« on: February 16, 2014, 05:46:53 AM »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The 6D is a little cleaner at high ISO than the 1DX or the 5D3. I have the latter 2 and a colleague has the 6D and I can tell a noticeable difference in the noise apparent with 6D images. The 6D's 6400iso shots look very close to the 1DX at 4000iso.
I got tired of waiting for the 7DII to upgrade my 60D. So I just got the 5DIII. If the 7DII shoots 10fps, 61 point AF and has thr same sensor as the 70D. I would be tempted to get one. Because I cant afford the 1DX.
Well, I will keep on waiting...
Good luck with the 5D3!
Ahh ha ha ha. It couldn't have been any other way.
Too bad about the 5D4 not having all the capabilities of a pro APS-C and mid range Full Frame all wrapped up in one.
You never know, maybe it'll still come true.
I take about 78,000 pictures every year with my T3i. I read that entry-level DSLRs can take about 150,000 pictures. I have had mine for about two years. So, it may have taken over 150,000 pictures. Should I sell it and get a new one now?
In my opinion, you only sell your camera if fixing its shutter is worth more or near than selling it or if you upgrade substantially (like from APS-C to full frame or from a rebel type AF to a better AF due to a requirement). As I quote a Filipino photographer, Anthony Barlan,
"It’s not about how expensive your gear is, either. Good photographers could still take breath-taking pictures even with just their cell phones. Photography is about your creative use of your imagination, your ability to see a picture in your mind’s eye even before you capture it in your camera; it’s about your willingness to capture interesting subjects thru skills that you need to continuously work on. So always remember to “invest in your skills; not your gear”.
Some of his work here for inspiration...
Have the cameras not increased in pixels over the years? An increase in resolution is inevitable. Why do we fear that?
Does higher resolution not translate into better IQ? Why the resistance??
Unless you go to a larger sensor, higher resolution means smaller pixels. Based on many things I have read, smaller pixels often means a decrease in image quality at the pixel level. The compensation is that you have more pixels to try and compensate for that. I am not a pro, so keep that in mind, but I was an original Canon Digital Rebel owner (6 MP). At least twice over the years I felt that the newer Canon Rebels with more MP must be better, so I purchased and returned the 14 MP model, and then a few years later I rented and wasn't particularly impressed with the 18 MP model. At the level of detail I got on my monitor (where I normally view my pics) or printing up to 8 x 10 prints, the 6 MP camera was just fine. I did not do any in depth analysis, but more megapixels didn't improve things enough (or at all) in terms of IQ for me to replace my 6 MP 300D. Only recently did my 300D finally begin to have problems, so I replaced it with the 6D. Because of the larger sensor, the pixel size is almost the same as it was with my 300D - and the image quality is considerably better. So, at least based on my amateur experience, jamming more pixels into the same size sensor doesn't so as much in terms of improving IQ as would would expect.
Latest informationen from Canon Japan:
The new EOS 1 body will have two CF card slots (none of them are CFast slots).
Don´t expect a big megapixel camera or a medium format camera in 2014. But expect more than 18 megapixels, dual pixel tech., a bigger camera display and better IQ.
Canon Japan drop hints on future EOS 1 body? Seriously?
The CR Oracle (albeit with a rather low success rate) has spoken ... now it is for Canon to deliver.
BTW, Correct me if I'm wrong ... doesn't the current EOS-1DX have two CF card slots? so what is this "new" stuff are you talking about?
We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500 compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them.
Sales numbers, market share and profit, that’s what drives a company like Canon and there are no real indications that their current product range is hurting them in those areas so to them this is confirmation they made the right choices.
A new 5D next year? Don’t think so.
5D => 5DII 3 years;
5DII => 5DIII 3.5 years;
5DIII => 5DIV… 3 to 4 years probably.
So it will be well into 2015 and probably 2016 before we get a new 5D.
Agreed. I suspect we'll have a 5D IV announced late 2014, and delivered summer timeframe in 2015. Seems way too early to be getting the 5D III replacement.
I like Canon to take their time. As it has a positive effect on their next product tech wise. I won't be in the game for a 5DIV. The 5D3 still remains more camera than I ever can handle properly So as improved high ISOs beyond 25k are my main interest, I will be glad to see the 5DIV's specs which will kinda forecast what the 5DV will be based on. 1/2 a stop to a full stop better high ISO by 2018 would be a tremendous leap for the 5DV. Till then I am well equipped. Still working on my first 10k frames with the 5D3.
Just out of curiosity, when you say half a stop to a stop better high ISO...what do you mean by that? I'm sure Canon could simply add a native ISO 51200 or even native ISO 102400, without really changing anything.
That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a true two stops better performance than the current 5D III...not without significantly increasing pixel size, or increasing pixel size to some degree and maximizing Q.E. to nearly 100%. To achieve a literal reduction in noise by an actual full stop, one would need to either double the Q.E. (which would put it at 98%...so far, achieving Q.E. above 90% requires some significant and powerful cooling to keep the sensors at -80°C), or double the pixel area (which would require sensors with twice the pixel pitch, or four times the area...so pixels would jump from 6.25µm to 12.5µm...a megapixel count of about 5.5mp). Neither of these seem likely...the cooling isn't possible in a battery powered mobile package for Q.E. of over 90%, and the reduction in megapixel count to a mere 5.5mp would deter the majority of potential buyers (although I'm sure there are some low light fanatics who would absolutely LOVE to have a legitimate, low noise ISO 25600 and usable ISO 51200.)
Anyway...just curious what people mean, or think, when they ask for "two stops better high ISO performance". Are they just asking for two more stops of high ISO settings...or are they asking for two stops better noise performance at those higher ISO settings. The former is possible, the latter...probably not so much...not for a while for one stop better performance (we'll need either a radical breakthrough in circuit design and/or wafer materials...or incredibly efficient supercooling that fits into the area of a couple inches square), and two stops is probably impossible due to the physical nature of light and how it's handled by a sensor.