Messages

1636

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 06:23:33 PM »

Really, how many people are printing at sizes that require higher MP?  I understand that Canon has to compete with what others sell just to stay competitive, but that's because the consumer is buying their camera based on just MP.  How many of you ever shot with a 1V, 3, 7/7E, or even a Rebel?  Except for speed, AF, and weather sealing (OK the 1V offered a very primitive EXIF data), there was very little difference.  What I am trying to say is that the resultant picture was usually just as good regardless of the body (not the lens though).  I still have my 28-70, I have no plans on upgrading to the 24-70 much less anything that comes down the road.

Only when we do very large enlargements (bigger than 8x12, probably larger than 13x19) would we see a difference...and very few photo's get enlarged to that size.  Frankly, I don't have the money to afford the framing for all the enlargements that I would like.

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday.  Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes.  Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

I agree with your sentiments regarding skill... with my clients, most portraits, the sizes range from 8x10's to 11x14... Keep in mind, even with the 7D at 300dpi it's native size only pumps out a 17.5"x11.5".  While that's more than most people, and I know you can print at 240dpi and get slightly larger, it isn't as big as you would really think.  I also have clients that like 2 page spreads and their magazines are roughly letter paper sized and so you are looking at about 11x17 right there, plus needing enough for a bleed.  Lastly, on epsons you can get away with printing at lower DPI, however with commercial printers, they still require 300 DPI or they look crappy with the crappy CMYK color mode... As said before, I'd rather have the extra MP in my backpocket to shoot with as needed than need it and not have it.  PS.... this last spring a company going to a tradeshow wanted a mural shot for their tradeshow booth... It was at 10 feet wide by 8 feet tall... I only needed to shoot it at 72dpi because of the printer they were using for the booth... with the 7d vertically, I was able to shoot the mural in 7 photos overlapping a little each time and used photoshop to quickly stitch them together... I was able to produce an image at their resolution and size that required no interpolation and fractal enlargement you would need if shot with a lesser camera. 

1637

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 05:37:40 PM »

"Pro" sports photographers you see at races, games, etc I would bet you my paycheck came from a bigger company such as but not limited to magazines (espn, sports illustrated), newspapers, other media outlets that either has photographers on staff they send out to games/events whom they provide the gear for.. They usually also have press passes and access the typical photographer wouldn't have.  Pro photographers in those instances are the ones on the sidelines and wannabe's are in the stands with the camera security screened before letting them in the event. 

7D, in most events minus lets say indoor arena's or whatever with low low light, is more than adequate and has very nice IQ for most of my needs and my clients needs.  I do not claim to be a professional sports photographer, however when I get the request, I have had no problems using my 7D to shoot a 2 page spread magazine shot.  7D is not as poor IQ as you let on.

Personally I couldn't give a rip what you or any other person says about photography, but I just want to get out the truth, not the opinion of photography.  Crop sensors can hold their own if that's all you need and you dont need to sell your xxd or xxxd cameras for point and shoots if your willing to put in the time and energy to learn this craft.  Dont worry about hurting my feelings, however if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill.  That's all I'm getting at.   

1638

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 04:26:36 PM »

V8beast, case in point about your gear comments, I knew 2 photographers... one works on Hollywood movie posters and the other taking photos at airports... The airport photographer had to take some pictures of airplanes taking off on runways... He sat on the runway and took pictures of airliners as they charged at him.  He didn't shoot 1ds's or medium formats or such, he had this little point and shoot camera so when he got the picture he needed he can run off the runway.  The other Hollywood guy took the original photo for the "i am legend" movie poster with Will Smith with a point and shoot as well.  Not all pro's shoot with $4000-8000 gear...

I think you're missing the point. Given enough time and patience, and commitment to spending long hours in post processing, I can get the same shot with a 60D as I can with a 1DMKIV. Is it satisfying to get similar results with lesser equipment and chalk it up to superior technique? Absolutely. Unfortunately, time is a commodity that's rarely on your side for a busy pro photographer. As the adage goes, time is money, and if your photography tools enable you to get a job done more quickly and efficiently, you'll be able turn around a greater quantity of work in a shorter duration of time, and pay off the extra premium you paid for nicer equipment. I can see how it might be unimaginable for a hobbyist to spend three times as much for a 1Ds than for a 5DMKII, when the 5D can match the 1Ds in image quality, but working pros are almost always under time constraints. As such, a camera that just works and "doesn't get in your way" is just as important as image quality, and the 1Ds higher FPS and far superior AF just flat out crushes the 5D.

Let's say I'm covering a race and there's a wreck or a pivotal pass that needs to be captured to adequately cover the event. If luck is on your side, you can get away with a slow, portrait/studio oriented camera like a 5D. If you're really lucky, maybe even a point and shoot will work. However, the truth of the matter is that wrecks or passes like that happen in a few brief seconds, and you can't risk missing the shot of something that's only going to happen once. Plus, you're standing next to a half dozen photographers from magazines that compete directly with the magazine you're working for. If you're the only loser that doesn't get the shot, and all the competing magazines have it, you can bet your sweet hiney that your editor will be pissed. He could very well hire another photographer the next time around, so there's just too much at risk by limping around with lesser equipment. 

I've been cheap before, whether it's with glass or bodies, but every time I make the plunge and invest in nicer gear, I always ask myself why I didn't do it sooner. That's not to say that novices should go out and spend $20K in gear, only to wonder why their images suck, but their comes a point where you've maximized the potential of your equipment and no amount of practice or improvement in technique will make up for it. Granted it take a LONG time to get to that point, but with enough practice, everyone will get there.

I understand where you are coming from, however, in my experience as a working professional (making 100% of my income due to my photography), there are 4 groups of people who own and use these 1d series cameras in which you call "pro"... 1st... agencies who deal with high price clients and photographers working with said agencies (including newspapers, magazines, etc).  These are the creme of the crop photographers... 2nd... people who work freelance for newspapers/magazines/etc who negotiate prices for photographs which easily pays for said camera.  These are the photogs not good enough to be hired full time.  3rd... Hobbyists who need to have the latest and greatest, and lastly, those who are incredibly stupid with their money and cant compensate otherwise.  There are a lot of "working professionals" that dont fit within those categories that make due with what they have. 

I've always been taught to do everything possible to get it "right" in camera so post processing is at a minimal.  I am comfortable with post where I dont have to spend long on each photo if I royally screw up, but thankfully those are few and far between.  I wont lie and say I want the 7D AF in the new 5D MIII... however I feel the 7D AF is more than capable for 99% of all situations.  If I run into that 1% situation, I also, as a pro, have canon CPS to borrow cameras/lenses for when needed.  Lastly, I've shot several low light football games, air races, air shows, etc when I had my 30D, 50D's and it was rare I got missed focus.  If anything it was too slow shutter than anything else.  I feel its commentators such as you that make people feel that it's all about the gear and not about skill.  If you got the skill, you should get good photos off of any camera as you would with the $8000 cameras... It's just the $8000 cameras make it that much easier which has taken away some of the skill factor from many good photographers. 

1639

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 03:04:23 PM »

ok there's a lot of replies and stuff here. I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about so I'll try to rephrase some stuff.

Dxomark scales their lpmm values, so for APS-C they are not "true" lpmm, they're scaled to be directly comparable to fullframe. So yes, some EF-S lenses are sharper than fullframe lenses. Actually compact camera lenses are sharper than costly fullframe lenses, smaller lenses seems to be easier to make sharper. Problem is, with the smaller lenses the sensors are even smaller so the effective resolution becomes lower anyway. Still, a compact camera lens may resolve ~2um on the sensor while a sharp full-frame lens does ~5um.

About the need for megapixels. In handheld photography you most likely don't need more than ~12 megapixels, higher resolution will be lost due to camera shake or noise factors due to low light. High resolution is for tripod-mounted photography only, generally still life. The kind of stuff you use medium format cameras for if you can afford it. The talk about technical quality is not important the image content is what counts is of course relevant but there are many different types of photography. Some still life photography is dependent on high technical quality, and corner-to-corner sharpness can be important. But in for example portrait photography corner sharpness is almost irrelevant, but instead out of focus blur really important. But just because you have an interest in a type of photography that don't gain from extra resolution that does not mean that there are not others.

About diffraction. Yes it is a problem, that's why you in a high res system want tilt lenses so you can control depth of field so you can solve depth of field problems with larger apertures. That's why "old school" technical view cameras is still used by many professionals. There is one way to overcome diffraction though, which is through deconvolution in post-processing, already used in microscopy and to some extent in photography (mostly to combat lens softness today which generally is larger problem than diffraction currently, but diffraction is actually an easier problem to solve technically). We will probably see a lot more deconvolution in the future, perhaps directly in the camera. In a distant future you could use deconvolution to combat camera shake and thus increase hand-holding resolution past those practical 12 megapixels too.

Anyway, I currently see lens sharpness as a larger limiting factor than diffraction in terms of resolution.

About lens sharpness on full-frame. Yes for every increase in megapixels you'll get an increase in resolution. But current lens sharpness such as for the new TS-E 24mm II does seem to be good for say 25 - 30 megapixels. You would not get much extra real resolution in your prints going from 30 to 60 megapixels with that lens. Take a photo with a 7D and you'll see how the center portion of a 45 megapixel fullframe lens will perform.

As an interesting side fact, one could mention one of the most well-known considered super-sharp medium format digital wide angle lenses, the Rodenstock digital 23mm (costs about 5000 USD), it is said to be good for 5 um on the sensor, which means 34 megapixels for 35mm fullframe and about 90 megapixels for the largest medium format sensors.

Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z.  Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake?  Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup?  Tilt Shift to make up for DOF?  Are you kidding me?  Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days?  a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using!  Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it.  Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass.  Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.

1640

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 02:10:00 PM »

Once upon a time, Bill Gates allegedly said 640kByte RAM is enough for everyone. Not too long ago, the Olympus president said 12 Mpx is more than enough for everyone... see the similarity?

Once upon a time, people complained that there was no need for more powerful processors, Moore's Law will not persist in the next 5 years.. well, back to the future, Moore's Law held and processors kept packing more transistors with no signs of slowing down... And guess what? We kept finding new uses for all that processing power.

This is technology... with it, we are meant to overcome the shortcomings while improving the capabilities of our equipments. Without it, we are no different from our banana eating, tree swinging cousins.

Haven't anyone noticed the wonderful innovations that have gone into our sensor technologies. The Nokia N8 with its glorious 12mpx sensor will blow the old 2mpx sensors in my old Sony Ericsson phone out of the water in terms of noise performance and Drange. The BSI sensors will easily out do old 4mpx camera sensors in terms of DRange and noise performance. And the great 7D sensor with its gapless microlens and reduced photosite distance is a great break through in sensor design worth admiring.

So diffraction is a problem now? Is it an indication that lens design might be falling behind sensor design? Well, lens engineer go solve it... Is this a limitation with laws of Physics? Did they not say that microprocessor will face an inevitable limit with laws of Physics at xx nm and there is no way to go beyond? ... well, we are well into 20nm territory now and going strong....

So I say, go for 100 mpx... solve the issues, improve Noise Issues, improve DRange issues, innovate and make a better camera each year.

The issue of prioritizing Drange vs Mpx is a slightly more tricky one... However, if we look at the Fujifilm Super CCD technology which groups pixels into two groups, each taking the same scene at different brightness and then combining them to form a HDR image, it would seem like having more pixels might help your Drange after all. Back to my imaginary 100 mpx  sensor. I may be able to group them into four groups which capture a scene at 4 different exposure. I can then use these 4 sets of images to cancel out random noise and create a HDR photo. This would give me a glorious 25mpx HDR image which has very low noise...

So why is more megapixel bad?

+1

1641

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 02:09:24 PM »

V8beast, case in point about your gear comments, I knew 2 photographers... one works on Hollywood movie posters and the other taking photos at airports... The airport photographer had to take some pictures of airplanes taking off on runways... He sat on the runway and took pictures of airliners as they charged at him.  He didn't shoot 1ds's or medium formats or such, he had this little point and shoot camera so when he got the picture he needed he can run off the runway.  The other Hollywood guy took the original photo for the "i am legend" movie poster with Will Smith with a point and shoot as well.  Not all pro's shoot with $4000-8000 gear...

1642

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 02:00:05 PM »

The consumer market - people who buy the Rebel, 60D, 7D, etc. - are too fixated on megapixels for Canon to withdraw from the megapixel war. In the consumer market, megapixels are more about marketing than they are about image quality. On the other hand, in the pro market (1D and 1Ds) Canon seems to take a more practical approach by packing their bodies with the feature sets most useful to working professionals without packing the sensors with a boatload of megapixels just for the sake of marketing.

If you need to make a living with your camera, things like a fast AF, FPS, dynamic range, high ISO performance, weather sealing, dual card slots, and rugged build quality are more important than having a few extra megapixels to brag to your online buddies about. Otherwise, if megapixels were the only thing that mattered, why would anyone pay four times as much for a 21 megapixel 1Ds instead of just buying an 18 megapixel 7D for 1/4 the price? Of course, if you're a professional fashion, landscape or wedding photographer, you need all the  megapixels you can get, but no working pro in their right mind would shoot with a 1.6:1 sensor body over a full-frame body just because small-sensor camera has almost as many megapixels for a lot less money.

The bottom line is Canon gives pros what they need to get the job done, and Canon gives consumers what they think they need, but will rarely actually use in super high megapixel totals.     

Yes and No... I think you're glorifying "professional photographers" budgets a bit much... I know several wedding photographers making a living on a 7D/5D MII...  I'm a "professional" and shoot primarily 7D.  I shoot architecture/landscape/commercial and my photography shown on TV, the Olympics in Vancouver, on printed catalogs and flyers for companies sent internationally, however if I didn't think my gear couldn't do what I need it to do, I wouldn't be shooting with it.  Being "pro" isn't about gear as much as it is knowing what to do with your gear that you had.  Even since college I knew I didn't have a lot of money to play with so I bought what gear I could afford at that time (10D and a couple of lenses) and have incrementally upgraded as business picked up and my budget increased.  I could save up and budget for 1d this, 1ds that, however at the end of the day, 5D mark III is more within my crosshairs if and when it comes... Until then I will keep doing my "pro" work with my 7d. 

1643

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 01:00:54 PM »

Also, don't forget about Diffraction in the megapixel war.

To quote directly from The Digital Picture (he says the same thing for every camera review):

DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.
DLA does not mean that narrower apertures should not be used - it is simply the point where image sharpness begins to be compromised for increased DOF and longer exposures. And, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA than lower resolution sensors - until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture). The progression from sharp the soft is not an abrupt one - and the change from immediately prior models to new models is usually not dramatic.

the 7D (& 60/600/550) has the highest pixel density of any canon so far, and the DLA is f/6.8. I know you can't really tell that from f/11 for most things, but i like to keep my f/ below about f/8 wherever possible, except for really deep DOF landscapes. look at almost any review of any lens with any sensor at www.photozone.de, every MTF chart they produce starts tailing off at f/5.6 - f/11 too, depending on which camera for the exact spot.

edit: example: the TSE-24 ii is arguably one of the sharpest around these days. check out the www.photozone.de MTF Chart. Diffraction is already hitting it between f/5.6 and f/8 in the centre, and between f/8 and f/11 on the edges, and that's tested on a 5d2, with a DLA of f/10.3.


I don't know the exact formula for DLA, nor how badly diffraction affects the picture quality per f/stop past the DLA, but this is another limit we're going to reach sooner or later.
What happens when we reach a DLA of f/2.8? we simply can't pack more pixels in, there'd be no point for anything except wide-open for fast lenses, slow lenses would be pointless. Given that all but the best lenses are sharpest around f/4-5.6 these days, we'll need ever-widening apertures and sharpness wide-open to get anything better than we have now.

just take again the 7D, upscale the sensor with the same density to FF, we get (5184/22.3)*36.0 = 8268 and
(3456/14.9)*24 = 5566, giving a total of 46 megapixels for the same DLA on a Full Frame.
So we've got a bit of a way to go until then, but don't expect wonders once the 40+mp aps-c cameras start rolling in unless you've got fast lenses sharp from wide-open...

Dont forget diffraction isn't so much an issue with the camera per se but the cameras resolution showing the flaws within each lens, hence why each lens has their own breaking point.  Some of the older lenses 17-40, 16-35, 50mm 1.4 etc were created in the film days and were class leaders at that time.  As digital cameras grew and grew and started outresolving film and showing flaws in the lenses, canon has been upgrading lenses based (probably) on sales volume and demand hence the 16-35 mii, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II, etc...   While I slightly agree with neuro regarding the higher MP cameras the higher the lens total resolution, however i feel it isn't a direct linear curve reflecting the higher MP... The higher the resolution of the camera will degrade lenses.. some lenses will degrade quicker than other, however, it should be noted.  For instance a 28-80 will have a quicker degrade and quicker diffraction point than lets say a 24-105 or 24-70...

1644

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

« on: June 21, 2011, 10:08:25 AM »

There's just too much money involved with high MP... You're forgetting that storage is cheap but also Canon and Nikon are pushing the envelope on  what film could even resolve and produce.  10 years ago it would have been a photographers wet dream to be able to take a 35mm camera body and lens and pump out 16x20's and even larger and not have it look soft and grainy.  Now we can do that without batting an eye.  If you dont need it, dont use it and downsize or shoot at a lower setting.  Like fast primes, I would rather have them and not need them rather than need them and not have them...

1645

EOS Bodies / Re: Very interesting movie camera comparo...

« on: June 17, 2011, 06:19:11 PM »

I'm kinda shocked how well the 7D did compared to it's bigger brothers... In the usability tests, it easily bested the 5d mII and 1d4 in highlight detail and slightly edged both in shadow detail.  On paper it wouldn't suggest that the crop sensor is that good but damn.  Please post links when they come out with the 2nd and 3rd movie when they put them up.  Thanks

1646

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)

« on: June 16, 2011, 02:04:34 PM »

12 Megapixels is still a huge image. At 300 DPI, you can make a 40" by 26.6" print, which is still pretty huge. For me being a video guy, that's far more than adequate.

on the 7d at 18 MP it can natively print at 300 DPI you can print 17.5" x11.5"  To get a 40" print, on a 7D, you have to interpolate the print over 2x to get 300dpi 40".  I cringe at thinking what a 12MP would have to be upsampled to to reach 40" 

Since I always show my math (5184 pixels / 300 dpi = 17.28" L  and 3456 pixels / 300 dpi = 11.52).  Basically in essence you would get as good print results printing at 150 dpi to get than upsampling and have photoshop guess at the pixel information. 

1647

EOS Bodies / Re: A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

« on: June 16, 2011, 10:18:54 AM »

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new

Only to people who don't understand those media. Once you're past the "point and shoot"-stage you realize still and moving picture have only a few technicalities in common.
Like replacing a tool belt with a mutitool. Smalller, cheaper, it even has more functions, so it has got to be better!

That last is a VERY interesting  comment and I wish I'd come up with it. The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing. Me? I'm the exact opposite. I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well. So better for me would be a socket set, not the pair of molegrips others might choose.

That's a fair comment, however, lets look at it from Canon's perspective... Lets say (speaking of tools) they can build and sell a hammer for instance...  It can be the king of hammers and sell it at a 500% profit margin to costs to manufacture and lead the industry in hammers.  Now lets say they build a hammer thats not as good but also has ratchet attachments, bubble level, and ruler.  They put that at 3/4 the price of the top of the line hammer.  Which tool do you think will sell more to the general public?  Yes, the better hammer may sell better to pro contractors however to everyone else, the all-in-on will sell better and yield higher profits. 

Heck, even Nikon has figured this out and have geared their line up to tailor to video as well.  I think everything has their own place in the industry but like everything else for professionals, might as well adapt or you may get left behind competition. 

1648

EOS Bodies / Re: Movie Post Production

« on: June 15, 2011, 11:07:30 PM »

I will await reviews from the new Final Cut Pro to see if it really is everything it's claimed to be... Given the price and features it's said to have, it may be a no-brainer at a fraction the cost of the adobe suite.  Thanks for all your help guys! 

1649

EOS Bodies / Re: Movie Post Production

« on: June 15, 2011, 10:22:13 AM »

On the Windows side, you can also consider Avid Studio.

I have been using it with the 5D MkII video files without any problem. And the price is 1/10 of Final Cut.

Thanks for your suggestion, alas, for the last half decade, I have switched over to Macs and haven't looked back (often).  =)  I just got fed up with virus's and spyware and stability issues and computer crashes... (I even got an external drive to back up my files... my computer got a virus, backup hd got the virus, lost everything...  )  Anyways haven't had an issue since the move over.  If premiere is so much better than Final Cut, then I'll definitely give that a try.  Do i need to get the entire suite to do basic video editing or can I get away with just premiere? 

1650

United States / Re: where do you print?

« on: June 15, 2011, 10:17:51 AM »

As I stated in a prior post, my favorite commercial lab is Bayphoto.  They got options where you have them either use their techs to control the color, or if you have the image the way you want it (and everything is calibrated), they can print it as is (for cheaper).  They are a tad sharper prints than adorama and I have never had any complaints from my clients regarding their work.  While printing at home has the most control, after buying premium paper, inks, time, etc... to print in mass is just not as cost effective anymore at home.