did another wedding 8.8.8 with my crew one of them has nikon d3, he has shot with it for a couple of weddings now and man my 1D mk3 is getting its a$$ kicked especially on AWB. The biggest difference i've seen so far on our cams is that the D3 is more accurate on WB than the canon MK3..though I shoot mostly RAW it still kicks my buttocks on AWB..and the screen is a lot nicer. but canon still rocks, hahaha, hopefully they come out with a very nice 5d replacement.
Gary Petersen wrote:
I never look at a photo on the camera's lcd. I remember buying a film camera once that had a little clip affair on the back where you were supposed to put the end flap off the box the film came in. I didn't use it either.
Now, that's funny! Not sure it's the greatest analogy in the world, but somehow strangely poignant.....
A great screen with a high-res thumbnail (the thumbnail file size is
the biggest limitation right now) would allow checking the focus "in the
field" instead of waiting until you download the files to your PC to realize
that the shots you needed are out of focus.
bobbytan wrote:
A high-definition LCD screen is very important and very desirable. With a lousy low-res screen, you don't really know if you got the shot.
You don't know that on Nikons either, since they too have the lousy 640x480 (or similar small) JPEG emedded into RAW's.
A great screen with a high-res thumbnail (the thumbnail file size is
the biggest limitation right now) would allow checking the focus "in the
field" instead of waiting until you download the files to your PC to realize
that the shots you needed are out of focus.
Bring on the new screen.
I use that other thing to check focus. It's called a viewfinder. I just don't use the LCD for anything but menus and checking the overall histogram. Nothing wrong with wanting a higher resolution one I guess.
"...Canon...will have to start putting more features in their entry level FF camera(s) if they are going to compete..."
and this is the great thing about the increased competition nowadays. they're all forcing each other to pack features and capability into camera models that would otherwise have been provided a more meager feature set/build quality. e.g., i'm not in the market to buy a pentax K20D, but i definitely appreciate the pressure that it puts on sony, canon and nikon in the 'prosumer' department.
competition is only beneficial for the consumer. possibly two new FF models in sept = truffle shuffle.
For those begging for a better LCD, do you think you would actually have time to utilize it?
If you're setting up a wedding, sure, I get that. You can recollect the group and get them to repose. But those shots don't really "count" because you can take 100 of them and rest assured at least one will be good.
As for the more "memorable" moments, are you really going to have time to review the shot? If the shot is so important, it is likely unique and uncapturable the next minute. So you know you didn't get the shot, what are you going to do, ask them to re-act the scene?
There are some applications where an enhanced LCD would be of great use, but I think most of the times that people truly want the LCD would prove to be severely reduced in real life when they dont have the time to assess whether the shot was captured to their liking.
"is this <inset feature> really usefull? If i introduce special circumstances, it is not usefull in this special context, so is it really usefull?"
Seems to be the argument.
I tried a d700 and a d3 this weekend, and I must say that even for repeatable and bad shots, like we amateurs like to take, it was great to have a high-res, good quality screen.
jbfaulconer wrote:
Actually the original 5D was $3400.00. That is what I paid for mine (worth every penny) I don't expect the new one to be much less than that.
As I remember, the D60 was replaced after one year by 10D (offering Digic I, higher and better Iso (1600/3200 instead of a horrible 1000) an an AF at an more affordable price of 1200$ less. As far I remember.
When 5D came out it was a stand allone genius work of camera engeniering. Its price now three years after dropped for about $ 2.000 (calculated on german prices). In electronics its just a normal thing, that follow ups introducing prices are lower than those (introducing prices) of their prereleases.
40D is the 4rth follow up of D60 and as far I remember its Intro was € 1299. Thats 45% less than D60 was 5 years earlier. And this was worth it any cent to me, too. But who would mention that 40D is not a much better camera in all points at a much lower price?
My 30D is in any point. And it still has not such an fast and accurate AF, (little) higher noise by 2MP less resolution and Digic II etc.
ulrikft wrote:
"is this <inset feature> really usefull? If i introduce special circumstances, it is not usefull in this special context, so is it really usefull?"
Seems to be the argument.
I tried a d700 and a d3 this weekend, and I must say that even for repeatable and bad shots, like we amateurs like to take, it was great to have a high-res, good quality screen.
On my D30 display its not really possible to check if the focus is where I want to have it. Even in 100% it looks sharp overall. That is bad and I would love to have a higher resolution. Like Gary I often do not check the display for hours, But there are situations, where its really usefull in my opinion. In my last fashionshooting I had to create 4 A1 posters, too. The girls where mooving and I did full body shots. The AF point covers the face and did not get the eye. A higher reolution screen might have shown that on location. The pics are great for the catalog. And I found enough for the posters. But many where not good (sharp at the point) enough for them.
ulrikft wrote:
"is this <inset feature> really usefull? If i introduce special circumstances, it is not usefull in this special context, so is it really usefull?"
Seems to be the argument.
I tried a d700 and a d3 this weekend, and I must say that even for repeatable and bad shots, like we amateurs like to take, it was great to have a high-res, good quality screen.
On my 1D, all shots look OOF on the LCD, so here's a +1 for asking for a better LCD that provides a normal view of the image I just took. Granted, during high-paced events I wouldn't use it but at other times I definitely would.
bobbytan wrote:
A high-definition LCD screen is very important and very desirable. With a lousy low-res screen, you don't really know if you got the shot. Having a big high-def screen is like having a polaroid back like in the old film days. A low res screen is no polaroid back.
Actually, that has nothing to do with the LCD. You should try to check out some RAW pics on the XSi/450D LCD which is the same as the one on the 40D. Not exactly sure what Canon has tweaked, but the difference in display between the 40D and XSi/450D is HUGE.
One should also keep in mind the open secret that Canon has been working on OLED displays for a while. In fact, they had one on a 5D demo (Chuck Westfall pointed this out) some time back. That may have prompted Sony/Nikon to release the VGA-LCD display 'cos they probably thought Canon was going to introduce that in all their DSLRs after the 5D. But, alas, that did not happen... There is a good chance we'll see OLED on the 5D update.
AGeoJO wrote:
Go, Canon, go ! By the way, I am guessing that the price of the 7D (the 5D replacment) to be $2,999.00, just like the Nikon D700.
I am betting against this. Canon and Nikon have managed to avoid head to head model to model competition. My guess is that the new model will be less than $3000, higher MP than the D700 but lacking 8fps and leading edge AF technology.
Exactly! For critical focus, a low-res screen is not going to help you very much. A high-definition screen will tell you if you have achieved focus at the right places. Also, if nothing else, a high-def screen will enhance the live view and preview process, and therefore the whole enjoyment of photography. If you are happy with the 2.5" mediocre/pathetic screen on the 5D that's fine, but I do think many of us here would rather have a 3" crystal-clear high-definition screen, thank you!
Ralph Conway wrote:
On my D30 display its not really possible to check if the focus is where I want to have it. Even in 100% it looks sharp overall. That is bad and I would love to have a higher resolution. Like Gary I often do not check the display for hours, But there are situations, where its really usefull in my opinion. In my last fashionshooting I had to create 4 A1 posters, too. The girls where mooving and I did full body shots. The AF point covers the face and did not get the eye. A higher reolution screen might have shown that on location. The pics are great for the catalog. And I found enough for the posters. But many where not good (sharp at the point) enough for them. ...Show more →
Ralph Conway wrote:
On my D30 display its not really possible to check if the focus is where I want to have it. Even in 100% it looks sharp overall. That is bad and I would love to have a higher resolution. Like Gary I often do not check the display for hours, But there are situations, where its really usefull in my opinion. In my last fashionshooting I had to create 4 A1 posters, too. The girls where mooving and I did full body shots. The AF point covers the face and did not get the eye. A higher reolution screen might have shown that on location. The pics are great for the catalog. And I found enough for the posters. But many where not good (sharp at the point) enough for them. ...Show more →
I can understand this, but a better screen would likely come with a higher price tag increase. Take a look at serious pros, like at the olympics. No matter which system they were using (Canon v. Nikon), all of them had laptops with them checking the image directly after each heat.
It seems like the people that really need the high-resolution to check images just use a laptop with a nice screen, rather than a camera with a small 3" screen.
I think the costs of a high-res screen clearly outweigh the benefits.
I just don't use the LCD for anything but menus and checking the overall histogram. Nothing wrong with wanting a higher resolution one I guess. 