M Vers wrote:
Have you no experience with macro, let alone at 5x mag? If you did, you would understand that the DOF is literally razor thin even when stopped down. Remember, distance plays an enormous role pertaining to DOF, the closer you are to the subject the less perceived DOF.
Yes, the closer you are to the subject the less perceived DOF. That's a given. But it is my understanding that a stock focusing screen would show the proper DOF for an f/2.8 and smaller lens regardless of distance and actual DOF amount, whereas the same focusing screen would not show proper DOF for lenses larger than f/2.8 (I think the actual number is f/2.5?) regardless of distance. Am I wrong? I'd love to learn if so.
It's not about how small the DOF is. It's about accuracy of what you see vs. what you will capture.
kapytalyst wrote:
So while the 7D might be an astounding camera in its own right, there are some of us that will reiterate..."why, why wouldn't they make a FF version?"
I'm sure Canon has one in the works, either the 5DIII or the 3D (but that's a whole different rumor thread). You just have to wait for it to be released, or switch to Nikon if you can't wait
M Vers wrote:
Have you no experience with macro, let alone at 5x mag? If you did, you would understand that the DOF is literally razor thin even when stopped down. Remember, distance plays an enormous role pertaining to DOF, the closer you are to the subject the less perceived DOF.
Have you no experience manually focusing fast glass? If you did, you'd understand what Yohan is talking about here. It has nothing to do with distance or DOF and everything to do with the fact that a stock focusing screen cannot accurately represent what is in focus when using lenses faster than f2.8. What looks to be in focus will not necessarily be in focus.
In other words, manually focusing the MP-E 65 with a stock screen at any magnification is doable because it is an f2.8 lens. The stock screen will be accurate enough because that is what it is (barely) designed for. For faster lenses it won't, regardless of focus distance or anything else. This is precisely why the type S screens are offered for other bodies. Hence, n0b0's statement is irrelevant. Being able to focus the MP-E 65 with a stock screen (regardless of magnification) does not mean he can easily focus faster glass on a stock screen (regardless of what camera he is using, the distance, the aperture, or anything else). Furthermore, I can guarantee you that n0b0 would find an S type screen to be far more accurate than a stock screen even with is MP-E 65 and other f2.8 lenses, for MF. So, where he finds the stock screen "sufficient", he would certainly find the S type screen to be "optimal".
But ignorance is bliss, so if you want to go on believing that S type screens are unimportant, then by all means...
jerrykur wrote:
What is your budget. 1DMK4 will likely be in the $4,000+ range.
The 1D3 was $3999 last April '07 and street was lower than that. So it breaching $4,000 is unlikely especially if Nikon updates the D3 and lowers prices some more.
Having Nikon isn't all that bad. It eggs Canon along to do better.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Yes, the closer you are to the subject the less perceived DOF. That's a given. But it is my understanding that a stock focusing screen would show the proper DOF for an f/2.8 and smaller lens regardless of distance and actual DOF amount, whereas the same focusing screen would not show proper DOF for lenses larger than f/2.8 (I think the actual number is f/2.5?) regardless of distance. Am I wrong? I'd love to learn if so.
It's not about how small the DOF is. It's about accuracy of what you see vs. what you will capture.
Yohan, you are basically right, but bringing DOF into it just confuses these poor fellas.
PierreB wrote:
Although I haven't ordered one (yet), I agree with Chris here. I have a 1DMkII & a 1DsMkIII but sometimes I need better low light performance than they deliver. I often shoot in theatres with just the stage lighting so as long as the 7D delivers clean images at 1600 ISO that can be printed up to 18x24" then it will have a place in my PELI case until something better comes along. I have not seen any sample shots yet so I'll reserve judgement until I can test drive one but it certainly looks like it will do what I need.
RalphJ wrote:
I've seen several speculations in Nikon forums -- and not just at dpreview! -- that there won't be a 24mp D700x ("If you want 24mp, shell out $8K," Nikon says) but instead a D700v that's a refreshed 12mp D700 with video. It's all rumor, of course, but an interesting change in expectations if true.
ugh maybe they are both protecting eachother from the 'horrors' of having to release a D700x or 3D....
anyway certainly within 5 years its got to happen though maybe not if 6 months to a year.
Rob Whiting wrote:
I'm sure Canon has one in the works, either the 5DIII or the 3D (but that's a whole different rumor thread). You just have to wait for it to be released, or switch to Nikon if you can't wait
There is no way a 5D will have features like the 7D, if it did, then it makes the top 1D redundant and a poor investment. The 5D is a different market segment and will be kept separate. The 1D series will have , at the time of release , the best that Canon has at the time. The "problem" with digital is that it marches forward so the top tier ends up looking a little tired prior to the next generation.
veroman wrote:
I agree. It's a boring camera, one with all of the marketing features but only a few of the most meaningful features. What I want to see is a Canon crop camera with the DR of a Fuji S5 Pro. I want to see a Canon crop camera that will let me shoot at f/13-16. I want to see a Canon crop camera with no AA filter. I want to see a Canon crop camera that's totally weather-sealed. And I want to see a Canon crop camera with the build and handling of a Nikon D300s. (I also want to see a full frame Canon [non 1-Series] with the same build.)
If you're still bored by this evening John, go get yourself a drink or two at the Ocean Grill.
cogitech wrote:
But ignorance is bliss, so if you want to go on believing that S type screens are unimportant, then by all means...
And so it is, you should know Remember you are the minority, Canon doesn't care about you or the other 1% of photographers who shoot MF more often than not, They won't loose sleep, let alone sales, because you can't use it with a Canon branded focus screen with one specific camera designed for action photography. They didn't implement a 19 pt. AF system in the 7D so you can MF better.
veroman wrote:
I'm afraid that marketing plays a far more significant role in the development of these cameras than might otherwise be believed ... or that you WANT to believe.
I'm not suggesting that the real world performance of the new 7D is anything less than what you and others expect or have assumed. I am suggesting, though, that R&D, product development AND marketing pretty much work together at some point to develop a camera that people will purchase. If they don't, Canon doesn't make any money on it.
Do you think the term "Digic III" came from the engineers? Do you think that "Live View" and "Picture Styles" were the exclusive terrain of the product development department? It's often the marketing departments ... via focus groups and other methods of consumer feedback ... that make suggestions to product development about what might make the next generation of product viable.
I worked with many, many companies like Canon (including Apple, Alpine Car Audio, Mitsubishi and others) in an advertising and marketing advisory capacity and sat in on many meetings where product features were discussed and mulled over before any kind of final product was developed. More often than not, suggestions from marketing were incorporated into a final design. And for good reason: marketing is where the rubber meets the road. A product that doesn't meet the consumer's requirements (much less the photographer's requirements!) is a product doomed for either weak success or total failure.
The Fuji S3/S5 cameras are a good example. Fuji is apparently no longer in the DSLR business. Why? Because they focused on DR and let resolution slide backwards. The S5 Pro, as a good a camera as it is, remained a 6MP camera (interpolated to 12MP) with a very aggressive AA filter. The rest of the world, in the meantime, advanced to 10 and 12MP, which made both good technical sense and good marketing sense. Fuji left marketing out of their equation. The results speak for themselves.
and even more often marketing messes up teh specs compared to what it might have been otherwise. I've talked to tons of engineers sickened by what marketing has done (and some who lost tons of money when their companies stock plummeted after marketing's 'brilliant' suggestions). Marketing people usually don't know a heck of a lot about technology nor much about the art in using it (of course there are exceptions).
Just looked at the huge example files on robgalbraith.com. If I have this camera some of my female friend would hate me. It shows so much details! They'd hate that the photos shows their pores etc etc.
There's noise for sure but man that's a lot of details in even the ISO 3200 files.
hfillmore wrote:
I love everything I've read about this new cam, but the only reservation I have at this point is how diffraction limited this new sensor might be because of it's miniscule pixel size. I don't see this as any limitation whatsoever for sports and action, the arena for which the camera was built.
But for landscape photography, where DOF is so critical, it may be a limiting factor. Could there be something about the new sensor design that breaks the old diffraction rules? Hope so.
Harvey
Listen it won't do any worse, it can only do marginal better at f/16 and the liek and no, there is no way a basic sensor itself can break the rules of diffraction unless it can rewrite the way the universe runs.
All it means it that you won't see as big a difference between say 8MP and 18MP when stopped down a lot.
M Vers wrote:
And so it is, you should know Remember you are the minority, Canon doesn't care about you or the other 1% of photographers who shoot MF more often than not, They won't loose sleep, let alone sales, because you can't use it with a Canon branded focus screen with one specific camera designed for action photography. They didn't implement a 19 pt. AF system in the 7D so you can MF better.
Ahhh, so since I am in the minority, my opinion doesn't matter?
Balls!
The 40D, 5D, and all the 1-Series have an S type screen option. Many pro photographers consider this an essential option. The 7D, a pro-caliber camera, does not include this option because Canon preferred to add some stupid electronic overlay to show AF points and grid lines.
Now, tell me, if most buyers of this camera will use it for it's AF abilities, how many will be switching the AF points off?
If most buyers of this camera are sports and BIF shooters, how many of them need a bloody grid in their VF?
I think it is simply a case of Canon designers getting a big boner for the fancy new, half-baked overlay feature, then realizing "oops, how do we offer different screen options?" "Uhhh, we just won't, but we'll market it in such a way that people think it's really friggin' cool."
Remember you are the minority, Canon doesn't care about you or the other 1% of photographers who shoot MF more often than not, They won't loose sleep, let alone sales, because you can't use it with a Canon branded focus screen with one specific camera designed for action photography. They didn't implement a 19 pt. AF system in the 7D so you can MF better.