jamesf99 wrote:
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...Show more →
For a company able to make a gapless micro lens array for 38 MP at FF, doing the same for a smaller pixel density, i.e. for larger pixels should be self-evident.
At 20 MP, a FF sensor would have about 1 stop better noise performance than the 1.6 crop sensor of 50D. With 24 MP, it should be about 0.8 stops better than 50D.
For macro shooters any dust reduction mechanism is very welcome - 40D images are almost spotless while 5D images can show hundreds of spots at 3x live size macro shots. A macro shooter doesn't care about AF or weather sealing or FPS when using a flash ... A bright viewfinder would be nice though, but the current 5D one is already adequate for me.
Koivulehto wrote:
At 20 MP, a FF sensor would have about 1 stop better noise performance than the 1.6 crop sensor of 50D. With 24 MP, it should be about 0.8 stops better than 50D.
Is there a basis for this assessment? All evidence these days suggests that area is the only factor, not pixel density. Since the micro-lenses are gapless, it matters little whether you have 20 or 24 megapixels in your full frame. The area is a little more than twice that of an APS-C, and therefore it should give you something over a stop of improvement over APS-C in either case. Pixel density is no longer a significant factor. Maturity of technology and sensor size are the only key factors.
jamesf99 wrote:
Wow....All this excitement over what? Is this really all you guys need to get excited
It seems that you're pretty excited too. You know all of this thread is meaningless entertainment. The cool part is, it's interactive. While most here are anxiously anticipating a nice relatively new camera, you seem to have relegated yourself to dissappointment. Certainly someone somewhere makes a camera that will satisfy you. It seems you have a love/hate relationship with Canon. Have you contacted Canon directly, or are you just venting for the world to see? What is your vision? What will we all gain from adopting your vision?
brainiac wrote:
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...Show more →
Agreed. Leaving croppers behind is a one way street for most of us There may also come a day when pixel density issues are no longer relevant, and if the RED marketing stuff is even close to the truth, that day will be here within 1-2 years....
My point was that there is one day going to be a $600 full-frame camera, and full frame is going to encroach into the consumer end of the DSLR market.
Sure, that will be the next target. Sub 1000$ full frame, just like the 300D was the first sub 1000$ DSLR, Canon is gonna be the manufacturer that will bring us a the sub 1000 FF. It's gonna happen within 5 years. Full frame EOSfun for all of us But not now, not this Photokina. Some posters here have way too high expectations from the next camera. They are gonna be disappointed. Canon marketing can almost do no good in this respect. If they had announced premature news a little while ago Photokina organization and all the other participants would be frustrated. Also dealers that have been able to sell their old stock the last months. Their are so many people who have (business) interest in the setlled date of introduction. But now this hype is gonna get over its top and people make up the most unrealistic expectations. When Canon doesn't meet those expectations the whiners and acid naggers will pee their vinegar over Canon. Be realistic, try to understand the meaning of the word 'evolution'. It's not gonna be revolution. Canon will show their technoligical leadership, but not without competion like a few years back when they created this market themselves!
PS. Welcome back to Larry Mowry! You have been missed too long. I hope you are OK? Glad you share the EOSfun with us again! It's gonna be a lot of ROFLMAO's from now on
jamesf99 wrote:
[Agreed. Leaving croppers behind is a one way street for most of us There may also come a day when pixel density issues are no longer relevant, and if the RED marketing stuff is even close to the truth, that day will be here within 1-2 years....
Did I miss the memo? Isn't RED video? What are they saying?
jamesf99 wrote:
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.....
Thanks Jimmy.
I did use the MK III but preferred the files from the 5D in almost every situation. You talk a big game but have nothing to show for it.
32067dlm wrote:
It seems that you're pretty excited too. You know all of this thread is meaningless entertainment. The cool part is, it's interactive. While most here are anxiously anticipating a nice relatively new camera, you seem to have relegated yourself to dissappointment. Certainly someone somewhere makes a camera that will satisfy you. It seems you have a love/hate relationship with Canon. Have you contacted Canon directly, or are you just venting for the world to see? What is your vision? What will we all gain from adopting your vision?
Resigned myself to disappointment? Absolutely..
I'm not sure why I have to justify my post but I've posted exactly what I wanted in a body and why, so none of this should be a surprise. Those wants are actually fairly modest.
I don't know how long you've been shooting, but after buying lots of bodies over the last 9 years of shooting digital, and 30+ years of film, I'm more interested in what's possible than what Canon wants to push out the door so it can make larger than ordinary profits.
Unlike a lot of others, I don't wet myself here over "24MP". So what? Is it any good? Does it work, or will it be like my 1d3's? I realize that more and more this site is populated by those with simple needs, but I'm more interested in what I want. Does it have the other features I want and need?
Edited by jamesf99 on Sep 11, 2008 at 01:40 PM GMT
joeisayo wrote:
Thanks Jimmy.
I did use the MK III but preferred the files from the 5D in almost every situation. You talk a big game but have nothing to show for it.
Littly Joey.. I think DPR is found at another address. Please go back where you're wanted... Thanks for your cooperation and pounding sand in private..
PS - does mommy know you're up from your nap and playing on her computer?
stanj wrote:
Did I miss the memo? Isn't RED video? What are they saying?
Edited by stanj on Sep 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM GMT
it's actually quite surprising. They're going after Canon and Nikon directly (I guess Sony now too).
I hate to point you there, but the links are at DPR. According to Jim (?) the owner, he's making some pretty bold statements (yesterday or today) that the game is going to change significantly in 2009..
brainiac wrote:
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....Show more →
I agree that FF will get a little more affordable, but from a business point of view, I see no reason why Canon and Nikon would give away value. Rather than continue to make lower priced FF bodies, they will prefer to make newer, higher-end FF bodies and keep the price higher.
This works well b/c the segment of photographers who care for FF will be happy to pay a premium for it, while APS-C sensors will always be available for cheaper, for the entry-level segment. The big market for SLRs is the "Rebel + kit zoom" crowd, and FF or APS-C is not a make/break criteria in the decision making of people who buy these cameras.
Give all this, it is a superior pricing strategy to charge a premium for those who can afford it. However, I do agree that very soon, a $2000 body is going to have most of the features of the former $7000 cameras. Affordable, high-performance FF is coming, for sure (affordable being relative, that's about it).
jamesf99 wrote:
Littly Joey.. I think DPR is found at another address. Please go back where you're wanted... Thanks for your cooperation and pounding sand in private..
PS - does mommy know you're up from your nap and playing on her computer?
While I liked the tonal qualities and high iso performance of my 1D3, I did find it annoying to go back down to 10 megapixels after getting used to 13. I was frequently disappointed by a lack of crispness that I would expect from my 5D. I ended up moving to a 1Ds3 for this reason, which is the best of both worlds. I can understand anyone saying she prefers images from a 5D to those from a 1D3. Or the other way around. It just depends on whether the picture demands colour and tone, or detail and crispness. They are both excellent in different ways.
brainiac wrote:
Is there a basis for this assessment? All evidence these days suggests that area is the only factor, not pixel density. Since the micro-lenses are gapless, it matters little whether you have 20 or 24 megapixels in your full frame. The area is a little more than twice that of an APS-C, and therefore it should give you something over a stop of improvement over APS-C in either case. Pixel density is no longer a significant factor. Maturity of technology and sensor size are the only key factors.
Care to elaborate on your statement about noise? Are you taking final image resizing into account, or are you talking on a per-pixel basis? Judging from your advocacy of comparing files at the same resolution, probably the former?
brainiac wrote:
While I liked the tonal qualities and high iso performance of my 1D3, I did find it annoying to go back down to 10 megapixels after getting used to 13. I was frequently disappointed by a lack of crispness that I would expect from my 5D. I ended up moving to a 1Ds3 for this reason, which is the best of both worlds. I can understand anyone saying she prefers images from a 5D to those from a 1D3. Or the other way around. It just depends on whether the picture demands colour and tone, or detail and crispness. They are both excellent in different ways....Show more →
Sorry about the little segue with the DPR guy.
My intent was not to say the 1d3 files were superior to the 1ds3 files, but IMO they clearly are to the 5d. I compared files from many different situations and always found a little something extra in the 1d3 files regarding color and depth. Granted the pixel density is slightly higher on the 1d3, but I always attributed it to the 14bit files vs. the 12bit files. The pixel density on the 1Ds3 will again be superior to the 1d3, and that too can add that little extra.
Edited by jamesf99 on Sep 11, 2008 at 01:36 PM GMT
vkalia wrote:
I agree that FF will get a little more affordable, but from a business point of view, I see no reason why Canon and Nikon would give away value. Rather than continue to make lower priced FF bodies, they will prefer to make newer, higher-end FF bodies and keep the price higher.
But since Nikon and Sony have joined the game, we now have competition. Soon these companies will be slugging it out for any advantage they can get. If $600 full frame is doable, and it will be, then someone is going to make profit doing it, before someone else does. I'll bet you that Canon already has this planned in some detail.
>This works well b/c the segment of photographers who care for FF will be happy to pay a premium for it, while APS-C sensors will always be available for cheaper, for the entry-level segment. The big market for SLRs is the "Rebel + kit zoom" crowd, and FF or APS-C is not a make/break criteria in the decision making of people who buy these cameras.
Don't believe it. At some point the rebelkitzoom crowd hear the buzz. At that point you will see day-glo 'Full frame!!!' stickers on stacks of boxes at costco.
> Give all this, it is a superior pricing strategy to charge a premium for those who can afford it.
...and lose share in that market to competitors. For an example, see Leica.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Care to elaborate on your statement about noise? Are you taking final image resizing into account, or are you talking on a per-pixel basis? Judging from your advocacy of comparing files at the same resolution, probably the former?
When you're discussing the noise performance of a sensor, you are by definition not talking about pixel-level noise but about the degradation of images.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Care to elaborate on your statement about noise? Are you taking final image resizing into account, or are you talking on a per-pixel basis? Judging from your advocacy of comparing files at the same resolution, probably the former?
I came up with about 20mp doubling the area of the 50D photosites. So 1 stop. That gives the 50D 25600. 24mp is probably doable.
I was talking about pixel noise.
But not now, not this Photokina. Some posters here have way too high expectations from the next camera. They are gonna be disappointed. Canon marketing can almost do no good in this respect. If they had announced premature news a little while ago Photokina organization and all the other participants would be frustrated. Also dealers that have been able to sell their old stock the last months. Their are so many people who have (business) interest in the setlled date of introduction. But now this hype is gonna get over its top and people make up the most unrealistic expectations. When Canon doesn't meet those expectations the whiners and acid naggers will pee their vinegar over Canon. Be realistic, try to understand the meaning of the word 'evolution'. It's not gonna be revolution. Canon will show their technoligical leadership, but not without competion like a few years back when they created this market themselves!