M Vers wrote:
With the added high ISO performance of, lets say, the 1DIII I'd be all over this body for wildlife and macro--also not very likely
For me as long as ISO 100-800 was very clean I'd be happy. I rarely used ISO 1600 except on 5D. Even the Oly E-30 with it's 48MP FF equivalnet sensor is competitive with Canon and Nikon @ ISO 800 and not too bad at ISO 1600.
skibum5 wrote:
1D2 has much lower blackout from mirror than even a 50D. So short you often are worried that you didn't even take a picture. And the 50D itself has a noticeably shorter mirror blackout than the 5D2.
Having shot both the 5D2 (which has better performance specs than the 5D) and 50D and 1d2 and rebel for sports I say the 5D2 performance feels a lot more like a rebel in actual sports usage than a 50D and the rebel to 5 jump feels a LOT smaller than the 50D to 1 series jump in terms of speed of feel (ignoring AF for the moment and any other aspect).
granted the 5 series af does better for that than the rebel and maybe even better than the 50D but it is crazy to say the fps/mirror/etc feel like they are quick and responsive.
I dont get why 5D1 owners are so ridiculously defensive about their cameras, simply put it is NOT a high performance body, but somewhat towards the lower tier when it comes to mirror box/shutter/fps.
I believe off the top of my head the 1 series have about a 57ms blackout, and the 1D(s) III can have a 40ms blackout. The 40D/50D have around 85ms blackout and the 5D/5D II are around 110ms.
The most interesting detail from the rumor spec, to me, from an IQ point of view, is the ISO expansion to "L". That means ISO 50, right?
A sign of improvement in sensor technology.
If true, this expands the high side of the DR, and the possibility for cleaner images when the exposure is limited by the sensor, not the available light.
I don't often speculate, I don't see the point, but perhaps Canon have found a technology that means an 18 meg APS-C sensor can be less noisy than a 15 meg one. Otherwise what's the point?
Tom_W wrote:
If it's a 1.3, I'd consider it. As a 1.6, I think not. I can't imagine the ISO 6400 noise being real clean with such small photosites. Could be wrong, though.
Tom do you use ISO 6400? I wouldn't use it on a 5D II. 90% of MY shooting is ISO 100-800 with 90% of that ISO ISO 100-400.
alundeb wrote:
The most interesting detail from the rumor spec, to me, from an IQ point of view, is the ISO expansion to "L". That means ISO 50, right?
A sign of improvement in sensor technology.
If true, this expands the high side of the DR, and the possibility for cleaner images when the exposure is limited by the sensor, not the available light.
The DR of extended ISO (L included) are typically lower than the "normal" range.
M Vers wrote:
So what is it...6mp or 18mp? The difference is plenty large enough to determine--so why is there no solid proof?
The rule of thumb with FOVEON is if it is 3 x A MP, it's resolution is roughly equal to a Bayer with between sqrt(3) * A MP an 2 x A MP. So the current Sgma SD-15 with 3 x 4.7 MP is like an 8.2-9.4MP Bayer.
Everything including price seems to point to a 1.6 crop. If it is being targeted at sports and wildlife photographers that can make sense if it has good AF. Even the high pixel count will be good for bird photographers as more is better even if they are less high quality on a per pixel level.
For sports I suppose it depends on whether you're FL limited, light levels and whether you need to print big. Might make life a lot easier using a 300 2.8 (and cheaper) where a bigger sensor would need a 400 2.8. I don't imagine high ISO performance will be much better than a 50D though.
If the EF-S lenses had been tweaked to work with APS-H there would be some new designation apparent on the lens, these look like the usual EF-S offerings to me so probably 1.6 crop only.
If this 7D spec is true, it's easy to see what the 60D will be. 7D minus the new AF, minus the 100% VF, 6fps, minus the dual digic IV and will cost $500 less.
Navyblue wrote:
The DR of extended ISO (L included) are typically lower than the "normal" range.
I know.
Current crop cameras hit sensor saturation a little above ISO 100. They have a lower DR at ISO 100 than ISO 200. That means there is no point in going to ISO 50 on them.
Current FF cameras hit sensor saturation a little below ISO 100, and gain a little on the high side by going to ISO 50.
alundeb wrote:
That means there is no point in going to ISO 50 on them.
I beg to differ.
Iso 50 can be useful in some situations.
When using very large aperture lenses (for shallow DOF) in good light, for example.
Or to drop the shutter speed to give the idea of motion (when shooting a river or a waterfall, for example).
APS-C at this resolution sounds... insane. The 50D really struggles with visible noise sometimes even at ISO 200. FF or APS-H would make a lot more sense at this resolution (even for Canon).
I suppose you could use sRAW1 for high ISO work and reserve the big files for ISO 100-400 stuff... (I assume its sRAW1 implementation would be a bit bigger than the 50D's 7.1mp).
I love the new 15-85 IS lens, though. That gets you out to 24mm equivalent, wide enough that you may not need to carry the 10-22. If image quality matches the excellent Nikkor 16-85 VR, things will be good.
garyvot wrote:
I love the new 15-85 IS lens, though. That gets you out to 24mm equivalent, wide enough that you may not need to carry the 10-22. If image quality matches the excellent Nikkor 16-85 VR, things will be good.
its about time they release a 15-85 lens that would be a very useful range. they could have also made it a 15-50 f4 lens or 2.8 which would probably be more attractive to the enthusiasts.
skibum5 wrote:
I dont get why 5D1 owners are so ridiculously defensive about their cameras, simply put it is NOT a high performance body, but somewhat towards the lower tier when it comes to mirror box/shutter/fps.
The answer is simple: to some, the image quality and affordable entry into full-frame are way more important than a high framerate, a short mirror blackout time, or "pro" AF (however you define it). Sure, those things are nice, but they aren't the primary motivations for people who love the 5-series.
The endless debate is pointless because you are talking past one another, and seem to have fundamentally different views on what is most important in a camera...
willis wrote:
... If the EF-S lenses had been tweaked to work with APS-H there would be some new designation apparent on the lens, these look like the usual EF-S offerings to me so probably 1.6 crop only
The modification to enable this would surely have to be in the new mount/mirror assembly as it would have to be compatible with the odd EF-s lens that does extend too far into the body.
