Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]

« on: January 02, 2013, 06:37:54 PM »

Yes, diffraction is happening in the lens regardless of the sensor, but the advantage of the higher MP sensor is lost much easier to diffraction. If you have two cameras, one 20MP and the other 282MP, and shoot both with a lens set with its aperture smaller than f11, there will be no difference in resolution between the two. The higher MP body won't be worse - it just won't have any advantage. But shoot at f5.6 with a great lens, and the 282MP sensor will be able to resolve 70MP of detail while the 20MP sensor is limited to 20. So while 282MP clearly holds an advantage with a great lens in that particular scenario, why bother with 282MP? Isn't the cut off of where a FF sensor should ever go to somewhere around 70MP or below? And if its a video optimised sensor, 39.3MP seems like the ultimate destination for FF if video remains based on a multiple of 1080p (4k or 8k), even hundreds of years from now.

File sizes are a major concern when using these large sensors. As you said, the resolution of the D800 is too much, too soon for event shooters with current computers.

I was looking more into how far it is worth going based on the laws of physics, assuming sensor tech and storage/processing all continue improving, making these resolutions easy to capture and post process.

There are very sound arguments for up to 400mp, but with big caveats. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html

Going to the extremes of a 400MP FF sensor will allow you to see 400MP of beautiful blur up close when viewed at 100%, unless a lens exists to resolve 400MP of resolution at f2.3 and wider apertures. Having said that, software enhancements such as SmartDeblur, if further refined could turn those extra blurred pixels into meaningful detail:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/21/smartdeblur-does-science-fiction-esque-enhancing-on-blurry-photos/

I still reckon 20 odd MP is enough for most people, and 70MP without any artificial enhancement should be more than enough for any real life situation.

The article linked by privatebydesign indicates that raw engines overcome some of the diffraction limitations, otherwise surely a 7D sensor would have the same problem as the D800 and be noticeably impacted by diffraction after f/8?

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013

« on: January 01, 2013, 02:27:36 PM »

The 1Dsx will do for me provided Canon manage to leapfrog Nikons current world beating performance with the 800E. If they can achieve that, then I will be in heaven, if not, then its goodbye Canon. I'm not hanging about if they continue to produce cameras with noise and banding issues but with excessive ISO figures.

Having said that, my present 5DII is OK for the moment, so I would rather they spent more time getting it right than a rushed "knee jerk reaction".

Just interested, what do you think an $8,000+ 38+MP camera will do for you when you can currently live with a $1,300 21MP 5D MkII? What do you shoot now, and what do you do with your output that would necessitate such an upscale?

D800 has higher dynamic range and also more resolving capability. Does not infer you need the high MP, just some of the other features....

18

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: January 01, 2013, 02:17:54 PM »

How did this thread go from 500 vs. 600 to cropped sensor vs. FF?  He already have a 1DX and is not asking about 7D vs. 1DX plus 1.4X.

Err does it matter  ?

19

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: January 01, 2013, 02:16:57 PM »

I did a 'quick-and-dirty' test (static scene, not my ISO 12233-type chart) soon after getting the 600 II, comparing the 7D vs. 1D X + 1.4x.  The 1D X + TC was a little better at ISO 100 and a lot better at ISO 3200.

The original test was with the 100L, no extender. The point was to simply compare the crop sensor vs. cropping the FF image to match FoV.

Cool thank you.

20

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: January 01, 2013, 08:10:51 AM »

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

Probably not.  The reason I haven't been terribly motivated to set up the test is that I've done the test between the 7D and cropped 5DII (about 18 months ago, now), so I know the only difference is MP not IQ, and the 1D X is better than the 5DII for sensor IQ.  I assume the test with the 600 + 1.4x on both bodies would show the same, or an advantage to the 1D X at higher ISO. That test is less relevant now that the 1D X supports f/8 AF - not much difference in pixel-level magnification comparing 2x on FF to 1.4x on 1.6x crop.  I disagree with natureshots that the 7D + 1.4x will optically outperform the 1D X + 2x.  That might be true with a lesser lens, but the MkII supertele lenses just don't take that big an IQ hit from a TC, even a 2x (and keep in mind that the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800/5.6 for IQ).  As for AF, while the 7D's 19-points are very good, the center point of the 1D X is better.  But the real kicker is that most times I've been out shooting with the 600 II, my ISO has ranged from 1600 to 6400. The bottom of that range is ok on the 7D, but the top end just doesn't cut it on the 7D. 

For those reasons, I'm pretty sure the 7D gives me no advantage over the 1D X, other than a few more MP (and not really all that many more, comparing the 1.4x on the 7D to the 2X on the 1D X.

The question I suppose I'm really asking myself is, do I want to keep the 7D as a backup body?  Or should I take what I can get for it, now, and put that money toward a 24-70 II?

Backup body is frankly always worth it IMO, especially if you take any sort of "costly" trip where swapping / repairing a body is impossible...

But although I agree with what you have said, I also thought part of the point of the tests were to give the OP options on 500mm vs 600mm. Appreciate you don't have the 500mm but would it not be valid to compare 600mm with 1.4x to 600mm with 7D ie is the crop sensor better than a 1.4x converter or indeed 1Dx with 2x vs 7D? If the 7D with 1.4x was equal to 1Dx with 2x, then might that infer a 500mm with crop sensor could be a viable alternative to 600m / 1Dx. Appreciate the comments on AF and ISO and the OP has a 1Dx

On your original test - the 7D had the same IQ as the MK II, but "higher MP" based on FOV? Was that with extenders as well by chance?

21

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Non-Bayer arrays; how is Fuji the only one to have thought of this?

« on: December 31, 2012, 11:24:27 AM »

Or Canon.  Or panasonic.

We'll find out by the end of 2013 (assuming it is announced ahead of release)

22

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: December 31, 2012, 11:19:19 AM »

I'm really interested to see how a crop sensor can measure up to a FF on focal length limited applications.

Me too, and I've been planning to do such a test for a while, but haven't gotten to it yet.  Besides curiosity, I want to determine if there's a point in my keeping the 7D (other than purely as a backup camera).

Obviously not everybody has seen my comparisons yet, though I know Neuro has

These were shot to determine if I would gain any advantage with a 7D, I set it up in ideal conditions that very much favoured the crop camera. After seeing these I determined a 7D was a waste of my money although there are very good reasons for others to get one, however thinking you are getting extra resolution in focal length limited situations in real world shooting, ie, AF, IS, panning etc etc is not one of them.

Left hand image is full 1Ds MkIII image with 7D image from the same place with the same lens marked in red, right hand images are very tight over 100% crops, this equates to very sizable prints and from a couple of feet or so away I can't tell the difference in resolution. If you look closely the 7D does have more resolution (and noise), but I found in real world shooting situations that extra just wasn't realisable. Don't forget, in these two crops the 7D image has over twice as many pixels as the 1Ds MkIII image.

I may be missing the point, but I though the comparison requested was between a cropped sensor vs FF with an extender? Did your comparison include the extender on the 1Ds? Apols if it did.

23

EOS Bodies / Re: Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]

« on: December 31, 2012, 11:10:56 AM »

just a possible small fly in the ointment, which I wanted opinions on please...

http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Depth_of_Field,_Diffraction_and_the_Nikon_D800___D800E.html

The article indicates that with the large MP of the D800, your CoC is now closer 10 microns which means diffraction starts being noticeable sooner - at around F/8. So for the more knowledgeable on the forum please

• Is this correct?
• Is the inference that the 7D being of a similar pixel size has the same limits?
• Are we therefore assuming that for landscape photographers, any high MP body requires the use of focus stacking if you want to maximise perceived DOF?

ps I do use one of the iPhone Apps - OptimumCS, but have no affiliation to the author. Hope I have not infringed any posting guidelines, apols if I have...

24

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: December 30, 2012, 01:03:56 PM »

I was lucky enough to pick up a MK 1 IS 500mm in the USA back in 2007 when the dollar was 2:1 (GBP) and the MK 1 was under USD 7K. Never regretted it. I bought it over the 600mm based on cost. The MK II versions are sharper & lighter. Do I miss the extra 100mm ? Sometimes. I've done 8 safaris but alas 3 of them without the 500mm, and yes there are times the extra 100mm would have been nice, but there are solutions some of the time...

• Use extenders
• Use a crop sensor for better "effective" reach
• Use an operator who is allowed to get closer to the subject - private parks are often better
• Have patience, sometimes waiting a while offers significant rewards

Ultimately as mentioned, it depends on what you photograph, how you photograph and where you photograph as to whether the extra 100mm would benefit you. Personally the weight is not an issue on the type of trips I do with the lens, it tends to be in a vehicle and the only challenges I have are choosing the right airline with sensible hand luggage policies, or not trying to show @ check-in that there is 17KG on my back

Couple of other points - 1) Consider whether you current camera bag will cope and 2) Consider good insurance - a friend of mine was out shooting deer in Berlin, walked between hides with it slung over his shoulder still on the monopod, and dropped it... fortunately he still has a 600mm and an extra 5K to spend on his next body...

25

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Non-Bayer arrays; how is Fuji the only one to have thought of this?

« on: December 30, 2012, 12:38:18 PM »

interesting snippet from Luminous landscapes 2012 review....

"...within the next 18 months one of the major sensor and camera makers is going to release an advanced multi-layer sensor which bypasses the Foveon patents....."

Any guesses? Mine would be on Sony

26

Landscape / Re: Lower Antelope Canyon, Page Arizona

« on: December 15, 2012, 08:26:35 PM »

Great shot.  I live in Arizona (not near Page, though) and could fairly easily drive up there on a two day trip.  However, I have never been and likely never will for one reason.  Everyone I know who has gone in the last decade says that it is always full of photographers with tripods no matter when you go and you have to fight for a place to get a shot.  Just too popular and too small of a space.

Am I wrong about this?

I've been twice to Lower Canyon and thrice to the upper. Upper is indeed busier, especially in high season, but my most recent visits to both where Jan (2011) and Mar (2012) and you often had sections to yourself. Most people on the lower respect photographers and will happily wait the 20 secs of a long exposure! Time wise, you want the sun overhead to get best illumination to the bottom, but if you prefer more contrast then adjust accordingly.

Upper Canyon you have to do tours, Lower you can just drive up and park and do your own thing. The extended tour is certainly worth it. In March I went twice, and still never completed all of it. I also did the upper and the only down side is the guide makes the pace and suggests pictures. Lower is cheaper and although it does not have such wide openings as the lower, then does not quite have the same majesty as the upper does, but I find it more enjoyable.

Off season make sure you pack gloves etc - it really is quite cool down there, tripod of course and pack a wide angle and a mid-range zoom, spare battery...

For general info on other photographic opportunities, check out Laurent Martres Books...

27

EOS Bodies / Re: Memory Cards--What is the absolute best?

« on: December 11, 2012, 07:02:49 PM »

I have used SanDisc cards since I switched from film to digital cameras.  I shoot a 1Dx and a MKIV.....what is the absolute best card that I can put in my cameras?

Be careful on the 1D MK IV, SD speeds are indeed hampered by the controller (in the camera). So doesn't matter what card you put in beyond a 20MB/s card, you'll find no difference. Which means if you are writing to both then the SD is a "bottleneck"

Both the MK IV and the 1DX can do UDMA 7 in CF so the latest cards will give you the best performance. Of course this is more in terms of how quick the camera flushes to the memory card. I recently tried a 60MB/s CF vs 30MB/s on the MK IV and was pleasantly surprised by the difference 

Finally, you perhaps might want to consider trading off size of memory card vs speed. By this I mean I'm not happy with more than 8GB card for normal (16GB for sports nature) on the basis of how much data I am prepared to lose should a card fail. I've only had 1 CF fail - a transcend, which failed before I used it in anger (failed during soak testing)

Best therefore does depend, as mentioned, on your needs...

28

Video & Movie / Re: if you have 12 minutes to spare...

« on: November 25, 2012, 08:40:53 AM »

...you could watch this breathtaking short-film taken with 5d(markII?) and 7d (not the underwater and air footage though).

Sea Bites (english subtitles) on Vimeo
(you have to click on the link just under the video)

Breathtaking story, killer filmmaking about, probably, one of the most dangerous ways of living you can have.

enjoy
~paul

Paul, that was a worthywhile 10 minutes spent - thank you for sharing it with us all. I honestly didn't care what equipment was used, but the final results - wow.

29

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do that many people use Live View for pics primarily over normal Viewfinder?

« on: November 20, 2012, 06:20:55 PM »

Yup, concur with others. Manual focus for landscapes etc. I chose the hyperfocal distance and focus there at 10x magnification. Avoids AF hunt, avoids changing the lens / body position to focus. Allows simple composition - rules of thirds, and finally allows me to tune exposure in real time before I shoot (visually / using the RGB overlay)

For any "static" subjects, I'm not sure why I would *not* use LV

30

EOS Bodies / Re: February & March are Announcement Months for Canon [CR2]

« on: November 18, 2012, 05:15:01 AM »

A non-removable grip is a catastrophe for me, as it makes the camera not fit where I want it, and it makes it heavier and bigger than it needs to be for the 99% of the time I don't need a grip.  If you want a grip, buy a grip.  I never have, and I never plan to.  That's the beauty of a removable grip - those that want one can have one, those that don't aren't forced to have one.  This is one reason I'd never buy a 1D body.

The downsides to a removeable grip are that, when installed, there's a fair bit of flex (which results in additional vibration when mounting to a tripod), and the grip-body attachment has no weather sealing (that's at the battery compartment, and we all know electricity and water don't usually play nice).  The integrated grip is one reason I'm very glad I have a 1-series body.

Since I use a hand strap, simply taking the grip on and off is not something to be done frequently or on a whim.

Also, the accessory grips bulge out both in front and in back, whereas the integrated grip bulges in front only, exactly like the 'landscape' grip. That makes the 1-series more comfortable to hold vertically than a gripped non 1-series body, to me.

The 1-series should be built just like the 1V was - removable grip that's far better designed that the bottom-mounted removable grips of today.  It was good enough for the 1-series then, and to me it was better than the 1-series is now.

Wouldn't that cause problems with the dials on the 1Dx?

I'm an integrated grip guy and miss them if I go back to a 7D or 5D for all the reasons mentioned - balance, grip/size, controls. I frequently walk around all day just holding the 1Ds by the grip - I find them that comfortable and the extra size makes it easier. The extra balance is definitely a plus....

If they could make a 1 series removable with all the buttons n dials in the best position, then I am sure that would appeal to more people... guess that's another trade off