p.1 #1 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
I pretty much have owned every canon camera at one time or another for the past 7 or 8 years and it seems to me that the differences today are more about things such as ISO and FPS and focus speed etc than IQ...I suppose if you blow pictures up to room-size one might discern differences in IQ between the 5D3 and 1DX and 1d4 etc but in real world performance I think the differences are so negligible that IQ is no longer a distinguishing factor......I wonder what others think or if people think I am crazy!
p.1 #2 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
I was just working on some old RAW images from 2003 I shoot with my 10D. It took a lot more fussing to get those critters to look right compared to my 5D2/7D and there was a big difference in IQ, not just resolution but also DR and noise control. The 10D blue channel falls apart really fast. So IQ has improved a lot since 2003, not so much since 2009.
p.1 #3 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Same opinion here. I started in 2002 with EOS D60. IQ of 350D 4 years after was much better. Resolution was higher, too. Imo Canon did right to stop the MP race with their new flaggship. Only few photographers, who need it (to get a job done) ask for more pixels. But of course they need usable shots at ISO ranges up to 25k. And many of them need FPS. Canon did exactly know, what they where doing.
p.1 #4 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
I think in good light most cameras will produce very nice IQ. My 10D photos in daylight are very close to my 1D2 and 1D4 other then resolution. It's when you get into the edges of performance that the more recent sensors come through with far better high ISO and the ability to push shadows and recover highlights.
p.1 #5 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
I have always said if you don't get the shot, and appropriately focused, IQ is irrelevant. So in that sense I have praise and gratitude for the 5D3 and the 1DX 'cause they have caught up on a lot of things that were missing and set a few new standards in helping get the shot and appropriately in focus.
p.1 #6 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
John_T wrote:
I have always said if you don't get the shot, and appropriately focused, IQ is irrelevant. So in that sense I have praise and gratitude for the 5D3 and the 1DX 'cause they have caught up on a lot of things that were missing and set a few new standards in helping get the shot and appropriately in focus.
p.1 #7 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Seems to me that at present the manufacturers have to differentiate on factors other than IQ precisely because sheer image quality has plateaued in the last few years. IQ just isn't improving at the old rate anymore - discuss.
Image quality now is great, as it was in 2008. On the one hand that is wonderful because we don't necessarily have to upgrade as often as we did in the early days of digital, on the other hand it may be we will have to wait years and years for anything with radically better IQ than we have today.
My own outfit is aging now, I have a 7D and a 5D2, but I have no plans to upgrade in the foreseeable future (even the 5D2 AF is fine for me as I shoot static subjects), even though in the past I was a constant upgrader. I wonder how long it will be before cameras with significantly better IQ than these arrive? Perhaps the 5D4 will impress. I will have to wait and see.
I don't know John, this shot looks very well exposed to me. Is this an example of the camera doing the job for you, or did it let you down in some subtle way?
p.1 #10 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
John_T wrote:
I have always said if you don't get the shot, and appropriately focused, IQ is irrelevant. So in that sense I have praise and gratitude for the 5D3 and the 1DX 'cause they have caught up on a lot of things that were missing and set a few new standards in helping get the shot and appropriately in focus.
Yet we do have ample evidence that older cameras take photos in focus. As with everything else improvements have been made along the way but it's not like my 1D4 and 1D2 aren't taking in focus photos now that Canon released the 5D3 and 1DX.
p.1 #11 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
The better the IQ of FF cameras becomes, and therefore the more similar they become in that regard, the more our choices will be made in the way they were in film days: size and clarity of viewfinder image (even if we get to the point of EVF replacing OVF), ease of control operation, solidity and durability, autofocus precision and ease of use, fps, system flexibility...i.e., everything else that makes a good camera.
p.1 #12 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
I know Canon's Image quality has in fact plateaued 5 years ago with the 1DS mark III. The 5D mk III has marginal improvements whereas the 1DS III, when introduced, blew every other DSLR out of the water, the 5D mark II also did by being similar but at a much lower price point which made it an unbeatable value in IQ in a DSLR.
The 1DX is again, a slight upgrade Image Quality wise.
The biggest improvement in IQ I have seen with the 5D mark III (and I think the 1DX does it slightly better) is Long Exposures and High ISO. Images with Long Exposures are much cleaner and with better detail and DR than before. Same with high iso images. The files are just better to manipulate in post.
p.1 #13 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
jonbrach wrote:
I pretty much have owned every canon camera at one time or another for the past 7 or 8 years and it seems to me that the differences today are more about things such as ISO and FPS and focus speed etc than IQ...I suppose if you blow pictures up to room-size one might discern differences in IQ between the 5D3 and 1DX and 1d4 etc but in real world performance I think the differences are so negligible that IQ is no longer a distinguishing factor......I wonder what others think or if people think I am crazy!
You are not only one who saying these. I am happy with 1ds2, 5d2 and 40d. IQ wise, i don't miss much what offering out there. Still learning my old cameras
p.1 #14 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Today I did a little experiment unwittingly, when using 1DsMkII + 800L.
At one point in the shooting session my subject went into a deep shaded area, thus in order to ensure I get the WB right, I changed the file format from JPG(L) to JPG (L) + RAW.
Once the shade sequence was finished, I returned the camera to JPG (L), or so I thought.
Well, without my reading glasses I misdialed the format/file size, and the camera ended up in JPG (s) which is quite small indeed: 2446x1664. By comparison, EOS 300D had the maximum file size of 3072x2048.
All subsequent shots that day ended up being done in JPG (s). When I got home and started examining the files, my first reaction was disbelief...and then it eventually hit me.
The thing is, the resulting images are not that bad, although there is hardly any cropping possible on them....thankfully I had a very long lens on the camera. The average size of these FF JPG (s) files is 1.4 Mp.
However, if I had to, I'd still try to make the best of it even with a very low resolution camera of years past.
Here are two examples.
Handheld 1DsMkII + 800L, shot as JPG (s).
p.1 #16 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
jonbrach wrote:
I pretty much have owned every canon camera at one time or another for the past 7 or 8 years and it seems to me that the differences today are more about things such as ISO and FPS and focus speed etc than IQ...I suppose if you blow pictures up to room-size one might discern differences in IQ between the 5D3 and 1DX and 1d4 etc but in real world performance I think the differences are so negligible that IQ is no longer a distinguishing factor......I wonder what others think or if people think I am crazy!
In the main, you are not crazy at all.
First, for the vast majority of people buying and shooting DSLRs, current cropped sensor and full frame cameras are capable of producing image quality much higher than they will ever need. It is a very small percentage, indeed, who print any of their photographs, and an even smaller group who print large enough that camera differences will make a difference - and among some of these folks the main variables are not the camera but all of the other issues that play into image quality.
I do think there is room for some photographers to think carefully about which features do and do not have value for their particular sorts of shooting. For example, the t4i (t3i, t2i) cameras can produce image quality essentially the same as the higher priced cropped sensor bodies. However, for some shooters there may (or may not) be advantages in having things like more capable AF systems and so forth.
As to full frame, I have to be honest and say that most DSLR buyers wont' ever be able to see the difference. If you work very carefully and skillfully and print rather large, full frame makes a significant difference, but if not? The differences are not invisible, but whether or not they matter in your photography can be an open question.
And, as always, while the technical quality of gear is not unimportant, what you know about seeing and creating photographs has a much bigger impact on your success as a photographer.
p.1 #17 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
mttran wrote:
^^^ This is what i am talking about, Peter. Until then no more new bodies for me
I understand that, Michael. Even at ISO 1600, 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII files can be fairly good, although they would require a fairly aggressive NR and pp, depending on the file enlargement and exposure. However, in the ISO range 100-400, I find that 1DsMkII files are at least as good as 1DX files.
Naturally, as ISO gets to be higher, 1DX creams 1DsMkII fairly early.
Here is an example shot with 1DsMkII (JPG...large), done at ISO 1600, "Neat image" NR applied, and about 30% crop enlargement.
p.1 #18 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
PetKal wrote:
I understand that, Michael. Even at ISO 1600, 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII files can be fairly good, although they would require a fairly aggressive NR and pp, depending on the file enlargement and exposure. However, in the ISO range 100-400, I find that 1DsMkII files are at least as good as 1DX files.
Naturally, as ISO gets to be higher, 1DX creams 1DsMkII fairly early.
Here is an example shot with 1DsMkII (JPG...large), done at ISO 1600, "Neat image" NR applied, and about 30% crop enlargement.
Beautiful done. Peter I've agreed with you about low iso IQ cams...here is samples from 5d2 and 1ds2. I hardly tell them apart.
p.1 #19 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
jonbrach wrote:
I pretty much have owned every canon camera at one time or another for the past 7 or 8 years and it seems to me that the differences today are more about things such as ISO and FPS and focus speed etc than IQ...I suppose if you blow pictures up to room-size one might discern differences in IQ between the 5D3 and 1DX and 1d4 etc but in real world performance I think the differences are so negligible that IQ is no longer a distinguishing factor......I wonder what others think or if people think I am crazy!
If you've never read The Innovator's Dilemma, it's well worth reading. It describes this scenario (albeit with other products like hard drives) perfectly.
One of the things Christensen points out is that once a product exceeds the requirements for most of the market, what we make buying decisions on shifts. For DSLRs, IQ under non-stressful situations has already done that. Now we are seeing companies compete in different areas... high-ISO performance, smarter AF systems, video, face recognition, automatically taking photos when the camera detects a smile, smaller form factors, etc.
BTW, the book is well written, short and very interesting. As a product developer, it's one of a very small number of books that changed the way I look at things or how I do my job. Highly recommended.
p.1 #20 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
gdanmitchell wrote:
As to full frame, I have to be honest and say that most DSLR buyers wont' ever be able to see the difference. If you work very carefully and skillfully and print rather large, full frame makes a significant difference, but if not? The differences are not invisible, but whether or not they matter in your photography can be an open question.
And, as always, while the technical quality of gear is not unimportant, what you know about seeing and creating photographs has a much bigger impact on your success as a photographer.
Dan
Agree with your last sentence here fully. But IMO full frame makes a big difference (well, admittedly I am quite experienced in photography, so I "see" the difference). I don't care about fps, to me the larger the sensor, the better. What do I expect from a high MP full frame sensor? Of course better resolution and better cropping capability! Not so much for huge printouts (my current 21 MP full frame sensor in the 5D II is sufficient here already), but I am convinced the next proefessional 5D series camera will have a 40-45 MP full frame sensor in it. And this camera will come soon, too.
another words, i'm still learning my old cams