p.2 #1 · 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!
I think the fact Canon have seen fit to put essentially the same sensor in the 7D, 60D, 550D, 600D and 650D bears this out.
They have either run out of R&D budget or they think bells,whistles and touch-screens are more important and the IQ is 'good enough'.
The D800 must have come as a shock, a genuine game changer.
p.2 #4 · 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!
That depends entirely on your personal needs really and AF, FPS, Buffer, Megapixel matter
as long as there are different cameras with different specs in this regard.
I think (hope) the next revolution is in metering modes, like auto expose to the right and real
auto iso in (most) cameras.
p.2 #5 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
dhphoto wrote:
I think the fact Canon have seen fit to put essentially the same sensor in the 7D, 60D, 550D, 600D and 650D bears this out.
They have either run out of R&D budget or they think bells,whistles and touch-screens are more important and the IQ is 'good enough'.
The D800 must have come as a shock, a genuine game changer.
If not a shock it might have been a big surprise. After a decade of Nikon beeing not able to get to the level of Canons sensor technology standards, they (Canon) might not have expected THIS. I guess nobody of us did really expect it. Anyway, the general reached IQ imo is good enough. High ISO is, AF is, build is getting more and more. What great improvement is still possible, except bringing down the price?
p.2 #6 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Gochugogi wrote:
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.
It's tend to agree with that. The IQ curve was moving pretty fast early on and - I agree - the 10d took some work to get looking right. Since the original 5d there has been 1 to 1.5 stops of better high ISO and DR hasn't changed much really. That was 2005 I think?
There's still some way to go to max out low ISO dynamic range on Canons as we know, but high ISO has got to the stage where you're lucky to see 1/3 stop here or there.
I doubt I'll be buying many more camera bodies for high ISO improvements certainly, until technology changes.
p.2 #7 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Ralph Conway wrote:
What great improvement is still possible
I would think a full-frame dslr with a good electronic viewfinder (no mirror) loads of FPS, fast focusing, high dynamic range and loads of meg and the ability to take a high res RAW image out of a video
In 20 years all the stuff we have will look and be antique
p.2 #8 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
I wonder why Sony hasnt introduced a higher MP FF camera? I have a friend waiting on one.
I still love the images from the 5D classic. Just wish they sold new ones for $1000 - I'd buy one. But holy hell, the 5DIII makes it very hard to justify shooting with my 1dmkIII.
p.2 #10 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Ralph Conway wrote:
If not a shock it might have been a big surprise. After a decade of Nikon beeing not able to get to the level of Canons sensor technology standards, they (Canon) might not have expected THIS. I guess nobody of us did really expect it. Anyway, the general reached IQ imo is good enough. High ISO is, AF is, build is getting more and more. What great improvement is still possible, except bringing down the price?
Ralph
There are still a couple of things I wish to see: wireless transmitter in camera included as standard (why does Canon not have this yet and sells the bulky transmitter as an extra for $$$?), eye movement connected AF (Canon had this in the past but it was discontinued for some unknown reason), and of course 40-45 MP full frame sensor. An even larger sensor would be great, but I am not willing to get new lenses.....
p.2 #11 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
retrofocus wrote:
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....Show more →
I'm personally in agreement with your choice, and for my work I shoot with full frame almost exclusively. However, I'm targeting fairly large and high quality prints as my output (I have an in-house printer with a 24" carriage) and working very carefully.
Because equipment is intrinsically part of making photographs, it can all too easily become the focus for those getting involved in the medium, and even for those who have done it for a while. I have a lot of theories about why this is the case:
The image of "photographer" is associated with the tools of the photographer, so a way to acquire the appearance of being a serious photographer is to carry those tools.
Some are simply attracted to photography primarily by the shiny technology and little or not at all really interested in the photographs that it the technology can create. I used to be stunned by the number of camera carries and camera operators who never go look at the photographs of others or seek out their work.
When it comes to learning about photography, frankly it is much easier to write about the technical stuff than to write effectively about the aesthetic stuff. I write about photography some (yes, I have a blog) and I know from my own experience that a) it is easy to write a post on equipment, and b) such posts attract a lot of interest.
Among people interested in photography, there is a contingent belonging to that "I must have the 'best thing'" group, for better or for worse. They won't be satisfied until no thing better than the thing they own exists - if they'll be satisfied at all for long.
Equipment does make a difference.
The hard part of people is separating the notions of "different" or "better" from those of "significant" or "important." I just had an exchange with someone elsewhere who wanted to know which L lens (including some pretty sophisticated and costly stuff) he "needed" to go with his new t2i. Now the t2i is actually a pretty fine little camera and it can produce excellent image quality, and in this person's context it was more than enough camera in terms of image quality - and adding thousands of dollars of telephoto primes and so forth was not going to make his photographs any different. In the end, he made a smart choice and got a EFS 55-250 lens... and was very pleased with it.
Again, with so much gear that, in competent hands, can produce such excellent quality, too many people overlook the practical and functional considerations and instead focus on things that often won't make a bit of difference to them.
p.2 #12 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
retrofocus wrote:
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....Show more →
I'm personally in agreement with your choice, and for my work I shoot with full frame almost exclusively. However, I'm targeting fairly large and high quality prints as my output (I have an in-house printer with a 24" carriage) and working very carefully.
Because equipment is intrinsically part of making photographs, it can all too easily become the focus for those getting involved in the medium, and even for those who have done it for a while. I have a lot of theories about why this is the case:
The image of "photographer" is associated with the tools of the photographer, so a way to acquire the appearance of being a serious photographer is to carry those tools.
Some are simply attracted to photography primarily by the shiny technology and little or not at all really interested in the photographs that it the technology can create. I used to be stunned by the number of camera carries and camera operators who never go look at the photographs of others or seek out their work.
When it comes to learning about photography, frankly it is much easier to write about the technical stuff than to write effectively about the aesthetic stuff. I write about photography some (yes, I have a blog) and I know from my own experience that a) it is easy to write a post on equipment, and b) such posts attract a lot of interest.
Among people interested in photography, there is a contingent belonging to that "I must have the 'best thing'" group, for better or for worse. They won't be satisfied until no thing better than the thing they own exists - if they'll be satisfied at all for long.
Equipment does make a difference.
The hard part of people is separating the notions of "different" or "better" from those of "significant" or "important." I just had an exchange with someone elsewhere who wanted to know which L lens (including some pretty sophisticated and costly stuff) he "needed" to go with his new t2i. Now the t2i is actually a pretty fine little camera and it can produce excellent image quality, and in this person's context it was more than enough camera in terms of image quality - and adding thousands of dollars of telephoto primes and so forth was not going to make his photographs any different. In the end, he made a smart choice and got a EFS 55-250 lens... and was very pleased with it.
Again, with so much gear that, in competent hands, can produce such excellent quality, too many people overlook the practical and functional considerations and instead focus on things that often won't make a bit of difference to them.
p.2 #13 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Yes, "retro", you are right! ECF! I forgott. It was working great for me in the EOS 5 13 years ago. I do not know too, why it was discontinued. I read many people had big problems with it. Imo, today (13 years later) technolofy should be able to manage any problem with it.
p.2 #14 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
Cameras improve incrementally, so comparing them over a short period of time at ISO 100 is not going to reveal a big difference.
However, comparing my 6 mp APS-H Kodak DCS 460c from 1995 with its ISO 80 and and 12 seconds per frame reveals that indeed a bit of progress has been made.
It takes a lot of post processing to get those old tiff files to looking descent. Most $100 P&S cameras far outdo it.
p.2 #16 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
mttran wrote:
7+ years, and no/barely improvement in low iso range between 1ds2 and 1dx, is not a short time for sure
(I) Never got into trouble with ISO/IQ beneath 400 in digitalSLR shooting. There was big trouble above 400. And in resolution below 3MP. Both did improve very well in the last decade.
p.2 #17 · new cameras differentiated on variables other than IQ
actually i will go as far as to say my g1x which i bought as a carry around camera when i cant lug around the big stuff has IQ that favorably compares to my 5D3 and 1D4....i am referring to well lit situations without much motion etc....in that case it really is difficult to tell which camera I used for the shot...now of course if one is shooting sports or a low light jazz club etc the differences are dramatic...as far as i am concerned I wouldnt dream of buying a 1GX rather than a 5D3 for IQ reasons but would if I was shooting sports or perhaps might need an extra stop in dark conditions...that is what I refer to
big suprise from a hard core canon 