DmitriM wrote:
lol.
You can "want" all you want,but the camera is already being field tested and will come out soon the way they designed it at least 2 years ago.
I honestly don't understand the mp race. Most of you don't make any money from your photography or even print much,yet you want 40mp camera?! Is that the "I want a big penis to look cool"?
I print 20x30' and 40x30' on a monthly basis(with occasional 40x60s) and my files are between 7-12mp. All prints look great! Heck, I've printed 2 billboards in the past with a 5mp file from a 10D!
I use 5DII @RAW,but if sRAW was around 14-16mp, I would be shooting at that,since it would speed up my editing process quite a bit. And if your is excuse is "I wanna crop". Well...if you need to crop a 40mp file then perhaps you need to learn to compose and then you won't need to crop that much...
I have a new computer system that I just bought a few months ago and it still has issues with the 21mp RAW files. I can only imagine how slow it would be with 40mp files!
And for those who say, I'll just shoot in sRAW...Well, just so you know, sRAW is so much worse than RAW. The amount of information in sRAW files are significantly less. During editing it barely better than a jpeg file.
There was a thread about it about 2 years ago and I provided samples. If you don't believe me, just do a test yourself!
Tell all the bird, wildlife or sport shooters that they never need to crop. If they just learn to compose "that small bird will fill up the whole frame"
My not new PC have no problem with my 21mp raw files.
And not all people are pleased with the quality of billboards print from a 10D camera. If that quality is good for you, then I understand that you never need more MP or upgrade your equipment
"Well...if you need to crop a 40mp file then perhaps you need to learn to compose and then you won't need to crop that much..."
What if I want to make a square or non 36x24 ratio picture, I have to crop.
If my clients' want a composite portrait that by definition cannot be composed exactly in camera, I have to make the images fit into the "windows" of the final composite template chosen later, and at a variety of sizes. That means I have to crop.
Do you always have exactly the right lens with you at the moment you shoot? Never had to grab a shot with your 70-200mm when your 400mm is left at home?
Cropping, certainly outside of the studio, is a necessary tool, not necessarily a confession of photographic incompetence. Its like people claiming that they never get an exposure wrong - after 30 years photography I just don't believe them.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Tell all the bird, wildlife or sport shooters that they never need to crop. If they just learn to compose "that small bird will fill up the whole frame"
My not new PC have no problem with my 21mp raw files.
And not all people are pleased with the quality of billboards print from a 10D camera. If that quality is good for you, then I understand that you never need more MP or upgrade your equipment
5D is not a birding/wildlife/sport camera and was never marketed as one!!! No pro sport photographer uses 5DII as his dedicated sport cam!
Feb 08, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It's not marketed as an birding/wildlife/sport camera. But a lot of people use it for those kinds of photography. Not all people can afford a 1D4 or 1Dx and the largest super-tele lenses. What the pro sport photographer do or use, have not that much interest in this question. 99,9% of the photographers buying cameras don't belong in that group. But actually the pro sport shooters do a lot of cropping before they post/print their pics.
The 10D was not marketed as a pro camera for making billboard prints. but still you say that you used it for that
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think $400 on 240GB SSD is not too much to pay given the performance increase you will gain over a standard HD. It's amazign what new life it can breathe into a system. Obviously you don't store your photos on the SSD, but the OS and your most used apps etc.
Right, but I would never survive with such small boot drive. I need at least 500gb and that is big $. Point is -> $3K/36mpx camera besides grip, extra battery, etc will need new computer and storage space.
DmitriM wrote:
5D is not a birding/wildlife/sport camera and was never marketed as one!!! No pro sport photographer uses 5DII as his dedicated sport cam!
who says it can't be bumped up just enough to do better at that?
why can there not be a compact FF that does any of that?
ok sure it won't be 8-12fps but why not 6.3fps of the 50D class?
30+ MP and a seriously needed AF Update... Nikons D700 blows Canons AF system away...
I sold my D700 because I needed more MP. The day after I got the 5D II I about cried because of how Sh%^ty
the AF system is in the 5D II. I am almost a MF shooter now....go figure.
PLEASE Canon Get your AF system up to par with Nikon....
bushwacker wrote:
wait wait.... now what happened to those who are complaining NOISE on high MP sensors?
Noise is a controlled parameter, so if you are good what you're doing then it does not matter much at the end like i said before, canon needs to out-source their ASIC platform or start it from scratch again in order to improve their IQ & DR
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's not marketed as an birding/wildlife/sport camera. But a lot of people use it for those kinds of photography. Not all people can afford a 1D4 or 1Dx and the largest super-tele lenses. What the pro sport photographer do or use, have not that much interest in this question. 99,9% of the photographers buying cameras don't belong in that group. But actually the pro sport shooters do a lot of cropping before they post/print their pics.
The 10D was not marketed as a pro camera for making billboard prints. but still you say that you used it for that
Well, those who want reach and better focusing, can use 7D for birding. That's what I would use if I needed a cheaper alternative.
Don't get me wrong I,myself used 5DII for wildlife...but it's all I have. If I had a choice though, I wouldn't.
Hypothetically, if Canon would release say a 5DIII with 22mp and then a 5DIIIs with 40mp for say $400 more I'd go for the 22mp... In fact, I'd for for the 22mp even if 40mp would cost the same or EVEN less!
Breitling65 wrote:
Right, but I would never survive with such small boot drive. I need at least 500gb and that is big $. Point is -> $3K/36mpx camera besides grip, extra battery, etc will need new computer and storage space.
Why such a big boot drive? I know most people get by with a 128GB and plenty use a 64GB and say if they are careful it's enough.
If it's not in the order of 40mp I won't upgrade my camera. I invested heavily in Canon and Zeiss prime lenses for the future and would be disappointed in their strategy.
evertdoorn wrote:
well I just saw those d800 high iso shots, and I don't think high mp is for me... Just a slight mp bump would be just fine, thank you
36MP really is only a small bump for the 5DII. sqrt(36/21) is about 1.309, which means you're getting almost a 31% increase in linear resolution, which isn't a whole lot. Same as going from a 10mp crop camera to a 18mp crop camera. Very similar to the jump from a 1DIII to a 1DIV.
like i said before, canon needs to out-source their ASIC platform or start it from scratch again in order to improve their IQ & DR 