OK so for the price difference between 50D and 7D we're getting
some pro features. That's about $500 for a good AF, 100% VF etc.
Probably less because the sensor is updated and some other stuff...
So we can expect a new 5D III with all this for ~$3200 right?
Or that would be too obvious?
snowboarder wrote:
OK so for the price difference between 50D and 7D we're getting
some pro features. That's about $500 for a good AF, 100% VF etc.
Probably less because the sensor is updated and some other stuff...
So we can expect a new 5D III with all this for ~$3200 right?
Or that would be too obvious?
Better yet would be for the 5DII to drop in price closer to where it should be in the $2000-$2200 range, and let a "3D" or whatever occupy the $2700 or so price point with the 7D's pro features.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
....Better yet would be for the 5DII to drop in price closer to where it should be in the $2000-$2200 range, and let a "3D" or whatever occupy the $2700 or so price point with the 7D's pro features.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Better yet would be for the 5DII to drop in price closer to where it should be in the $2000-$2200 range, and let a "3D" or whatever occupy the $2700 or so price point with the 7D's pro features.
Why is everyone saying this is a 1.6 crop? It could be 1.3 with the ability to use EF-S lenses. Like the D3 could use Nikon AF-S lenses. I could be wrong thou....
Something that hasn't been discussed yet (AFAIK and I've read most of this monster thread)
18MP on APS-C, won't diffraction start to kick in at about f/5.6 or something ridiculous? According to TDP the 50D starts to 'suffer' from f/7.6 and smaller.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Something that hasn't been discussed yet (AFAIK and I've read most of this monster thread)
18MP on APS-C, won't diffraction start to kick in at about f/5.6 or something ridiculous? According to TDP the 50D starts to 'suffer' from f/7.6 and smaller.
It has been mentioned (in another thread?), and there is nothing ridiculous about it. For images with the same FOV, same perspective and same DOF, at the same print size, the amount of diffraction is independent of sensor size. Meaning, if you don't want diffraction, you have to sacrifice DOF, and that is universal for the wavelengths of light.
How many megapixels can be squeezed into a 1.6x sensor before IQ starts to deteriorate? Didn't the 50D already exceed that limit (compared to the 40D)?
PhotoDude79 wrote:
Why is everyone saying this is a 1.6 crop? It could be 1.3 with the ability to use EF-S lenses. Like the D3 could use Nikon AF-S lenses. I could be wrong thou....
You are wrong as EF-S is physically different than EF. If you mount an EF-S lens on a 1.3X or FF body and take a picture you'll get a broken mirror.
JayNathanson wrote:
How many megapixels can be squeezed into a 1.6x sensor before IQ starts to deteriorate? Didn't the 50D already exceed that limit (compared to the 40D)?
You may want to read this. While long, it's eye-opening IMHO.
JayNathanson wrote:
How many megapixels can be squeezed into a 1.6x sensor before IQ starts to deteriorate? Didn't the 50D already exceed that limit (compared to the 40D)?
To put it differently, with the 50D, the tests started measuring the resolution of the lens used. DPReview even tested at f/8, where diffraction is theoretically measurable.
We will need the finest of optics, and as an example, I tested the 400/5.6 with and without a TC on my 500D, and found that the TC still added detail to the image. Proof that higher pixel density still makes sense.
For wide angle lenses, we may be at the limit already.
Canon is apparently working on a new technology to add megapixels even to the lenses and flash, since they've already squeezed as many photosites as possible on the 50D's APS-C sensor.
? It could be 1.3 with the ability to use EF-S lenses. Like the D3 could use Nikon AF-S lenses. I could be wrong thou....