I'm not taking the bait. The whole "noise banding" business has been beaten to death. Meanwhile, the 5D2 makes exceptional photographs and the 5D3 is at least as good and perhaps better in this regard.
If you want to fetishize noise banding and other inconsequential stuff, feel free.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm not taking the bait. The whole "noise banding" business has been beaten to death. Meanwhile, the 5D2 makes exceptional photographs and the 5D3 is at least as good and perhaps better in this regard.
If you want to fetishize noise banding and other inconsequential stuff, feel free.
Dan
I only see the banding in my 5D IIs appearing at high ISO levels, dim light shooting situations, and there especially in red areas. In all other instances it was never a concern for me and it was not visible.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm not taking the bait. The whole "noise banding" business has been beaten to death. Meanwhile, the 5D2 makes exceptional photographs and the 5D3 is at least as good and perhaps better in this regard.
If you want to fetishize noise banding and other inconsequential stuff, feel free.
Dan
Not bait, Dan. Just facts. You can be dismissive of it if you like, but there is a very clearly demonstrated difference shown. If that is inconsequential to you, that's fine. For some photographers, this translates into a very consequential benefit. Please don't belittle those who might find such capabilities useful.
artd wrote:
Not bait, Dan. Just facts. You can be dismissive of it if you like, but there is a very clearly demonstrated difference shown. If that is inconsequential to you, that's fine. For some photographers, this translates into a very consequential benefit. Please don't belittle those who might find such capabilities useful.
+1
(Now sure, it hardly means that you can't take an infinite numbers of amazing shots with it, you can, but it does mean that some of the shots you might want to take with it won't turn out as amazing as you had hoped should you, in fact, go ahead and take them. Now for some that won't matter at all and for others only a little, but to others yet still, it may matter a lot. However, even if it matters a lot to someone, it most likely doesn't mean that they consider the camera to be junk and something can never be used hah. And it doesn't mean you go so overboard as to flee in terror from it and not bother upgrading from a Rebel if it does tons of stuff that would be useful for you. But it's not baiting or inconsequential nonsense to point out the low ISO DR.).)
(and yeah why is his "pffft" not bait and your factual example bait? now that there is a puzzle wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in a riddle.)
If we were to have a thread of cons and pros of different brand SLRs a lower DR would be one of the most important cons of Canon cameras. I also think compared to the MK II it matters more with the MK III because we could expect last generation sensor technology and not a sensor of 2008
Hulot wrote:
If we were to have a thread of cons and pros of different brand SLRs a lower DR would be one of the most important cons of Canon cameras. I also think compared to the MK II it matters more with the MK III because we could expect last generation sensor technology and not a sensor of 2008
Monito wrote:
I suspect there is high demand and high production. jorkata wrote:
Economics 101: prices fall when supply outstrips demand, regardless of supply/demand levels.
Business 101: When you have plentiful production capability, you feed the supply out at a rate that maintains prices. So you can have high demand and high supply. That equates to high volume, which is a business goal.
I suspect that Canon is not supply limited the way Nikon is, and that there is strong demand for the 5D Mark III.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Rumors are heating up regarding a High MP (around 46MP) Canon DSLR by the end of the year.
So those who jumped into the D800 bandwagon might cringe and regret it when it comes out.
ouch
Do you have an actual link for this rumor? Thanks for the update anyway. It will be interesting to know more about the more detailed specs of this camera.
So who here needs 48mp? Seems a bit ridiculous to me unless you sell a lot of shots for ads on the sides of buildings in NY.
I'm guessing any new high-res camera like that is going to cost in the range of $9-10k and while I'm in the guessing game, any new 400mm IS is going to be in the $2.8k range.
"... now there are rumours of a 46 Megapixel Canon later this year or early next (these rumours are likely true)"
That's from Reichmann's recent review of the new Foveon DP2M - and he doesn't usually even mention rumours let alone say they are likely true, so now it's gospel Link
Well, "need" is a loaded word. Let's just say I could certainly make use of it.
Seems a bit ridiculous to me unless you sell a lot of shots for ads on the sides of buildings in NY.
Or unless you are doing commercial architecture photography. Or commercial studio photogrpahy. Or making fine art landscape prints.
Acutally, billboard ads and such things are the least critical of any of these uses. No one takes a ladder up a billboard to go look at the fine detail. High megapixel cameras are much more useful in print applications where fine detail can actually be examined.
Nowhere Man wrote:
So who here needs 48mp? Seems a bit ridiculous to me unless you sell a lot of shots for ads on the sides of buildings in NY.
I'm guessing any new high-res camera like that is going to cost in the range of $9-10k and while I'm in the guessing game, any new 400mm IS is going to be in the $2.8k range.
Very large landscape (mainly of distant landscapes or cityscapes) prints require very high MP if you want the print to have amazing detail that passes scrutiny when viewing up close. Right now 22MP is most of the time not enough for 20x30's. With the best glass and perfect technique a few are barely there but of course more MPs are better. Thats why quite a few folks including myself have to shoot multi shot panoramas and stitch those images to get the big files required for best results. Obviously some subjects and a desired result require a single shot. Mainly those involving waves, clouds and foliage or any type of fleeting light or subject. Unless they are motion blurred to oblivion quite a few times they wont register well on the stitch or not at all. Besides, its much less work to have it in one single file.
I find that my 100MP panoramas are very close to ideal in resolution for 3-6 ft prints. Havent worked with the 80MP backs but they look promising although their use in the field is still cumbersome since live view implementation is not as good as in say a 5D mark 3 and there are no shift wide angle lenses available. Fo that one needs a large format style body and lenses.
So a 46MP Canon is a step closer to ideal landscape resolution.
For people, 22MP is more than enough for me even for group shots.
Regarding the D800, yes, I know about the legendary shadow recovery potential. Unmatched by any DSLR. Whatever Canon DSLR comes out the first thing people will do Im sure is test for that low iso shadow recovery. That and the extra resolution is the only thing the D800 has on the Canon 1DX and 5D3.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Very large landscape (mainly of distant landscapes or cityscapes) prints require very high MP if you want the print to have amazing detail that passes scrutiny when viewing up close. Right now 22MP is most of the time not enough for 20x30's. With the best glass and perfect technique a few are barely there but of course more MPs are better. Thats why quite a few folks including myself have to shoot multi shot panoramas and stitch those images to get the big files required for best results. Obviously some subjects and a desired result require a single shot. Mainly those involving waves, clouds and foliage or any type of fleeting light or subject. Unless they are motion blurred to oblivion quite a few times they wont register well on the stitch or not at all. Besides, its much less work to have it in one single file.
I find that my 100MP panoramas are very close to ideal in resolution for 3-6 ft prints. Havent worked with the 80MP backs but they look promising although their use in the field is still cumbersome since live view implementation is not as good as in say a 5D mark 3 and there are no shift wide angle lenses available. Fo that one needs a large format style body and lenses.
So a 46MP Canon is a step closer to ideal landscape resolution.
For people, 22MP is more than enough for me even for group shots.
Regarding the D800, yes, I know about the legendary shadow recovery potential. Unmatched by any DSLR. Whatever Canon DSLR comes out the first thing people will do Im sure is test for that low iso shadow recovery. That and the extra resolution is the only thing the D800 has on the Canon 1DX and 5D3. ...Show more →
+1
Additional question is what will Nikon do next.....wouldn't be surprised if they use their advantage in the FF market to come out with another new model soon, too. To compete with this, Canon needs to come up with something much better than the D800 in the first place, not only with a model that matches performance.
Sneakyracer wrote:
So those who jumped into the D800 bandwagon might cringe and regret it when it comes out.
artd wrote:
That remains to be seen. There's more to the D800's sensor than just megapixels.
So true. My D800E is finally shipping tomorrow. I have been waiting since april.
I went for The E because I will mostly use it with lenses stopped down for maximum depth of field. Softening from diffraction is then an enemy. Not having an AA filter means I can stop down about one stop more, and get the same sharpness as i would with a larger aperture and a camera with AA filter. At critical aperture around F/11, diffraction replaces the function of the AA filter, but with the benefit of added DOF.
It remains to be seen when a high MP Canon will be available, and if it will have an AA filter, or an option for not having it.
alundeb wrote:
So true. My D800E is finally shipping tomorrow. I have been waiting since april.
I went for The E because I will mostly use it with lenses stopped down for maximum depth of field. Softening from diffraction is then an enemy. Not having an AA filter means I can stop down about one stop more, and get the same sharpness as i would with a larger aperture and a camera with AA filter. At critical aperture around F/11, diffraction replaces the function of the AA filter, but with the benefit of added DOF.
It remains to be seen when a high MP Canon will be available, and if it will have an AA filter, or an option for not having it.
(And I won't start talking about dynamic range) ...Show more →
I would love to have a Canon DSLR which allows to take out the AA/ICF filter if needed! Not only that this allows better sharpness, but also IR capability with the filter technique. But I think that this is not going to happen in this next DSLR....
Nowhere Man wrote:
So who here needs 48mp? Seems a bit ridiculous to me unless you sell a lot of shots for ads on the sides of buildings in NY.
I'm guessing any new high-res camera like that is going to cost in the range of $9-10k and while I'm in the guessing game, any new 400mm IS is going to be in the $2.8k range.
The vast majority of DSLR photographers will have no need for that. A smaller number will think they have the need for it but really won't. A yet smaller number will actually be able to benefit in some ways, perhaps small but also important.
Those of us who shoot in ways and print in ways such that there could be reasons to use a camera with more MP will be happy if enough of the folks who really don't need this go ahead and buy such a thing anyway, thereby creating a large enough market that companies like Canon will produce such a critter.
By the way, current 21MP and 22MP full frame cameras, used competently, can produce 20" x 30" prints of truly excellent quality. A few factors that not everyone trying to do this understands, and which may limit their ability to get these results: shooting technique matters a lot, post-processing technique matters a lot, too - especially when it comes to methods for sharpening for print. Also, while MP count is not unimportant, it turns out that it is actually rarely the limiting factor when it comes to producing prints at sizes like these.
(By the way, the design of high-end cameras should not necessarily be limited to what the average buyer needs.)
I think a lot of you were/are missing my point and rightfully so, I posted with a serious lack of detailed conversation. I realize there are more than just ad photogs that need big megapixels, but still compared to the world of photogs, the amount of people needing upwards of 40mp is a pretty damn select crew.
I merely meant to say what gdan stated in much better detail. The megapixel race has reached a level that probably 95% (or more?) of photographers will never need. I agree that technology needs to keep pushing forward regardless of the lesser needs of the majority of photographers, but where the hell is it going? "Oh damn, my 54mp camera is just not good enough anymore. I can't wait until that rumored 72mp comes out." It's laughable, non?
I also agree with gdan about the comment of those amount of people who 'think' they need that many megapixels and don't.
As for gdan's comment about people purchasing gear they don't need, Canon is not exactly making this easy with their increase in pricing. It will be interesting to see how steep their prices remain in the years to come. I still say this new body is going to be upwards of costing $9k.
now that there is a puzzle wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in a riddle.)
