It's called an educated guess or a logical conclusion. Just look at what Canon has done recently with the 1Ds III and 50D .... and you have your answer. Their IQ is getting better and better .... not worse, and this is not the time for them to release a body where the IQ is no better than a D700 or D3.
BenV wrote:
wait wait wait wait wait
your telling me a camera that nobody knows anything about is going to have better image quality? how did you manage to come up with that one?
I would think that journalists, and especially the paparazzi would love a camera that shoots video. Glad to hear that Sandisk just came out with a 32gb card. Not long before all of us will need a card that size, thanks to ridiculous megapixel race.
Etadam wrote:
Well, I hope the new canon will have 24 MP and cost more than 3000USD, it'll help to choose... (ie switch)
And for the ones still referring to "image quality", look at some recent posts with photos made with a D700 and developed with NX2... there are some pretty amazing shots.
NX2 follows up on Nikon's philosophy of liberal noise reduction.
Funny how people can condemn a camera based on specs alone without even waiting for REAL reviews to reveal how the camera actually performs.
If you wanna switch, go ahead. You don't need an excuse. No one is gonna stop you or miss you.
Those are compilations of rumors - not the actual specs like the 50D's leak on Canon China. And, the site says 24x36 sensor with more than 21 Megapixels, not 24 MP. Of course, > 21 could mean 24. But, we'll find out in < 1 week.
Some sites do say 24. As you say all speculation but that's all we can do.
As far as educated guesses go the comment about I.Q being better is probably spot on. I.Q is Canons realm. Consider that they held off on releasing ten megapixels in the 30d because they felt the current technology at the time would increase noise levels in tradeoff for pixels.
With that in mind i expect that whatever they release they will not go for a few quick sales by providing specs at a long term sacrifice.
If it is 24 megapixels then Digic 4 would be the answer.
Holy crap! Someone actually resized the images to make the comparison fair! Maybe what I've been whingeing on about for the last 3 years is finally occurring to the more cluful photographers.
Interesting how the Sony has had the colour so blurred that the text on the bottle looks black instead of red. If you look carefully you can see a little cloud of pinkness around the text, showing how the noise reduction has crudely blotted out the colour. Say what you like about the Nikons, they know how to do chroma blending.
The current three year old 5D has better image quality over any other camera (minus 1DS3) up to 1600 asa. It would be a good bet to assume to new one will increase that gap.
thw2 wrote:
NX2 follows up on Nikon's philosophy of liberal noise reduction.
Funny how people can condemn a camera based on specs alone without even waiting for REAL reviews to reveal how the camera actually performs.
The A900 pic is reduced from 24MP to 12 MP: the higher the iso, the higher is the pixel (its color channels) probability to be drifting. The more an image is reduced, the more likely the color error differences (noise) will be nullified. No surprise the A900 pic looks better, at 1600 ISO...
But anyway I was talking about image quality (that is certainly subjective), i.e. the rendering of an image after being processed, not specifically at high ISO.
It is not a new cam condemnation, but a comment on price + MP of a non-existent camera in a rumour thread...: 12 MP is more than enough for me, and I don't want to cope with the extra requirements for processing 24 MP (time, space, money). Plus, if, as mentioned, the price tops as high as 3,500$ I won't need to wait for reviews since it'll be likely to be the D700 (which price is likely to drop a bit after Canon announcements).
But, I'll wait for the first reviews and comparisons anyway... just in case
Wow....All this excitement over what? Is this really all you guys need to get excited
We all knew if there was a 5d replacement it would have the Digic 4 processor, a nearly worthless dust shakers, and take EF lenses. Big deal...
I've read all these complaints for years, but now that someone posts a new - and wholly unsubstantiated - rumor the village (collectively) is saying it will upgrade without asking any questions.
What do those specs say? In reality, they say almost nothing except there's a larger sensor. What about the AF? Is the 5d's current AF now good enough for you now? What about the poor 5d VF? What about the FPS? What about the buffer size? What about weather sealing? Those specs say nothing...
We also don't even know a single thing about the sensor. I'd like to know how it's possible that if Canon has developed a new gapless micro-lens sensor for the 50d and it's so special, how is it that they can stick a 21-24MP FF version in a 5d2. The math doesn't work and it can't be done.
IOW, we don't know anything about the sensor or the IQ. Gapless means approximately 38MP, not less..... So, what do we have here
joeisayo wrote:
The current three year old 5D has better image quality over any other camera (minus 1DS3) up to 1600 asa. It would be a good bet to assume to new one will increase that gap.
Uhmmm, I think you should look at 1D3 files before leaving it out of the "better" list. I don't think there's any doubt the 1D3 files are superior. That's one reason I would have been satisfied with a FF version of the 1d3 sensor.....
David Baldwin wrote:
I only own one DX format lens, and wouldn't much mourn the passing of crop.
brainiac wrote:
I think this has been inevitable for a long time. Canon invested a lot in developing its own full frame sensors.
Crop factor is not going away. Period. Canon sells vast numbers of DSLRs to people who like the smaller lighter weight cameras and lenses. Think 1000D.
People have been saying that crop factor is going away "any day now" ever since I joined FM in 2005. I think they will be still saying it in 2025.
Etadam wrote:
The A900 pic is reduced from 24MP to 12 MP: the higher the iso, the higher is the pixel (its color channels) probability to be drifting. The more an image is reduced, the more likely the color error differences (noise) will be nullified. No surprise the A900 pic looks better, at 1600 ISO...
The α900 looks worse to me. The D700 is a bit lumpier, but look what has happened to colour with the alpha. It has been blended to oblivion. One can only guess that before the chroma channels were reduced to a megapixel of data each, there was some quite ugly chroma noise in the alpha file, else why blend it to nothing? There's not much point in having all that extra detail if you can't compete with the D700 on image quality. More pixels are great, but only if they are accurate enough to make a better picture. All the 5D2 has to do to leave both of these cameras behind in image quality, which is why most of us are using Canon after all, is be as good as the 1Ds3. Just like the 5D and 1Ds2. It's the old order.
brainiac wrote:
Holy crap! Someone actually resized the images to make the comparison fair! Maybe what I've been whingeing on about for the last 3 years is finally occurring to the more cluful photographers.
Interesting how the Sony has had the colour so blurred that the text on the bottle looks black instead of red. If you look carefully you can see a little cloud of pinkness around the text, showing how the noise reduction has crudely blotted out the colour. Say what you like about the Nikons, they know how to do chroma blending.
I'm going out on a limb here, but l think this is just a software issue. The red text may be blotted out (NR ruined) on the Sony, but the Nikon image looks "color blown". Since I don't have the objects before me, I can't judge but on my constantly color corrected monitor, the Nikon shot has great reds and bad yellows... The Sony has no reds, but better yellow.
The brush color looks more natural in the Sony version and the Nikon looks like a typical Nikon problem I've seen for years where some colors are over saturated, blown, and unrealistic.
This could all be from inept pp, compression, or....
Monito wrote:
Crop factor is not going away. Period. Canon sells vast numbers of DSLRs to people who like the smaller lighter weight cameras and lenses. Think 1000D.
People have been saying that crop factor is going away "any day now" ever since I joined FM in 2005. I think they will be still saying it in 2025.
Sorry - I mis-spoke. I don't think crop factor is going away, or certainly not soon. My point was that there is one day going to be a $600 full-frame camera, and full frame is going to encroach into the consumer end of the DSLR market. After all, a 1000D isn't an IXUS. We might be heading back to the old days of 35mm: pocketable, and SLR. In ten years, crop SLR's could easily be the minority again. There's something about the full frame dimensions that just fits the human frame and SLR paradigm. That's why 35mm was so massive in the days of film. How many people, after using a 5D, are going to settle for a 1.6 crop? My sister is a case in point. Amateur snapper, loved her 5D, broke it, tried a 40D the other day and afterwards spoke scathingly of it. It will be very hard to go back to crop, especially once ff gets cheap enough.
Edited by brainiac on Sep 11, 2008 at 05:47 PM GMT
Etadam wrote:
The A900 pic is reduced from 24MP to 12 MP: the higher the iso, the higher is the pixel (its color channels) probability to be drifting. The more an image is reduced, the more likely the color error differences (noise) will be nullified. No surprise the A900 pic looks better, at 1600 ISO...
But anyway I was talking about image quality (that is certainly subjective), i.e. the rendering of an image after being processed, not specifically at high ISO.
It is not a new cam condemnation, but a comment on price + MP of a non-existent camera in a rumour thread...: 12 MP is more than enough for me, and I don't want to cope with the extra requirements for processing 24 MP (time, space, money). Plus, if, as mentioned, the price tops as high as 3,500$ I won't need to wait for reviews since it'll be likely to be the D700 (which price is likely to drop a bit after Canon announcements).
But, I'll wait for the first reviews and comparisons anyway... just in case ...Show more →
ummm the A900 most decidedly does not look better in that comparo
