I think that what you wrote above is a pretty fair and accurate assessment.
As I said in a previous post in one of these threads, if someone is currently using a 1Ds Mark II or a 1D Mark III or other older camera, the 1D X would appear to be an excellent upgrade to a camera that can do all things reasonably well.
However, for those who currently use a 1Ds Mark III and whose priority is maximum resolution, a move to a 1D X would be more of a lateral move than a move upward in, at least, image quality. For those currently using a 1D Mark IV and whose priority is pixel density and the ability to maximize the effective reach of their lenses, a move to the 1D X is several steps backward, both because of the lower pixel density associated with moving from a 1.3 crop to FF and because of the inability to AF at f8.
If Canon truly had an interest in building a consolidated 1-series camera that could do it all better than any of its previous bodies, they would have made a 30 mp FF body with a high speed 18 mp 1.3 crop mode. Instead, they have chosen to build a body that should be able to do all things reasonably well, but that can't do any of those things at the very highest levels possible.
Les
Yes I have pet features, the reality is that they are features required to keep up with the competition. That's not the issue here. This body is a failure from market research's side. They've failed to make an upgrade for either the 1D or 1Ds series, and the body is basically misdirected in filling the market it was designed for.
It has lower pixel density than the 1DIV, combined with no AF capabilities at F/8, making it a much worse choice for BiF/Sports than the current 1DIV despite the AF and FPS improvements.
Lower megapixel count than current 1Ds, requiring significant improvement...Show more →
I think that what you wrote above is a pretty fair and accurate assessment.
As I said in a previous post in one of these threads, if someone is currently using a 1Ds Mark II or a 1D Mark III or other older camera, the 1D X would appear to be an excellent upgrade to a camera that can do all things reasonably well.
However, for those who currently use a 1Ds Mark III and whose priority is maximum resolution, a move to a 1D X would be more of a lateral move than a move upward in, at least, image quality. For those currently using a 1D Mark IV and whose priority is pixel density and the ability to maximize the effective reach of their lenses, a move to the 1D X is several steps backward, both because of the lower pixel density associated with moving from a 1.3 crop to FF and because of the inability to AF at f8.
If Canon truly had an interest in building a consolidated 1-series camera that could do it all better than any of its previous bodies, they would have made a 30 mp FF body with a high speed 18 mp 1.3 crop mode. Instead, they have chosen to build a body that should be able to do all things reasonably well, but that can't do any of those things at the very highest levels possible.
Les
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:01 PM
p.26 #7EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
PetKal wrote:
Whatever Canon USA marketing might say now on that AF limit, it doesn't sounds plausible to me on at least two counts:
* Increased light and contrast sensitivity of 1DX AF points should actually allow AF at lower apertures, such as having all f/2.8 AF points active at f/8, not just the center AF point like in the older 1D models.
* Canon Japan has been emphasing improved performance with MkIII TCs on MKII telephoto lenses in all of their literature, to the point of making it a strong MkII supertelephoto lens selling feature. Therefore, why would the new pro camera those...Show more →
Neither of those points are necessarily true.
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.
According to what Canon stated, it's a step forward in a lot of ways. There are now a bunch of f/4 and f5.6 cross points, so you get cross point AF with lenses and TC combinations you wouldn't be able to do so with currently - 600 f/4 gets cross point coverage across a lot of the frame alone and with the 1.4 TC, the 800 gets it, the 300 and 400 get more cross points. If you' were using the 800 with a 1.4x or a 600 with a 2x, you're worse off, true. The guess is that Canon considers that sufficiently niche that the tradeoff is worth it. Obviously if you use those combinations that change will be very frustrating.
Whatever Canon USA marketing might say now on that AF limit, it doesn't sounds plausible to me on at least two counts:
* Increased light and contrast sensitivity of 1DX AF points should actually allow AF at lower apertures, such as having all f/2.8 AF points active at f/8, not just the center AF point like in the older 1D models.
* Canon Japan has been emphasing improved performance with MkIII TCs on MKII telephoto lenses in all of their literature, to the point of making it a strong MkII supertelephoto lens selling feature. Therefore, why would the new pro camera those...Show more →
Neither of those points are necessarily true.
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.
According to what Canon stated, it's a step forward in a lot of ways. There are now a bunch of f/4 and f5.6 cross points, so you get cross point AF with lenses and TC combinations you wouldn't be able to do so with currently - 600 f/4 gets cross point coverage across a lot of the frame alone and with the 1.4 TC, the 800 gets it, the 300 and 400 get more cross points. If you' were using the 800 with a 1.4x or a 600 with a 2x, you're worse off, true. The guess is that Canon considers that sufficiently niche that the tradeoff is worth it. Obviously if you use those combinations that change will be very frustrating.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:01 PM
p.26 #8EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
Mayeb I worded it incorrectly.
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
It's funny, not too long ago I've read some of the same people who are saying that the 1DX doesn't have enough MP, say that the 7D's IQ even with 8more MP, wasn't better than the 1D3...funny how it works both wasy.
RobertLynn wrote
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping youMayeb I worded it incorrectly.
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
It's funny, not too long ago I've read some of the same people who are saying that the 1DX doesn't have enough MP, say that the 7D's IQ even with 8more MP, wasn't better than the 1D3...funny how it works both wasy.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:02 PM
p.26 #9EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
No articulated screen...hmm.
I wonder if this was a decision as misplaced as "...a pro body does not need onboard flash".
Especially for video and studio work on a tripod!
I wonder if this was a decision as misplaced as "...a pro body does not need onboard flash".
Especially for video and studio work on a tripod!
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:04 PM
p.26 #10EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
ausemmao wrote:
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.
The AF sensors now work in 1 stop lower light levels (p.4 of this
Using a single central AF point with an f/2.8 lens, the EOS-1D Mark IV could focus in light levels of EV -1. However, the EOS-1D X is able to focus in EV -2, which is the equivalent of shooting under the light of the full moon.
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.
The AF sensors now work in 1 stop lower light levels (p.4 of this
Using a single central AF point with an f/2.8 lens, the EOS-1D Mark IV could focus in light levels of EV -1. However, the EOS-1D X is able to focus in EV -2, which is the equivalent of shooting under the light of the full moon.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:08 PM
p.26 #11EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
RobertLynn wrote:
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
I thought we spoke about resolution, not overall IQ, my fault. At higher ISO, lower noise gives effictively more detail, but at low ISO, lower noise just makes the silky smooth bokeh just a tad bit silkier...
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
I thought we spoke about resolution, not overall IQ, my fault. At higher ISO, lower noise gives effictively more detail, but at low ISO, lower noise just makes the silky smooth bokeh just a tad bit silkier...
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:09 PM
p.26 #12EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
RobertLynn wrote:
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping you
alundeb wrote:
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
RobertLynn wrote:
Mayeb I worded it incorrectly.
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
It's funny, not too long ago I've read some of the same people who are saying that the 1DX doesn't have enough MP, say that the 7D's IQ even with 8more MP, wasn't better than the 1D3...funny how it works both wasy.
+1
Some people are very strangely fixated on the 18 MP spec, as if this camera is going to be shit because it has a whopping 3 MP less resolution; yet no 100% crops have been posted. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.
If the 1dx has higher iq per pixel, then it will more than likely interpolate better, and look better, and if you can't get by in the studio with 18mp out of a top end camera, 21 ain't helping you
alundeb wrote:
Agree with the last one, but not the first, unless you are talking about high ISO.
RobertLynn wrote:
Mayeb I worded it incorrectly.
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?
It's funny, not too long ago I've read some of the same people who are saying that the 1DX doesn't have enough MP, say that the 7D's IQ even with 8more MP, wasn't better than the 1D3...funny how it works both wasy.
+1
Some people are very strangely fixated on the 18 MP spec, as if this camera is going to be shit because it has a whopping 3 MP less resolution; yet no 100% crops have been posted. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:10 PM
p.26 #13EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
khphotography wrote:
It's a real simple answer. When Sony ups the ante and wants to take on both Canon and Nikon they will tell Nikon to screw off on make their own stuff. Which will leave them sitting high and dry.
You think Sony wants to sit around 12-15% in the DSLR market. No, they want 40%+.
Sony will never enter this pro market and even if they did it would take them more than a decade to build up the brand name and deliver the glass needed. They will dick around in the APS-C market and spend more and more resources on the NEX class cameras IMO.
It's a real simple answer. When Sony ups the ante and wants to take on both Canon and Nikon they will tell Nikon to screw off on make their own stuff. Which will leave them sitting high and dry.
You think Sony wants to sit around 12-15% in the DSLR market. No, they want 40%+.
Sony will never enter this pro market and even if they did it would take them more than a decade to build up the brand name and deliver the glass needed. They will dick around in the APS-C market and spend more and more resources on the NEX class cameras IMO.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:15 PM
p.26 #14EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
AJSJones wrote:
The AF sensors now work in 1 stop lower light levels (p.4 of this
Working in lower light levels is not quite the same thing as working with narrower aperture lenses. Lower light levels mess with the quantity of light the sensor has to work with. Narrower aperture size messes with the geometry of the incoming light as well as the light level.
ausemmao wrote
F/2.8 points won't work at f/8 because the incident angle of the light will likely be insufficient at f/8 to get a reasonable level of accuracy. It's as much about the geometry as it is the quantity of light. In addition, making sensors f/8 sensitive IIUC makes them less accurate at wider apertures, so the tradeoff is that you get potentially worse af with the faster lenses.Earlier quote
Using a single central AF point with an f/2.8 lens, the EOS-1D Mark IV could focus in light levels of EV -1. However, the EOS-1D X is able to focus in EV -2, which is the equivalent of shooting under the light of the full moon.Working in lower light levels is not quite the same thing as working with narrower aperture lenses. Lower light levels mess with the quantity of light the sensor has to work with. Narrower aperture size messes with the geometry of the incoming light as well as the light level.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:16 PM
p.26 #15EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
wickerprints wrote:
Some people are very strangely fixated on the 18 MP spec, as if this camera is going to be shit because it has a whopping 3 MP less resolution; yet no 100% crops have been posted. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.
It's not just the lower megapixellage. Even with the better DR and ISO performance (which I very much expect to see), you are in studio conditions (not ISO or DR limited) producing lower resolution files than the 1DsIII. Even in real conditions where the two might be equal in terms of IQ (landscapes with large DR), it is still behind the 2008 D3x and A900 in IQ (barring massive leaps of 3+ stops DR over current Canon and color accuracy better than Sony). This is pretending that Sony releases nothing new in the next 5 months despite the recent discontinuation of their full-frames in preparation of their new SLT full-frames.
Instead of leaping beyond the 1DsIII, A900, and D3x by bringing even further gains in MF-competitive 35mm imagery, this body is somewhere between worse and marginally better than the 1DsIII despite roughly 3 years wait.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:21 PM · View previous versions
Some people are very strangely fixated on the 18 MP spec, as if this camera is going to be shit because it has a whopping 3 MP less resolution; yet no 100% crops have been posted. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.
It's not just the lower megapixellage. Even with the better DR and ISO performance (which I very much expect to see), you are in studio conditions (not ISO or DR limited) producing lower resolution files than the 1DsIII. Even in real conditions where the two might be equal in terms of IQ (landscapes with large DR), it is still behind the 2008 D3x and A900 in IQ (barring massive leaps of 3+ stops DR over current Canon and color accuracy better than Sony). This is pretending that Sony releases nothing new in the next 5 months despite the recent discontinuation of their full-frames in preparation of their new SLT full-frames.
Instead of leaping beyond the 1DsIII, A900, and D3x by bringing even further gains in MF-competitive 35mm imagery, this body is somewhere between worse and marginally better than the 1DsIII despite roughly 3 years wait.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:21 PM · View previous versions
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:17 PM
p.26 #16EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
I thought we spoke about resolution, not overall IQ, my fault. At higher ISO, lower noise gives effictively more detail, but at low ISO, lower noise just makes the silky smooth bokeh just a tad bit silkier...
Resolution as well. If each pixel has more detail in it, than the 1Dsmk3, there's a good chance that the IQ is better, even at that interpolated level.
RobertLynn wrote
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?Resolution as well. If each pixel has more detail in it, than the 1Dsmk3, there's a good chance that the IQ is better, even at that interpolated level.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:17 PM
p.26 #17EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
* Same lens/TC combo , same geometry of light impingement:
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:18 PM
p.26 #18EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
khphotography wrote:
The fact a good memory card can read/write at 90 mb/s should give you an idea of the wall they are hitting. Camera will shoot at an effective rate close to 300 mb/s. So even if they wanted to push it even faster they would need a crazy sized buffer just to make that realistic.
What I'd like to see is them letting us use that ethernet connectivity to connect to external hard drives that could let us max that out closer to 18 to 20 frames per second.
The only limiter I can see is the buffer. I don't...Show more →
The limiting factor is the speed the mirror can move. This is a FF mirror and has more inertia than for the APS-H 1D IV, but they've managed to get 12fps. You get 14fps with the mirror locked up. It doesn't matter how fast they can read the data, they face mechanical limitations.
skibum5 wrote
one odd thing is they claim 18MP was needed because they can't drive more MP at 12fps and yet 7D already does 18MP and 8fps and 1D4 16MP at 10fps and digic 5+ is supposed to be a huge boost relative to past generation compared to the past and yet the 18*12 they get is only the same increase they had in the past so something doesn't add up, maybe the extra jpg CA, DNR etc. takes a lot of power or it was really other factors like chip read and so onWhat I'd like to see is them letting us use that ethernet connectivity to connect to external hard drives that could let us max that out closer to 18 to 20 frames per second.
The only limiter I can see is the buffer. I don't...Show more →
The limiting factor is the speed the mirror can move. This is a FF mirror and has more inertia than for the APS-H 1D IV, but they've managed to get 12fps. You get 14fps with the mirror locked up. It doesn't matter how fast they can read the data, they face mechanical limitations.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:21 PM
p.26 #19EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
RobertLynn wrote:
I thought we spoke about resolution, not overall IQ, my fault. At higher ISO, lower noise gives effictively more detail, but at low ISO, lower noise just makes the silky smooth bokeh just a tad bit silkier...Resolution as well. If each pixel has more detail in it, than the 1Dsmk3, there's a good chance that the IQ is better, even at that interpolated level.
Are you talking about a weaker AA filter or lower noise? There is no way it is possible to experience more detail than from a 1Dsmk3 based on lower noise alone, at ISO 100. The noise at ISO 100 just Does Not limit the resolution of the 1DsIII.
alundeb wrote
RobertLynn wrote
Let's say the IQ out of the 1Dsmk3 is at one level, and the 1DX is at a higher level, even after upscaling to meet the 1Dsmk3...then why wouldn't the IQ be better?Are you talking about a weaker AA filter or lower noise? There is no way it is possible to experience more detail than from a 1Dsmk3 based on lower noise alone, at ISO 100. The noise at ISO 100 just Does Not limit the resolution of the 1DsIII.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:25 PM
p.26 #20EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
thedigitalbean wrote:
The RG writeup has lots of good info in it:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11666-12012
Some notable things:
1. It will have an electronic first curtain shutter (like the 5D2 does, the 1D4 does not).
2. It will have the same kind of translucent LCD overlay in the viewfinder like the 7D does
3. "By way of example, he says that an ISO 51,200 photo from the EOS-1D X shows roughly equivalent noise levels to an ISO 12,800 photo taken with the EOS-1D Mark IV." Where the 'he' is Chuck Westfall
4. AF sensitivity extended down to -2 EV (it was -1 EV for the 1D3, 1Ds3, 1D4)
1) This has been available since 40D, but never in 1 series
2) But supports interchangeable screens, so why not for the 7D
4) Now -2 to 19 EV, so +1 one at the bright end as well.
The RG writeup has lots of good info in it:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11666-12012
Some notable things:
1. It will have an electronic first curtain shutter (like the 5D2 does, the 1D4 does not).
2. It will have the same kind of translucent LCD overlay in the viewfinder like the 7D does
3. "By way of example, he says that an ISO 51,200 photo from the EOS-1D X shows roughly equivalent noise levels to an ISO 12,800 photo taken with the EOS-1D Mark IV." Where the 'he' is Chuck Westfall
4. AF sensitivity extended down to -2 EV (it was -1 EV for the 1D3, 1Ds3, 1D4)
1) This has been available since 40D, but never in 1 series
2) But supports interchangeable screens, so why not for the 7D
4) Now -2 to 19 EV, so +1 one at the bright end as well.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:25 PM