abqnmusa wrote:
Many people do not make prints. I certainly do not have enough wall space to print all my images. So what an image looks like on a website or the monitor is what matters.
That is true. ... BUT... The resolutions used are so small in comparison to the output of modern day DSLR\'s (and even P&S\'s). So noise considerations in relation to this argument are kind of BS, since the noise will hardly be visible anyway. Unless you view photos on your monitor at 100%... which is something only real pros do
Even in 2009 I do not conider ISO 1600 / 3200 / or above an ISO setting for serious use. Maybe for the grainy high speed film look.
I\'m only a serious amateur and my main viewing method is an Apple Cinema display or a 1080p LCD TV. I only make prints to give to friends. You are certainly right in that static full frame on full screen even my 4 MP G3 pictures look great. So why are more MP and high ISO important? Wildlife photos. (For others it may be sports or concert work.) To capture an active monkey in the trees of a rainy Costa Rican jungle takes all the ISO and resolution a camera has. I\'m pleased with what my 40D captured, but if the 7D can deliver a stop of noise improvement and a stop in resolution improvement along with its advertised AF improvement, it might be worth the upgrade.
One other image display method to consider... I have my Mac screen saver set up to display random images from my Pictures folder. The Ken Burns effect takes full advantage of your image\'s resolution by simultaneously scrolling and zooming on the image. It doesn\'t always work, scrolling in on someone\'s belt buckle, but when it scrolls across a well detailed landscape or zooms in on a sharply captured animal, you see things you haven\'t noticed before. Of course you can also find yourself being terribly critical of your own work and thinking that if you just had the 7D, all would be solved.
abqnmusa wrote:
Many people do not make prints. I certainly do not have enough wall space to print all my images. So what an image looks like on a website or the monitor is what matters.
That is true. ... BUT... The resolutions used are so small in comparison to the output of modern day DSLR\'s (and even P&S\'s). So noise considerations in relation to this argument are kind of BS, since the noise will hardly be visible anyway. Unless you view photos on your monitor at 100%... which is something only real pros do
Even in 2009 I do not conider ISO 1600 / 3200 / or above an ISO setting for serious use. Maybe for the grainy high speed film look.
Daan B wrote:
I\'m only a serious amateur and my main viewing method is an Apple Cinema display or a 1080p LCD TV. I only make prints to give to friends. You are certainly right in that static full frame on full screen even my 4 MP G3 pictures look great. So why are more MP and high ISO important? Wildlife photos. (For others it may be sports or concert work.) To capture an active monkey in the trees of a rainy Costa Rican jungle takes all the ISO and resolution a camera has. I\'m pleased with what my 40D captured, but if the 7D can deliver a stop of noise improvement and a stop in resolution improvement along with its advertised AF improvement, it might be worth the upgrade.
One other image display method to consider... I have my Mac screen saver set up to display random images from my Pictures folder. The Ken Burns effect takes full advantage of your image\'s resolution by simultaneously scrolling and zooming on the image. It doesn\'t always work, scrolling in on someone\'s belt buckle, but when it scrolls across a well detailed landscape or zooms in on a sharply captured animal, you see things you haven\'t noticed before. Of course you can also find yourself being terribly critical of your own work and thinking that if you just had the 7D, all would be solved.
abqnmusa wrote:
Many people do not make prints. I certainly do not have enough wall space to print all my images. So what an image looks like on a website or the monitor is what matters.
That is true. ... BUT... The resolutions used are so small in comparison to the output of modern day DSLR\'s (and even P&S\'s). So noise considerations in relation to this argument are kind of BS, since the noise will hardly be visible anyway. Unless you view photos on your monitor at 100%... which is something only real pros do
Even in 2009 I do not conider ISO 1600 / 3200 / or above an ISO setting for serious use. Maybe for the grainy high speed film look.
Daan B wrote:
I\'m only a serious amateur and my main viewing method is an Apple Cinema display or a 1080p LCD TV. I only make prints to give to friends. You are certainly right in that static full frame on full screen even my 4 MP G3 pictures look great. So why are more MP and high ISO important? Wildlife photos. (For others it may be sports or concert work.) To capture an active monkey in the trees of a rainy Costa Rican jungle takes all the ISO and resolution a camera has. I\'m pleased with what my 40D captured, but if the 7D can deliver a stop of noise improvement and a stop in resolution improvement along with its advertised AF improvement, it might be worth the upgrade.
One other image display method to consider... I have my Mac screen saver set up to display random images from my Pictures folder. The Ken Burns effect takes full advantage of your image\'s resolution by simultaneously scrolling and zooming on the image. It doesn\'t always work, scrolling in on someone\'s belt buckle, but when it scrolls across a well detailed landscape or zooms in on a sharply captured animal, you see things you haven\'t noticed before. Of course you can also find yourself being terribly critical of your own work and thinking that if you just had the 7D, all would be solved.
Daan B wrote: abqnmusa wrote:
Many people do not make prints. I certainly do not have enough wall space to print all my images. So what an image looks like on a website or the monitor is what matters.
That is true. ... BUT... The resolutions used are so small in comparison to the output of modern day DSLR\'s (and even P&S\'s). So noise considerations in relation to this argument are kind of BS, since the noise will hardly be visible anyway. Unless you view photos on your monitor at 100%... which is something only real pros do
Even in 2009 I do not conider ISO 1600 / 3200 / or above an ISO setting for serious use. Maybe for the grainy high speed film look.
I\'m only a serious amateur and my main viewing method is an Apple Cinema display or a 1080p LCD TV. I only make prints to give to friends. You are certainly right in that static full frame on full screen even my 4 MP G3 pictures look great. So why are more MP and high ISO important? Wildlife photos. (For others it may be sports or concert work.) To capture an active monkey in the trees of a rainy Costa Rican jungle takes all the ISO and resolution a camera has. I\'m pleased with what my 40D captured, but if the 7D can deliver a stop of noise improvement and a stop in resolution improvement along with its advertised AF improvement, it might be worth the upgrade.
One other image display method to consider... I have my Mac screen saver set up to display random images from my Pictures folder. The Ken Burns effect takes full advantage of your image\'s resolution by simultaneously scrolling and zooming on the image. It doesn\'t always work, scrolling in on someone\'s belt buckle, but when it scrolls across a well detailed landscape or zooms in on a sharply captured animal, you see things you haven\'t noticed before. Of course you can also find yourself being terribly critical of your own work and thinking that if you just had the 7D, all would be solved.
Oct 10, 2009 at 09:34 AM
Previous versions of Jeff Nolten's message #7623074 « Canon EOS 7D Master thread »
