This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009the d300s killer
p.12 #1the d300s killer
theSuede wrote:
Those are 100% of the 400D's 10MP, 50D downsampled to same size. I wouldn't say that this would limit me in any conceivable way, "having" to downsample shots taken at F16... As I mentioned earlier - checking my database statistics for this month, 99pointsomething percent of my shots are taken at <F/5.6 :-)
Then I'd say that you are a prime candidate for the 7d. Are you on a waiting list?
Those are 100% of the 400D's 10MP, 50D downsampled to same size. I wouldn't say that this would limit me in any conceivable way, "having" to downsample shots taken at F16... As I mentioned earlier - checking my database statistics for this month, 99pointsomething percent of my shots are taken at <F/5.6 :-)
Then I'd say that you are a prime candidate for the 7d. Are you on a waiting list?
Sep 10, 2009 at 06:56 PM
p.12 #2the d300s killer
Nope, since I don't personally own any Canon gear. I've got a few alt. favorites that I spent a lot of work on converting to F-mount, and I really don't need the resolution very often. When I do I can borrow one of the 1Ds3's. And if I was looking at a new camera system, the A850 or A900 would suit me better right now. I'm a medium range FL, large aperture type of photographer.
I'm on the waiting list to put the camera through it's paces for real though, as I think that it can be seen as a template for both the sensor technology and the AF-technology in the next 1D generation. I'm really looking forward to doing some controlled testing of the sensor performance, and a few days of normal use. I'd go as far as to say that this is the "next generation" Canon sensor from which we'll see no further technology/performance advances (per mm2 of sensor real estate) for the next year or three - just as the 40D was the "first" in the previous generation of sensors lasting up through 50D. Being excited about a Canon camera is quite "out of the ordinary" for me, so even if I usually don't like Canon ergonomics and menu systems - I have high hopes for this one.
And although it may not seem so when just discussing diffraction (which is an entirely different matter), I'm really not condoning the 18MP crop-camera just yet. I still think the 7D with all it's new stuff would be a better camera if they kept all the upgrades as they are, and kept the resolution to the previous mark - the 15MP from the 50D. This would give a higher base ISO DR, and lower midrange noise through all ISOs, and as I said - I really don't NEED 18MP. Most of my pictures see real use at ~2500x3750 = 9MP = (20x30cm at 300dpi).
I can see optical advantages to higher resolution, but no electrical advantages. Losses are losses and cannot be physically avoided, just minimized to the bare minimum that your manufacturing pipeline/application technology can muster at the moment. If Canon had taken all the improvements applied to the 7D sensor die and applied them to a hypothetical 15MP sensor, Noise/DR-improvements had been even bigger than they are now, since physical losses per mm2 would be lower. That would mean more to me than a measly 9.5% linear resolution increase.
I'm on the waiting list to put the camera through it's paces for real though, as I think that it can be seen as a template for both the sensor technology and the AF-technology in the next 1D generation. I'm really looking forward to doing some controlled testing of the sensor performance, and a few days of normal use. I'd go as far as to say that this is the "next generation" Canon sensor from which we'll see no further technology/performance advances (per mm2 of sensor real estate) for the next year or three - just as the 40D was the "first" in the previous generation of sensors lasting up through 50D. Being excited about a Canon camera is quite "out of the ordinary" for me, so even if I usually don't like Canon ergonomics and menu systems - I have high hopes for this one.
And although it may not seem so when just discussing diffraction (which is an entirely different matter), I'm really not condoning the 18MP crop-camera just yet. I still think the 7D with all it's new stuff would be a better camera if they kept all the upgrades as they are, and kept the resolution to the previous mark - the 15MP from the 50D. This would give a higher base ISO DR, and lower midrange noise through all ISOs, and as I said - I really don't NEED 18MP. Most of my pictures see real use at ~2500x3750 = 9MP = (20x30cm at 300dpi).
I can see optical advantages to higher resolution, but no electrical advantages. Losses are losses and cannot be physically avoided, just minimized to the bare minimum that your manufacturing pipeline/application technology can muster at the moment. If Canon had taken all the improvements applied to the 7D sensor die and applied them to a hypothetical 15MP sensor, Noise/DR-improvements had been even bigger than they are now, since physical losses per mm2 would be lower. That would mean more to me than a measly 9.5% linear resolution increase.
Sep 10, 2009 at 07:43 PM
p.12 #3the d300s killer
trentchau wrote:
men the only way to handle this now is with swords.
... or photos
Although the theme of defraction is interesting, looking at actual photos has its merit as well. When looking at the samples at IR (mostly shot at f/8 I believe) and comparing the D300 with the 7D, it's hard to reach anything but one conclusion: the 7D files contain a lot more detail, period. Since defraction is not an on/off thing, and given the big difference at f/8, I would be surprised if the advantage wouldn't be there at f/16 as well, although not at the same level, but I'm only guessing.
I don't understand why people downsize the high resolution photo to compare with the lower resolution camera. Higher resolution is mostly needed for exactly that: higher resolution. The need for that might not occur every day, but when it's needed, having the extra leeway makes life much easier. There's a reason why Nikon can charge 50% more for the D3X than the D3.
I'm sure there are photographers (macro and landscape to mention two), who use small apertures a lot. But as for myself, I'm mostly at f/8 or larger, and more often wide open than at f/16. I would gain a lot of extra resolution if I bought a 7D instead of a D300s, and my photos are sometimes printed rather large. Add to that the superior video implementation of the Canon, and it becomes a very interesting option.
men the only way to handle this now is with swords.
... or photos
Although the theme of defraction is interesting, looking at actual photos has its merit as well. When looking at the samples at IR (mostly shot at f/8 I believe) and comparing the D300 with the 7D, it's hard to reach anything but one conclusion: the 7D files contain a lot more detail, period. Since defraction is not an on/off thing, and given the big difference at f/8, I would be surprised if the advantage wouldn't be there at f/16 as well, although not at the same level, but I'm only guessing.
I don't understand why people downsize the high resolution photo to compare with the lower resolution camera. Higher resolution is mostly needed for exactly that: higher resolution. The need for that might not occur every day, but when it's needed, having the extra leeway makes life much easier. There's a reason why Nikon can charge 50% more for the D3X than the D3.
I'm sure there are photographers (macro and landscape to mention two), who use small apertures a lot. But as for myself, I'm mostly at f/8 or larger, and more often wide open than at f/16. I would gain a lot of extra resolution if I bought a 7D instead of a D300s, and my photos are sometimes printed rather large. Add to that the superior video implementation of the Canon, and it becomes a very interesting option.
Sep 10, 2009 at 09:16 PM
p.12 #4the d300s killer
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
When looking at the samples at IR (mostly shot at f/8 I believe) and comparing the D300 with the 7D, it's hard to reach anything but one conclusion: the 7D files contain a lot more detail, period.
I don't understand why people downsize the high resolution photo to compare with the lower resolution camera.
I would gain a lot of extra resolution if I bought a 7D instead of a D300s, and my photos are sometimes printed rather large.
I don't put much stock in IR sample photos. I downloaded the D300 file taken at the same ISO as the sample 7D sample and did my own post processing, and this is the comparison I came up with:
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/D300-7D.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/D300-7D_2.jpg
I'm sure the 7D could do better, marginally better than the D300 (or D300s), but the difference in detail is marginal and not "a lot more" as you seem to think. In pure numbers, it is 17%.
BTW, I resized the D300 image to match the 7D image rather than the other way around.
When looking at the samples at IR (mostly shot at f/8 I believe) and comparing the D300 with the 7D, it's hard to reach anything but one conclusion: the 7D files contain a lot more detail, period.
I don't understand why people downsize the high resolution photo to compare with the lower resolution camera.
I would gain a lot of extra resolution if I bought a 7D instead of a D300s, and my photos are sometimes printed rather large.
I don't put much stock in IR sample photos. I downloaded the D300 file taken at the same ISO as the sample 7D sample and did my own post processing, and this is the comparison I came up with:
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/D300-7D.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/D300-7D_2.jpg
I'm sure the 7D could do better, marginally better than the D300 (or D300s), but the difference in detail is marginal and not "a lot more" as you seem to think. In pure numbers, it is 17%.
BTW, I resized the D300 image to match the 7D image rather than the other way around.
Sep 10, 2009 at 10:34 PM
p.12 #5the d300s killer
In pure numbers, it's 21%, not 17%. The bottom photos seem to have much more sharpening applied.
Try instead to compare RAW files. That gives more latitude for enlarging. I need 90cm longest side at 300dpi. The RAW file from the 7D handled that better than the one from the D300, and it was visible in print.
Oh, and I'm a Nikon user btw. If I buy a 7D is an open question, but at the moment, it's tempting, but so is an A850. Unfortunately, the latter has no video, and I would have to buy all new lenses, while most of my Nikkor can be used on a Canon (and my OM Zuikos), so using two system wouldn't be that much of a hassle.
Try instead to compare RAW files. That gives more latitude for enlarging. I need 90cm longest side at 300dpi. The RAW file from the 7D handled that better than the one from the D300, and it was visible in print.
Oh, and I'm a Nikon user btw. If I buy a 7D is an open question, but at the moment, it's tempting, but so is an A850. Unfortunately, the latter has no video, and I would have to buy all new lenses, while most of my Nikkor can be used on a Canon (and my OM Zuikos), so using two system wouldn't be that much of a hassle.
Sep 11, 2009 at 04:53 AM
p.12 #6the d300s killer
theSuede wrote:
I'm on the waiting list to put the camera through it's paces for real though, as I think that it can be seen as a template for both the sensor technology and the AF-technology in the next 1D generation. I'm really looking forward to doing some controlled testing of the sensor performance, and a few days of normal use. I'd go as far as to say that this is the "next generation" Canon sensor from which we'll see no further technology/performance advances
If that is true, the next 1d sensor will be about 46mp. So much for the piddly d3x....
Wow, that would be a monster, right up there with MFDB.... Now that is what I'd call a meaningful increase in resolution. Steve will be switching back to canon. 
It's interesting that you'd do that. I simply don't have that much interest in what the other makers are doing, nowhere even close. I haven't even looked at a canon or other camera in a store, since I got my d300. IOW, I'm very happy and content with what I've got, especially since adding the d700. And, I'm just a pipsqueak gearhead. I like and appreciate technology, but I don't want to know how to make a sensor. Obviously, you are much more interested in that stuff than I am, so I hope that you enjoy your time with the camera.
And although it may not seem so when just discussing diffraction (which is an entirely different matter), I'm really not condoning the 18MP crop-camera just yet. I still think the 7D with all it's new stuff would be a better camera if they kept all the upgrades as they are, and kept the resolution to the previous mark - the 15MP from the 50D. This would give a higher base ISO DR, and lower midrange noise through all ISOs, and as I said - I really don't NEED 18MP. Most of my pictures see real use at ~2500x3750 = 9MP =...Show more →
I agree. As I said before, I have serious reservations that DX needs lots of MPs or that it can handle them well. The vast majority of my "large" prints are 12x18 and 11x14. Less than about 5% were larger than that, would be my guess. But, I do a lot of small aperture shooting, probably 30 to 40%. I also do a lot of relatively high ISO shooting, 800 to 1600, and higher with sports, since getting the d300 and d700. I don't want to lose that capability.
I'm on the waiting list to put the camera through it's paces for real though, as I think that it can be seen as a template for both the sensor technology and the AF-technology in the next 1D generation. I'm really looking forward to doing some controlled testing of the sensor performance, and a few days of normal use. I'd go as far as to say that this is the "next generation" Canon sensor from which we'll see no further technology/performance advances
If that is true, the next 1d sensor will be about 46mp. So much for the piddly d3x....
Wow, that would be a monster, right up there with MFDB.... Now that is what I'd call a meaningful increase in resolution. Steve will be switching back to canon. It's interesting that you'd do that. I simply don't have that much interest in what the other makers are doing, nowhere even close. I haven't even looked at a canon or other camera in a store, since I got my d300. IOW, I'm very happy and content with what I've got, especially since adding the d700. And, I'm just a pipsqueak gearhead. I like and appreciate technology, but I don't want to know how to make a sensor.
Obviously, you are much more interested in that stuff than I am, so I hope that you enjoy your time with the camera. And although it may not seem so when just discussing diffraction (which is an entirely different matter), I'm really not condoning the 18MP crop-camera just yet. I still think the 7D with all it's new stuff would be a better camera if they kept all the upgrades as they are, and kept the resolution to the previous mark - the 15MP from the 50D. This would give a higher base ISO DR, and lower midrange noise through all ISOs, and as I said - I really don't NEED 18MP. Most of my pictures see real use at ~2500x3750 = 9MP =...Show more →
I agree. As I said before, I have serious reservations that DX needs lots of MPs or that it can handle them well. The vast majority of my "large" prints are 12x18 and 11x14. Less than about 5% were larger than that, would be my guess. But, I do a lot of small aperture shooting, probably 30 to 40%. I also do a lot of relatively high ISO shooting, 800 to 1600, and higher with sports, since getting the d300 and d700. I don't want to lose that capability.
Sep 11, 2009 at 06:41 AM
p.12 #7the d300s killer
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Although the theme of defraction is interesting,
Diffraction is only a part of the problem. There are other, arguably more important, issues that arise with high density, small pixel sensors. Just because you don't use small apertures, doesn't negate the other issues.
looking at actual photos has its merit as well. When looking at the samples at IR (mostly shot at f/8 I believe) and comparing the D300 with the 7D, it's hard to reach anything but one conclusion: the 7D files contain a lot more detail, period. Since defraction is not an on/off thing, and given the big difference at f/8, I would be surprised if the advantage wouldn't be there at f/16 as well, although not at the same level, but I'm only guessing.
Your apparent definition of the term "a lot more detail" doesn't likely agree with mine. To me, one should be able to easily see the difference in prints. I think that most people could easily see the difference in 12x18 prints made from 6mp and 12mp cameras. I am not convinced that the same would be true for 12mp and 18mp.
But, that's not the important point anyway. If you want/need more MPs, it simply doesn't make sense to buy an 18mp DX camera when there are higher MP FX cameras available that don't have the problems with noise, DR and diffraction that you'd likely encounter with a DX 18mp camera. If I were a serious landscape shooter, I'd have bought a sony a900 or 5dII, the minute they appeared. Now, with the sony a850, the choice is even easier.
I'm sure there are photographers (macro and landscape to mention two), who use small apertures a lot. But as for myself, I'm mostly at f/8 or larger, and more often wide open than at f/16. I would gain a lot of extra resolution if I bought a 7D instead of a D300s, and my photos are sometimes printed rather large. Add to that the superior video implementation of the Canon, and it becomes a very interesting option.
I don't understand why you'd buy a 7d, because of the resolution, and not a 5dII or sony, but that's your business.
Although the theme of defraction is interesting,
Diffraction is only a part of the problem. There are other, arguably more important, issues that arise with high density, small pixel sensors. Just because you don't use small apertures, doesn't negate the other issues.
looking at actual photos has its merit as well. When looking at the samples at IR (mostly shot at f/8 I believe) and comparing the D300 with the 7D, it's hard to reach anything but one conclusion: the 7D files contain a lot more detail, period. Since defraction is not an on/off thing, and given the big difference at f/8, I would be surprised if the advantage wouldn't be there at f/16 as well, although not at the same level, but I'm only guessing.
Your apparent definition of the term "a lot more detail" doesn't likely agree with mine. To me, one should be able to easily see the difference in prints. I think that most people could easily see the difference in 12x18 prints made from 6mp and 12mp cameras. I am not convinced that the same would be true for 12mp and 18mp.
But, that's not the important point anyway. If you want/need more MPs, it simply doesn't make sense to buy an 18mp DX camera when there are higher MP FX cameras available that don't have the problems with noise, DR and diffraction that you'd likely encounter with a DX 18mp camera. If I were a serious landscape shooter, I'd have bought a sony a900 or 5dII, the minute they appeared. Now, with the sony a850, the choice is even easier.
I'm sure there are photographers (macro and landscape to mention two), who use small apertures a lot. But as for myself, I'm mostly at f/8 or larger, and more often wide open than at f/16. I would gain a lot of extra resolution if I bought a 7D instead of a D300s, and my photos are sometimes printed rather large. Add to that the superior video implementation of the Canon, and it becomes a very interesting option.
I don't understand why you'd buy a 7d, because of the resolution, and not a 5dII or sony, but that's your business.
Sep 11, 2009 at 07:09 AM
p.12 #8the d300s killer
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
In pure numbers, it's 21%, not 17%. The bottom photos seem to have much more sharpening applied.
If I divide the D300 width by the 7D width it's 17%, if I do it the other way around it's 21%; either way it isn't a large amount, which is how you characterized it. The bottom line on this resolution thing is that the 7D picks up more detail just beyond where the D300 gives up, assuming you have done everything right.
The D300 image could have been sharpened more, and there is more contrast in the 7D image. What the 7D image seems to suffer from most is some sort of color profiling and/or NR issue in the red napkin, which killed the detail there and no amount of sharpening would have restored that.
Try instead to compare RAW files. That gives more latitude for enlarging. I need 90cm longest side at 300dpi. The RAW file from the 7D handled that better than the one from the D300, and it was visible in print.
I don't have the software (at this time) to do the RAW conversion on the 7D, but that wasn't why I originally did this comparison for another thread at DPR. My point is that Imaging Resource doesn't do a very rigorous job with their comparisons. These shots were in fact taken at different focal lengths for one, and they were taken at different exposure values and the D300 image was at least 1/3 of a stop underexposed.
I'm sure increasing the pixels from 4288 along the longest axis to 5184 would make some difference, but so would removing the D300 AA filter (I seem to recall Thom Hogan testing that difference to be as much or more than the increase of the 7D over the D300).
In pure numbers, it's 21%, not 17%. The bottom photos seem to have much more sharpening applied.
If I divide the D300 width by the 7D width it's 17%, if I do it the other way around it's 21%; either way it isn't a large amount, which is how you characterized it. The bottom line on this resolution thing is that the 7D picks up more detail just beyond where the D300 gives up, assuming you have done everything right.
The D300 image could have been sharpened more, and there is more contrast in the 7D image. What the 7D image seems to suffer from most is some sort of color profiling and/or NR issue in the red napkin, which killed the detail there and no amount of sharpening would have restored that.
Try instead to compare RAW files. That gives more latitude for enlarging. I need 90cm longest side at 300dpi. The RAW file from the 7D handled that better than the one from the D300, and it was visible in print.
I don't have the software (at this time) to do the RAW conversion on the 7D, but that wasn't why I originally did this comparison for another thread at DPR. My point is that Imaging Resource doesn't do a very rigorous job with their comparisons. These shots were in fact taken at different focal lengths for one, and they were taken at different exposure values and the D300 image was at least 1/3 of a stop underexposed.
I'm sure increasing the pixels from 4288 along the longest axis to 5184 would make some difference, but so would removing the D300 AA filter (I seem to recall Thom Hogan testing that difference to be as much or more than the increase of the 7D over the D300).
Sep 11, 2009 at 07:32 AM
p.12 #9the d300s killer
double post
Edited on Sep 11, 2009 at 07:36 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Sep 11, 2009 at 07:36 AM · View previous versions
Sep 11, 2009 at 07:35 AM
p.12 #10the d300s killer
Kerry Pierce wrote:
If that is true, the next 1d sensor will be about 46mp. So much for the piddly d3x.... Wow, that would be a monster, right up there with MFDB.... Now that is what I'd call a meaningful increase in resolution. Steve will be switching back to canon.
DOOH!
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"!
In all seriousness, I would never switch back. Between the mis-handling of the MKIII focus issues, having some kind of focus issue with EVERY Canon I had (and NONE with Nikon, so I don't think it's a problem originating from 3" behind the camera), and the fact that my Nikon lenses are simply sharper, I just couldn't do it.
To me, Canon always looks good on paper - good specs, good prices on lenses, great lens selection - but when I'm out in the field, I'm glad my cameras have NIKON stamped into their little foreheads.
If that is true, the next 1d sensor will be about 46mp. So much for the piddly d3x....
Wow, that would be a monster, right up there with MFDB.... Now that is what I'd call a meaningful increase in resolution. Steve will be switching back to canon. DOOH!
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"! In all seriousness, I would never switch back. Between the mis-handling of the MKIII focus issues, having some kind of focus issue with EVERY Canon I had (and NONE with Nikon, so I don't think it's a problem originating from 3" behind the camera), and the fact that my Nikon lenses are simply sharper, I just couldn't do it.
To me, Canon always looks good on paper - good specs, good prices on lenses, great lens selection - but when I'm out in the field, I'm glad my cameras have NIKON stamped into their little foreheads.
Sep 11, 2009 at 07:36 AM
p.12 #11the d300s killer
Steve Perry wrote:
DOOH!
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"!
DOOH!
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"! Sep 11, 2009 at 08:07 AM
p.12 #12the d300s killer
Kerry Pierce wrote:
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"!
Steve,
Once you are burried, can I have your gear?
Steve Perry wrote
DOOH! - They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"! Steve,
Once you are burried, can I have your gear?
Sep 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM
p.12 #13the d300s killer
From a practical PoV, diffraction, I would think would be critical for landscapes. The main uses of a APS-C or DX sensor camera is for sports and wildlife. The important part to remember is that although there are physical limits, and the question remains if it is meaningful on the 7D, Canon has improved sensor technology without increasing noise or degrading IQ.
By the way, I don't like the title of this thread.
By the way, I don't like the title of this thread.
Sep 11, 2009 at 03:10 PM
p.12 #14the d300s killer
Kerry,
We can discuss this till our faces turn blue, but two facts are indisputable:
- The 7D has more resolution than the D300s, if A has 21% more than B or B has 17% less than A, is a moot point. It's more, and it's visible if you print large formats. Not a lot, but still visible.
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user, that advantage may be the deal-maker or breaker. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody; Canon has a lot of experience designing and manufacturing video cameras, Nikon has next to none.
Why would I choose a 7D over a 5DII? Longer reach with more compact lenses is one reason, but the lower price doesn't hurt either. An ideal combination would be a 7D, a 5DII and a D700, all for the cost of a D3X. Maybe the D3X would make more sense then. I have plenty of backup cameras anyway.
I agree that the IR jpegs have little value for comparisons. The 7D RAW file look very different.
We can discuss this till our faces turn blue, but two facts are indisputable:
- The 7D has more resolution than the D300s, if A has 21% more than B or B has 17% less than A, is a moot point. It's more, and it's visible if you print large formats. Not a lot, but still visible.
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user, that advantage may be the deal-maker or breaker. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody; Canon has a lot of experience designing and manufacturing video cameras, Nikon has next to none.
Why would I choose a 7D over a 5DII? Longer reach with more compact lenses is one reason, but the lower price doesn't hurt either. An ideal combination would be a 7D, a 5DII and a D700, all for the cost of a D3X. Maybe the D3X would make more sense then. I have plenty of backup cameras anyway.
I agree that the IR jpegs have little value for comparisons. The 7D RAW file look very different.
Sep 11, 2009 at 09:23 PM
p.12 #15the d300s killer
I still carry my D200 proudly .
In all honesty some closeups are better with my
lowly D40.
.In all honesty some closeups are better with my
lowly D40.
Sep 11, 2009 at 10:47 PM
p.12 #16the d300s killer
Steve Perry wrote:
To me, Canon always looks good on paper - good specs, good prices on lenses, great lens selection - but when I'm out in the field, I'm glad my cameras have NIKON stamped into their little foreheads.
And the fanboy crowd falls for the paper specs every time.
Kerry Pierce wrote
And the fanboy crowd falls for the paper specs every time.
Sep 11, 2009 at 10:58 PM
p.12 #17the d300s killer
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
]
...........it's visible if you print large formats....haven't you heard of Genuine Fractal?
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to shout about.....when you forget about the hype...you realize the 7D is ever so slightly evolutionary, not at all revolutionary.
]
...........it's visible if you print large formats....haven't you heard of Genuine Fractal?
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to shout about.....when you forget about the hype...you realize the 7D is ever so slightly evolutionary, not at all revolutionary.
Sep 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM
p.12 #18the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
...........it's visible if you print large formats....haven't you heard of Genuine Fractal?
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to...Show more →
a 1.6 crop is like a 1.6 TC....so what does a TC do for you hmmmm...?
100mm+1.6 crop = 160mm when you look into VF
100mm+ 1.6 TC=160mm when look into VF
image will look .6 times closer
Jorgen Udvang wrote
]- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to...Show more →
a 1.6 crop is like a 1.6 TC....so what does a TC do for you hmmmm...?
100mm+1.6 crop = 160mm when you look into VF
100mm+ 1.6 TC=160mm when look into VF
image will look .6 times closer
Sep 12, 2009 at 04:43 AM
p.12 #19the d300s killer
Steve Perry wrote:
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"!
Which make do you think would be best for underground photography? I guess low light, so high ISO performance would be key.
- They can put as many MP in their cameras as they want. If I so much as hint at the idea of switching back to Canon around my wife I'd be 6 feet under faster than you can say "diffraction"! Which make do you think would be best for underground photography? I guess low light, so high ISO performance would be key.
Sep 12, 2009 at 05:46 AM
p.12 #20the d300s killer
rhyder wrote:
...........it's visible if you print large formats....haven't you heard of Genuine Fractal?
- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to...Show more →
It is significant for Canon to produce a high FPS, fast AF, durable build APS camera. Canon realise they had missed the boat when the D300 came out. The term revolutionary should perhaps in my opinion be reserved for real firsts such as the first sub £1000 DSLR (Canon) or first FF DSLR (Canon), or first IS DSLR lens (Canon), or first DO lens (Canon), or first DSLR with a print button (Canon). Still, we use 'legendary' to mean merely 'famous', such is the debasement of words by the advertising industry and others.
Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C.
Jorgen Udvang wrote
]- The 7D has more advanced video options than the D300S, and if HD video is important for the user........If you knew video, you know that video on a DSLR has many problems to iron out, try panning with one(rolling shutter). At this point in time, its a toy feature to sell more cameras.
.....Longer reach.....reach from a crop sensor is a myth
I've never gained a thing arguing about camera specs. I've never seen a camera spec make a photographer better.
Canon fanboys must really be hungry for something to...Show more →
It is significant for Canon to produce a high FPS, fast AF, durable build APS camera. Canon realise they had missed the boat when the D300 came out. The term revolutionary should perhaps in my opinion be reserved for real firsts such as the first sub £1000 DSLR (Canon) or first FF DSLR (Canon), or first IS DSLR lens (Canon), or first DO lens (Canon), or first DSLR with a print button (Canon). Still, we use 'legendary' to mean merely 'famous', such is the debasement of words by the advertising industry and others.
Longer reach from APS-C is not a myth, assuming the same pixel count in FF and APS-C.
Sep 12, 2009 at 05:55 AM