jaypod wrote:
the thing people forget is that pcs have to upgrade regularly to keep up with our needs, ie as we require more space to store an ever increasing demand for digital data. also more powerfull programmes require faster chips.
Photography on the other hand can ony go so far. the human eye is only so good so whats the point in a 100 mpx 100fps iso 3000000 camera. are we all going to be cropping to 500% or printing 20ft x 20ft. we have already surpassed alot of film cameras.
people have been buying prints from much more inferior cameras for years mainly for their asthetic qualities not for the pixel perfection qualities. ...Show more →
You're right. There is a limit, of sorts. The hard limit comes from the laws of physics. Below that, no improvement can be found,
But up to that point, there will always be improvements, if not for the sake of competition alone.
That's fine with me. As prices come down, and quality goes up, we benefit.
Remember that even the $8,000 camera is cheaper today then it was when the first 1Ds came out, because of inflation.
And if the IQ your camera has is sufficient for your needs, there's no reason to buy a new one, unless yours has been used so much it's worn out. The reason most older pro cameras were let go (to the chagrin of the amateurs who picked them up).
jaypod wrote:
the thing people forget is that pcs have to upgrade regularly to keep up with our needs, ie as we require more space to store an ever increasing demand for digital data. also more powerfull programmes require faster chips.
Photography on the other hand can ony go so far. the human eye is only so good so whats the point in a 100 mpx 100fps iso 3000000 camera. are we all going to be cropping to 500% or printing 20ft x 20ft. we have already surpassed alot of film cameras.
people have been buying prints from much more inferior cameras for years mainly for their asthetic qualities not for the pixel perfection qualities. ...Show more →
There are still a good number of people shooting 4x5 and "ultra large format" (11x14-inch [B]FILM[/B], and medium format digital is now beyond 60 megapixels, so handheld digital cameras have not exhausted the desires of all photographers for more resolution.
Mel Gross wrote:
And if the IQ your camera has is sufficient for your needs, there's no reason to buy a new one, unless yours has been used so much it's worn out.
Pretty much true. I'm still using Microsoft Office 2000. Why? Because no later version has given me anything I need, and in fact, the later versions take away things I need. I usually keep my automobiles for 15 years or more for the same reason. I've had the same wife for over twenty years.
Something I don't remember being mentioned here before.
I just came from my friend Lloyds site, diglloyd.com (not pushing it, but you may want to read some stuff there).
He just got a Zeiss 85/1.4 from Zeiss to test. He says that on the 1Ds mkIII, at least (he's waiting for the 5D mkII just like us), the focus assist, like the one on the Nikon, doesn't really work. He recommends ignoring it and just focussing by eye.I asked if he's using the split image rangefinder screen (either one). He hasn't yet replied as I just now mailed him the question.
This pertains to the 5D series, as we can't get even one split image rangefinder screen, much less a choice of three! I've got some problems focussing with matte screens on a 35mm SLR.
I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about this, and has had problems focussing manually on the 5D, even slightly.
This is one of the more annoying things about Canon's choice of (lack of) accessories (such as a lack of a bellows unit these days).
RDKirk wrote:
Why? Because no later version has given me anything I need, and in fact, the later versions take away things I need. I usually keep my automobiles for 15 years or more for the same reason. I've had the same wife for over twenty years.
Yeah, I've been married for about 25 years, and my wife isn't worn out yet.
Mel Gross wrote:
Maybe. It depends on Nikon. If they do come out with a more competitive camera to the 1Ds series, what will they charge for that? Would they retire the D3 in favor of that, and charge about the same? Or will they keep the D3, and charge more for the D3X, D4, or whatever they call it?
If so, what will they charge? $6,000, $7,000, more?
That could determine what Canon will charge.
I'd say a D3x with 24MP + HD video would sell for $5995, and a D800 with 24MP and HD video would sell for $3299. Just my guess of course. Nikon is pricing bodies fairly well and will want to maintain pressure on Canon. A D800 might even be $2999 yet have much higher specs than the 5D II, forcing the 5D II to drop to under $2500 next year. And D300 replacement will probably add HD video, possibly go to 15MP for $1799.
This is disappointing news, as I have been looking forward the the release of the ZE 21 since the announcement. The focus confirmation on Contax cameras worked pretty well. So I hope he's wrong.
I've tried the Brightscreen screen on my 5D but I could not achieve critical focus to save my life, so I subsequently sold all my old MF Zeiss lenses. I just wish that Contax would make a come back, but if Sony is any indication of what a Contax revival is going to look like, forget it.
Looks like I may have to settle for the 24/1.4 Mk II as my primary landscape lens.
Mel Gross wrote:
Something I don't remember being mentioned here before.
I just came from my friend Lloyds site, diglloyd.com (not pushing it, but you may want to read some stuff there).
He just got a Zeiss 85/1.4 from Zeiss to test. He says that on the 1Ds mkIII, at least (he's waiting for the 5D mkII just like us), the focus assist, like the one on the Nikon, doesn't really work. He recommends ignoring it and just focussing by eye.I asked if he's using the split image rangefinder screen (either one). He hasn't yet replied as I just now mailed him the question.
This pertains to the 5D series, as we can't get even one split image rangefinder screen, much less a choice of three! I've got some problems focussing with matte screens on a 35mm SLR.
I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about this, and has had problems focussing manually on the 5D, even slightly.
This is one of the more annoying things about Canon's choice of (lack of) accessories (such as a lack of a bellows unit these days)....Show more →
Mel Gross wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about this, and has had problems focussing manually on the 5D, even slightly.
I had a number of Zeiss Contax lenses that I used on my mirror modded 5D. I tried focus confirmation chips, magnifiers, split image screen, matte (or ground glass, or whatever it was called) screen...did I forget anything? What I learned was that critical focus was nigh impossible wide open. However, on the 35 PC and 21mm I was able to easily get sharp focus stopped down; since I generally wanted a big depth of field for these lenses, it was fine. I finally gave up trying to get sharp focus when the apertures were wide open. So I still think the Zeiss 21mm is a great option on the 5D; just focus "by eye" and stop down. I sold mine. I want it back!
Of course, I hope that the new 5D will not need mirror mod.
whats the point in a 100 mpx 100fps iso 3000000 camera
Suppose we want to print an image 40x60" at the Epson inkjet printer's native-resolution of 360ppi. It's completely reasonable to want to do this. Many paintings in many homes are around this size. How many *megapixels* do we need? The answer is 360 * 360 * 40 * 60 pixels. Dividing by 2 to the 20th power (1 mega) we find that what we need is a 296 megapixels camera (if you calculate megapixels by dividing by a million, you can just round up to 300 megapixels). This calculation show just how completely lame even the most expensive digital sensors are today in relation to the capabilities even of mass market printing technologies. I for one which I had orders of magnitude more resolution. As for 300000 ISO, I'd really much rather have three times the dynamic range. There is really a whole lot left to be done in this space.
Well Kevin I suppose a 300+MP camera on full frame is possible, seeing that that would mean somewhere in the region of 1.7 micron worth of pixel, as is done on the G10. Now this would surely work if the levels of s/n can be maintained and controlled as is seemingly done on the G10.
BUT
What type of file sizes are we talking here? 300MP = compressed 300MB *3 for RGB *2 for 16-bit = ± 1.8GB of file for 1 shot.
Is this doable, yes I am sure it is.
My question is though, why?
E.g. I shot a wedding the other day, and used a 40D and 1DsIII combo. More often than not, I have to soften the images from the 1DsIII, and to lesser extent the 40D in order not to have the bride seeing all the problems with the makeup, her skin etc.
Frequently I have to soften the images from the 1Ds so much, that I almost do not want to use the camera, but I love it too much for that.
My experience is, that the resolution and sharpness we require as photographers are negated by the client's needs and/or wants.
I frequently output large posters for clients, and as an exercise I asked people to discern the differences between 150dpi, 220dpi and 360dpi prints, and you know what... 3/4 of the time they either cannot, or choose the lesser res print.
tom in mpls wrote:
I had a number of Zeiss Contax lenses that I used on my mirror modded 5D. I tried focus confirmation chips, magnifiers, split image screen, matte (or ground glass, or whatever it was called) screen...did I forget anything? What I learned was that critical focus was nigh impossible wide open. However, on the 35 PC and 21mm I was able to easily get sharp focus stopped down; since I generally wanted a big depth of field for these lenses, it was fine. I finally gave up trying to get sharp focus when the apertures were wide open. So I still think the Zeiss 21mm is a great option on the 5D; just focus "by eye" and stop down. I sold mine. I want it back!
Of course, I hope that the new 5D will not need mirror mod. ...Show more →
I wish there WAS a split image screen for the 5D, that's the problem, there isn't.
There was a good reason why older cameras all had either split image rangefinders, or microprisms. It's almost impossible to focus on such a small screen, with low magnification, using any matte screen, 'spec with wides.
All of us who used medium format (I used a Rolli SL66 way back in the early '70's when shooting fashion), know that matte screens can be treacherous.
Aragosh wrote:
Well Kevin I suppose a 300+MP camera on full frame is possible, seeing that that would mean somewhere in the region of 1.7 micron worth of pixel, as is done on the G10. Now this would surely work if the levels of s/n can be maintained and controlled as is seemingly done on the G10.
BUT
What type of file sizes are we talking here? 300MP = compressed 300MB *3 for RGB *2 for 16-bit = ± 1.8GB of file for 1 shot.
Is this doable, yes I am sure it is.
My question is though, why?
E.g. I shot a wedding the other day, and used a 40D and 1DsIII combo. More often than not, I have to soften the images from the 1DsIII, and to lesser extent the 40D in order not to have the bride seeing all the problems with the makeup, her skin etc.
Frequently I have to soften the images from the 1Ds so much, that I almost do not want to use the camera, but I love it too much for that.
My experience is, that the resolution and sharpness we require as photographers are negated by the client's needs and/or wants.
I frequently output large posters for clients, and as an exercise I asked people to discern the differences between 150dpi, 220dpi and 360dpi prints, and you know what... 3/4 of the time they either cannot, or choose the lesser res print....Show more →
It depends on what's being shot.
Few things are worse than a really big, really soft image of the Grand Canyon.
Aragosh wrote:
What type of file sizes are we talking here? 300MP = compressed 300MB *3 for RGB *2 for 16-bit = ± 1.8GB of file for 1 shot.
I think your math is a bit flawed. The current 1Ds3 raw file is ~30MB on a fat day. So that would be 15 times as much, 450MB. Even if we go 16 bit instead of 14 bit, we won't get past half a gigabyte. Still insane, agreed, but less than 1/3 of what you said.
Back in the 80s I had a 20MB hard drive, and it took several hours to read all the bytes from that disk. Today, my 1Ds3 would fill that drive in 1/5s, and overflow it. So I think it's all relative...
WilliamG wrote:
OK so it's November. Think we'll start getting more shipping information soon?
Canon Australia were expected to release pricing on 1st November, but alas, still no pricing. I'm also wondering if they've been awaiting Canon's latest profit announcement (now released) before setting an RRP (MSRP) that will see them through the next few months of turbulence in the markets. Getting much closer to the end of November date we've been given, makes me wonder if they'll sort it all out in time.
photogenix wrote:
Canon Australia were expected to release pricing on 1st November, but alas, still no pricing. I'm also wondering if they've been awaiting Canon's latest profit announcement (now released) before setting an RRP (MSRP) that will see them through the next few months of turbulence in the markets. Getting much closer to the end of November date we've been given, makes me wonder if they'll sort it all out in time.
Yeah, going to be interesting. Also be interesting to see if Michaels here in Melbourne hold to the price I've been promised, or if they push it up.
The maximal needed Pixelresolution printsize is depending of the viewing distance.
If you print really big ( posters int the street) 10-25 dpi are enough. If you have 10 ore more Mio pixels
ist very easy to uprez with good software. Not with the bicubic interpolation in Photoshop.
1x 10MP capture ala 40D = 10.84MB pulled into ACR and converted to 16-bit (PS actually does 15+1 I believe) in Prophoto RGB and pulled into PS becomes 57.8MB. (I just did this to check.)
Therefore, original compressed @ 300MP times ±6 is equal to 300 x 6 = 1800 = 1.8GB
