The Canon camera is way, way better. Yes, I know they are still both a dream in the eyes of the faithful, and perhaps some pre-production models, but the Canon one is better!
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.
I just bought a 5DII since I got tired of waiting for a MkIII, but I would upgrade in a flash if it had at least some of first few of the following. Actually, the first 4 are could probably be done in a firmware upgrade, which I would be happy to pay $500-$1000 for.
Expose-to-the-right setting where you set the amount of clipping of highlights
Pixel binning so I can shoot 10MP at ISO6400 and get similar noise to ISO 1600
mproved live-view/playback functions :
- Direct x10 magnification (and/or zoom into) of actual focus point in image playback (might be difficult
when using phase-detect AF and re-composing, but for contrast-detect it should be fine).
- DOF lock (so I donâ€™t have to keep it pressed down while scanning the image or changing the aperture)
- Ability to zoom in to edges of frame
- Screen brightness lock when DOF preview button is pressed (since I have to use manual exposure because the matrix metering sucks, even on a tripod). Iâ€™m not sure why I need the screen brightness to change when changing the aperture while pressing the DOF button and I already had the brightness on exposure simulation.
- Faster contrast detect AF
3,5,7 shot autobracket +/- 3 stops +/-2 on either end
9-11 cross point AF, better Al-Servo. I havenâ€™t used the AF on the 7D, but is seems more complicated than I need, but just copying that could be fine. F8 for the center AF point would be a dream (70-200 f4 + x2 tele).
Better and more consistent matrix metering. OK, Iâ€™ve only had the camera 1 month, but it seems very inconsistent compared to my T1i. Even on a tripod or in very similar lighting. I could write an essay on this but now I know why it seems many people shoot in manual with this camera and although it has honed my manual exposure skills over the last month it is a pain sometimes (especially when changing the aperture using DOF preview in live mode). This could also be a function of the increased dynamic range over the T1i, in which case the â€˜Expose-to-the-rightâ€™ metering will be even more valuable if the DR is increased without going to 16bits.
Keep the MP in the 21-26 range and increase DR and reduce high ISO noise. IMO you are not going to get a 36MP camera with the same DR and high ISO IQ as you have now. Something fundamental needs to happen with sensor technology for this to happen which is why the 1Dx only has 18MP. (Or they could keep cheating on the ISO ratings â€“ they are already 2/3 stop lower than my T1i for instance).
Focus point distance readout (for setting hyperfocal distance or judging optimal focal distance for landscapes)
Inbuilt wireless flash control
1, 3 or 6 fps (not 1 or 6 â€“ too much difference)
Timer on LCD in bulb mode (so I can see exposure time in the dark)
Create new folder for each day
Movie mode on main dial. I don't use it much, but have to have it turned off because I use live-view a lot and don't want to start recording if I hit 'set'. Going into the menu's to use the video is a bit of a pain, but overall as long as it doesn't interfere with still shooting, I'm not too bothered.
Used 500D might be an option.
My son was on a bridge camera when I was on a 40D
Indeed, a good idea. My little brother (a teen) has an old XT he uses... He hasn't killed it yet... Though he did manage to kill my 70-200!
How'd your parents take it when you killed him?
... 85-300 f4 (THEY USED TO MAKE ONE!!! )? ...
Yes, but only in FD/nFD mount and f/4.5 (not f/4)
new FD 85-300mm f/4.5
FD 85-300mm f/4.5 S.S.C.
They weighed 1.6 and 1.8 kg (3.5 and 4.0 lbs), respectively.
And there's also the 1.85 kg FL mount 85-300mm f/5
For comparison the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L weighs 1.67 kg, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L weighs 1.36 kg, and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II weighs 1.49 kg. I'm sure modern plastics and metals would bring the weight down, but it is still going to be a very large and heavy lens. Honestly, with the 200-400 f/4 1.4x in the future and the great 70-300mm f/4-5.6L available now, I can't see a lens like that being resurrected.
Here's a serious lens...
For a 20x24" large format film, in 35mm Full Frame terms, it frames like a 65mm f/1.3 (or 40mm f/0.8 on a 7D), and that's only the f/22 version, me wanty the f/14...
Used 500D might be an option.
My son was on a bridge camera when I was on a 40D
Or, how about: "Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that APS-H is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive." (Miracle Max in The Princess Bride, sort of...)I really like the ASP-C because of the reach it gives me... if they would put asp-c in a 1D body...
Exactly what I'm hoping for...but they can wait a year or so, until my gear fund recovers from the 1D X, and I'm looking to replace the 7D after experiencing 1-series AF for a while...
Or, how about: "Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that APS-H is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive." (Miracle Max in The Princess Bride, sort of...)
Cant say I've ever seen princess bride [/crickets chirping]... anyways I understand the aps-c vs aps-h in terms of slightly bigger sensor, better IQ, but one of the tradeoff's for APS-C is the ability to use APS-C lenses and line up and reach... Especially since Canon has obviously shown a desire to develop this clientele and sensor size with lenses, I cant see canon abandoning that unless they make it so the lenses work on that style camera...
The H-sensor is dead. It's an anachronism. It existed because there wasn't enough horsepower under the hood to drive a full-frame sports camera.
That's just not really true at all is it? People keep saying this like FF vs. APS-H has anything to do with "horsepower" as in computing power. Canon had 35mm SLRs that shot 10 fps so it wasn't a mechanics were fine. So, they didn't have the computing power to throw 11.6mp around at 10fps when the 1Ds first came out. But that has nothing to do with the FF sensor. And the APS-H sensor of the 1D line wasn't the reason it could shoot 8.5 and 10fps.
APS-H has it's place and I would love to see it used again in a figure camera. It's a good balance of crop, IQ, and getting to use lenses closer to their intended focal length.
It's not really 'horsepower' in the sense of data throughput. From that standpoint, 18 MP is 18 MP, whether it's from APS-C or -H or FF, it's the same amount of data. However, where size matters is in clearing the data from the CMOS sensor itself, which must be 'flushed' after each capture (I recall a firmware update for a camera that fixed 'ghost images' which resulted from incompletely flushing the sensor). That may have been a limiting factor in achieving high frame rates with FF that technology has solved.
APS-H was a compromise sensor - for some, the best compromise of some crop factor for extra reach with better IQ, for others, a poor compromise between not enough reach and not good enough IQ, with the added problem of a lack of ultrawide capability with available lenses.
Fundamentally, though, I think the real reason we had an APS-H sensor was rooted in the sensor production process. Why that size, and not some other size? Because at the time, the APS-H size was the largest dimension that could be imaged onto a silicon wafer in a single pass - FF sensors required 3 passes, which substantially increased production costs (not so much the cost of the passes, but rather the increased QC failure rate resulting from multiple passes). Today, I believe that FF sensors no longer require 3 passes (perhaps 2 or even 1), and that factor is contributing to the deprioritizing of the APS-H format.