globalkiwi wrote:
This not directed at gazzajagman specifically - I'm just kind of gobsmacked in general. After months of baseless, & at times plain fanciful, speculation, the 5D2 has finally been announced. Predictably it was met with howls of disapproval from those folk who had allowed their expectations to be raised in the preceding weeks & we've now endured a week or two of pretty vitriolic & emotive bickering about whether it was "good enough" or not (AF, pixels, video, sealing, yada, yada). Now, before any of us have even laid hands on the thing, speculation about the 1D4 has begun! I guess in a day or two Fred will initiate a 1D4 rumor thread & the whole cycle will start all over again ...
It's like there's absolutely no collective memory (or learning) here whatsoever!...Show more →
gazzajagman wrote:
I'm not a regular poster here at Fred Miranda, so please don't list me as one of your "these folk" posts. I am a regular poster on DWF and POTN. But I keep an eye on these forums because some times there are some great threads here.
I prefer DWF becuase they are closer to what I do and I like POTN because I like the higher image postings.
As I stated at the beginning of my post, my point wasn't about you specifically but the cycles of rumor, dissatisfaction & argument that precede & follow each announcement. Nonetheless, you've posted here over 100 times which surely gives me the right to treat your posts like anyone else's & hold you accountable for what you write. Indeed you, like so many others here, want to claim credit for being "right" about the 5DII yet seem to now be invoking "visitor" status when it comes to your speculation about the 1D4(?!).
Mike1 wrote:
38 MP? Uh I think the maximum physically possible before image starts to degrade for 35mm format sensors is 25 MP. People have been making billboard sized images with 6-8 MP cameras for years. We'll have the same problems that have been plaguing P&S cameras due to the size of its sensor and the MPs being pushed beyond its physical limits of what it can physically resolve, which is 3-6 MP. Have any of you ever tried to open, work with multiple, or batching, 150+ MB .TIF files and you have to turn it in the next day? It's not pretty waiting overnight for it or have MAJOR computer hiccups in PP. I don't think it will even be practical for 90% of the pros out there, let alone hobbyists, who rarely prints anything larger than 8x10. More MP=bigger print size=more noise=longer processing time & it's limited by the PHYSICAL size of the sensor & the resolving power of the lens. You will not get anymore details than what's physically possible. The MP war is dead, and manufacturers know about it as well. If you want more MP, go for the medium format. The limitation of the 24mmx36mm is about to hit the ceiling. I'm STILL waiting for a 8"x10" LARGE FORMAT digital (with a FREE golf cart or ATV/snowmobile to go with it). ...Show more →
I think the limits of the size of good quality files will continue to rise as time goes on. The sensor technology will evolve and there will be advances in post processing algorithms. Also, computers are getting faster, smaller, and cheaper every day. Today, you can buy a quad core system with 4 GB of memory and 600 GB of disk for $600. Next year the same money will buy you a system that is 30-50% fast, with 1.2 TB of disk and 8 GB of memory.
vmar wrote:
I live in Europe and I'm completely ignorant about video, except that I own a standard definition mini DV camera, that I barely shoot with. Usually my children having sport activities. If I want to playback the movie, I have to connect the camcorder with the tv set and thats it.
What if I do the same with a 5D II? If I connect it to a HD TV set and choose NTSE mode, isn't it going to be the same ?
Furthermore if I create some dvd, using appropriate software (let's assume in NTSE mode) what will be the problem?
I'm writing all these since I can not understand the issue conserning the 30 fps speed mode of the camera and not 25 or 24 fps as a lot of you say is a necessity for europe.
jerrykur wrote:
I think the limits of the size of good quality files will continue to rise as time goes on. The sensor technology will evolve and there will be advances in post processing algorithms. Also, computers are getting faster, smaller, and cheaper every day. Today, you can buy a quad core system with 4 GB of memory and 600 GB of disk for $600. Next year the same money will buy you a system that is 30-50% fast, with 1.2 TB of disk and 8 GB of memory.
Jerry, you're missing the point. Look at CPU technology & MHz wars of the early 2000s, for a while, CPUs seemed to be going up in MHz, the highest MHz ceiling for ANY production CPU is 3.8 MHz, which was done by Intel's Pentium 4 back in 2004. The physical limitations of the CPU core only allows up to 3.8 MHz without damaging the CPU by causing instability to the system or overheating. The voltage was too high, power consumption went up to a whopping 124W idle and 226W under a full load while most of the other CPUs from AMD consumes between 100-162W (idle & under full load). For those that do not know about computers, anything that consumes 100W=enough to burn an egg after a minute or so. Afterwords MHz hype was abandoned, Intel decided to concentrate on lower voltage and hyperthreading eventually evolves into to dual core. Systems became cooler, power consumption was lower, and MHz was dropped to between 1.6-2.4 MHz again. The same goes for the physical limits of the sensor. You can't defy physics, sure you can make it bigger with software, but it won't be any better than what's already physically possible. It's like having an optical zoom vs. a digital zoom in a P&S. Another comparison is like having a 4 or 6 cylinder car, sure you can double the horsepower to make it more powerful, and faster, even with the most sophisticated computer system installed into it, you won't ever be able to make it fast enough to compete against F1 cars or the more powerful dedicated drag racers. Again, it comes back down to physics.
globalkiwi wrote:
As I stated at the beginning of my post, my point wasn't about you specifically but the cycles of rumor, dissatisfaction & argument that precede & follow each announcement. Nonetheless, you've posted here over 100 times which surely gives me the right to treat your posts like anyone else's & hold you accountable for what you write. Indeed you, like so many others here, want to claim credit for being "right" about the 5DII yet seem to now be invoking "visitor" status when it comes to your speculation about the 1D4(?!).
I have on occasion posted here, but not to the degree that you insinuated, cetainly not on this thread. I may have racked up 100 posts, but then again, I've had a FM account for a long time. So 100 posts is actually quite a low number.
you seem to be quite a suspious and cynical soul. It seems to me that you've taken it on yourself to make a point by naming me specifically but covering yourself by saying that you weren't. Yes you can hold my posts acountable if you really want to...but who made you my moderator? What gives you the right? What are you going to do if you don't like what I write? I stated my opinion as I saw it....and mostly I have been quite correct. This is a public forum, moderated for bad language and abuse. It's free speach and from your tone...you seem to be unhappy with my previous posts. I am not looking for a fight or a moan, although I am a little grumpy today.
I am not looking for appreciation and I have never asked for "credit" as you put it.
This is all a game and it's not serious, but some take all this far too seriously.
This new 5DII will be my 6th DSLR that I've bought. But I could still use my original camera and make a profit. That's life and business for you.
like I said, this is a public forum for photographers to voice their opinion and free speach. If you think it should be more...then take that up with the owner of the forum.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Oh I take north-lights rumours very seriously
You haven't even seen the 50D yet so how do you know how good the noise is? The few shots I've seen weren't great, unlike the 5D II.
True, but the RAW output from a 1D series always look cleaner that the output from an XXD series, and I was generalising. It's simple economics. Sure they might share the same pixel density, even the same resolution but the more expensive has a bigger R&D budget to use better coatings and pass filters over the sensor. When ever I have compared the output of a 1D series, the files usually speak for them selves.
Regardless of what we want from a Pro DSLR today, Canon see the bigger picture in terms of band and market prescence.
Canon have said Many times over the last year that the 50mp full frame camera is on it's way. Give it a few generations (6-10 years). Canon have been very free with their intentions ever since the Nikon D3 and Sony A900 (rumoured about 9 months before it was announced). So all this isn't really much of a surprise.
Hey, here's a thought! This new 5DII hits the shelves in a few months. This forum is going to be alive with these sorts of posts
....shall i buy this or a 50D? What about the D700/D3/A900? This camera's lame! This camera rocks! It back focusses! It fron focuses! Why does my 28-105 look so poor with this camera?
I won't be using a 5DII until next year's wedding season...so I have loads of time to capitalise on every one's early experiences Muhhhuuhhhhaaahhhahahaaa!
Mike1 wrote:
Jerry, you're missing the point. Look at CPU technology & MHz wars of the early 2000s, for a while, CPUs seemed to be going up in MHz, the highest MHz ceiling for ANY production CPU is 3.8 MHz, which was done by Intel's Pentium 4 back in 2004. The physical limitations of the CPU core only allows up to 3.8 MHz without damaging the CPU by causing instability to the system or overheating. The voltage was too high, power consumption went up to a whopping 124W idle and 226W under a full load while most of the other CPUs from AMD consumes between 100-162W (idle & under full load). For those that do not know about computers, anything that consumes 100W=enough to burn an egg after a minute or so. Afterwords MHz hype was abandoned, Intel decided to concentrate on lower voltage and hyperthreading eventually evolves into to dual core. Systems became cooler, power consumption was lower, and MHz was dropped to between 1.6-2.4 MHz again. The same goes for the physical limits of the sensor. You can't defy physics, sure you can make it bigger with software, but it won't be any better than what's already physically possible. It's like having an optical zoom vs. a digital zoom in a P&S. Another comparison is like having a 4 or 6 cylinder car, sure you can double the horsepower to make it more powerful, and faster, even with the most sophisticated computer system installed into it, you won't ever be able to make it fast enough to compete against F1 cars or the more powerful dedicated drag racers. Again, it comes back down to physics....Show more →
Mike,
You are proving my point.
As you state for CPUs taking the approach that increasing performance could only be achieved by increasing clocks speed lead to issues with heat generation. Scientist had to develop alternative techniques to increase performance in an alternative manner.
In a similar way taking the approach that generating a larger image can only be achieved by one method (increasing density of a 2D substrate) sells the engineers and scientist working on the issue short. These are very creative people that can come up with creative solutions. I base this on 20+ years working in and around the Silicon Valley and watching technological barriers fall. Remember, it was "technically impossible" to go below 10 microns, no wait 5 microns, no wait 1 micron, ...
For me its still unbelievable, how somebody can connect 21 Million little dots with a pair of wire to catch that information each single pixel collects ... :-/
gazzajagman wrote:
I have on occasion posted here, but not to the degree that you insinuated, cetainly not on this thread. I may have racked up 100 posts, but then again, I've had a FM account for a long time. So 100 posts is actually quite a low number.
you seem to be quite a suspious and cynical soul. It seems to me that you've taken it on yourself to make a point by naming me specifically but covering yourself by saying that you weren't. Yes you can hold my posts acountable if you really want to...but who made you my moderator? What gives you the right? What are you going to do if you don't like what I write? I stated my opinion as I saw it....and mostly I have been quite correct. This is a public forum, moderated for bad language and abuse. It's free speach and from your tone...you seem to be unhappy with my previous posts. I am not looking for a fight or a moan, although I am a little grumpy today.
I am not looking for appreciation and I have never asked for "credit" as you put it.
This is all a game and it's not serious, but some take all this far too seriously.
This new 5DII will be my 6th DSLR that I've bought. But I could still use my original camera and make a profit. That's life and business for you.
like I said, this is a public forum for photographers to voice their opinion and free speach. If you think it should be more...then take that up with the owner of the forum....Show more →
Well I agree that some of us take this far too seriously! Perhaps I misinterpreted your reply, but I was objecting - & I stand by my objection - to your implication that I wasn't entitled to mention your post because you "don't post here that often." I was simply stating my opinion as I saw it & your post was an example of the point I was making. I attempted to make clear that I wasn't singling out any individual (i.e. you - or trying to be personally confrontational) but speaking of a trend on this board. I wasn't in anyway attempting to be your "moderator" but I've read quite a few of your posts here (& that's simply a statement of fact not a judgment) & as far I am concerned that means I am entitled to respond to your posts as I would anyone else on this board. What gives you the right to expect special treatment or exemption from the standards everyone else plays by? Either you post here or you don't.
Of course, I could have completed misinterpreted you ...
No probs globalkiwi, lets have a team hug and move on...
What have you made of the 5DII files so far? I've printed out a set of iso 1600 and 6400 piccys to Super A3 size and they are looking mighty fine indeed. These are only the JPEG's that Damien Lovegrove punted out last week, so they were shot using the default NR, sharpening and JPEG levels. But they look very good, particularly the iso 1600. I can't wait to be able to pass a few RAW's through my normal workflow.
gazzajagman wrote:
No probs globalkiwi, lets have a team hug and move on...
What have you made of the 5DII files so far? I've printed out a set of iso 1600 and 6400 piccys to Super A3 size and they are looking mighty fine indeed. These are only the JPEG's that Damien Lovegrove punted out last week, so they were shot using the default NR, sharpening and JPEG levels. But they look very good, particularly the iso 1600. I can't wait to be able to pass a few RAW's through my normal workflow.
Has anybody figured out what the default NR setting is in the 5DII? Low/med/high? I'm sure it's not "off".
The default setting is a cryptic "normal". There's one higher setting, "high", but 2 lower settings: "low" and "Off".
The 40D's NR settings only effect the JPEGs images and are acedemic to the RAWs (if you punt them into lightroom). I'm hoping that the new 50D and 5DII act in a simular way.
The Nikon D3 and D700's NR acts in 2 stages, pre Raw and post Raw/Jpeg. The latter is switchable in the menu system, but the pre-raw NR can't be switched off. I'm just hoping that Canon hasn't gone down the same route.
According to an interview made by a Swedish photo journalist, at PhotoKina, he asked about the auto focus on the new 5D2.... and the answer was: Canon had got very good feedback from users of 5D, in fact the satisfaction on this model (regarding focus) were amongst the best, and hence they felt the money spent on developing the new 5D2 were better spent on improving other things i.e. sensor and video...But they addmitted that focus algorithms were tweked and should beeven better than the old model!
BTW, the new 5D2 can keep track of up to 6 different batteries and tell you which has the most capacity left.... and the reason for having a different battery on this new camera is due to video mode that consumes a lot more than an ordinary camera
gazzajagman wrote:
No probs globalkiwi, lets have a team hug and move on...
What have you made of the 5DII files so far? I've printed out a set of iso 1600 and 6400 piccys to Super A3 size and they are looking mighty fine indeed. These are only the JPEG's that Damien Lovegrove punted out last week, so they were shot using the default NR, sharpening and JPEG levels. But they look very good, particularly the iso 1600. I can't wait to be able to pass a few RAW's through my normal workflow.
Indeed, life too short etc. What I've seen of the files posted here & elsewhere have led me to be pretty damn optimistic. Obviously, we need better pics - RAW's especially - but I'm getting quite excited about this camera. I know some don't care about it, but I was also really impressed by the quality of the video that LaForet posted on his blog ...
Unfortunately, all the excitement will be vicarious for a quite while - I'm not likely to get my hands on one for at least 11 or 12 months.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Oh I take north-lights rumours very seriously
You haven't even seen the 50D yet so how do you know how good the noise is? The few shots I've seen weren't great, unlike the 5D II.
Actually, the site has more than rumors, just like this one. Canon has stated where they intend to go with their sensor technology. Northlilight has put that online. No problem with that.
Several years ago, Canon told me that they were intending to go to the largest number of pixels that were theoretically possible for all of their formats. I believed it then, and I believe it now.
I was part of the early discussions here, when people were dreaming that Canon might come out with a 15, or at most, a reworked 1Ds mkII 16.7 MP sensor for the new 5D mkII. How did that work out?
There are a lot of technologies that can still be used to increase overall IQ with much higher pixel densities.
Look at Hassie's new camera. It's 60 MP. the sensor is double a 35mm sensor - 36 x 48mm. That gives them 30 MP per 35mm FF sensor size. So Canon, and others, have a ways to go to even meet that obviously attainable level. And Hassie is claiming a very high IQ, as you would expect. The same for the new Leica with its 37.5 MP 30 x 45mm sensor chip.
Does anyone here truly have any doubts that these medium format producers will come out with 80 MP models? Or even 100 MP models?
If you do, you had better wake up.
And anything they can do, Canon and Nikon can do as well. We WILL see fully half the number of pixels on a Canon FF sensor that we will see in a 36 x 48 medium format sensor. Have no doubts.
