How cool is that?
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.
So, to not must have a crop as second body for better reach FF must currently have 46MP. They absolutely must fix this because I don't always want to carry a second body.
I'm new to digital photography so the following could be a stupid questions.
Are you talking about doing the crop in post to simulate the same effect of a crop sensor?
Also I read an interesting article the other day from a National Geographic photographer (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) saying that the 5d mark II sensor can capture more detail than the Canon L lens can give it, so would we really benefit from 46 MP with the current lenses?
Would Canon need to make new and more expensive lenses to take advantage of 46MP? I looked at the prices for some medium format camera lenses and they seem to be significantly more expensiveSince the only drawback of more pixels is file size and possibly frame rate, which both may be addressed in different ways, there is no reason to not fix this very severe problem.
Does ISO performance/sensitivity get sacrificed at the cost of higher pixel densities since the pixels are a lot smaller?
Yes, I'm talking about cropping myself.
The author of the article unfortunately don't know what he is talking about.
High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.
Damn it, I wanted to buy it this summer, but now I'll have to wait for the announcement and the delays - _ - I hate being well informed.
The rumors of updated supertele lenses (300/2.8 II, 400/2.8 II, 500/4 II and 600/4 II) showed up here in the first half of 2009. The 300/400 lenses were announced in August 2010, with availablilty 'in December'. They are still not available, and there is currently no estimate of when they will actually be available.
I've seen a few comments on here like, "I didn't buy x because of the rumor and now it's been months and I still don't see the new x," or "I sold my 24-70 f/2.8L because the version with IS was about to be released according to the rumors." There are comments like that last one from 2009.
The moral: if you want/need a currently available lens, buy it now. Don't wait based on a rumor.
Soon as the sun sets or you go inside, that extra stop makes all of the difference in the world. The 17-40 is a great lens, though. I had one and sold it after getting the 16-35mm. And I can guarantee if Canon or Nikon came out with a 2.0 or 1.8 16-35 at three or even four times the price, there's be plenty of people in line to buy it since even 2.8 can come up short.
Yes, but the same aperture, focal distance, and equivalent focal length will yield a shallower DOP with a FF sensor. Big distinction, since in your example would yield two different pictures in composition.The DOF is determined by aperture, focal length, and focal distance.
...and circle of confusion, which is why sensor size has an effect on DoF. At the same aperture, focal length, and focal distance, a FF sensor will have deeper DoF than a 1.6x crop sensor.
Honestly this was brought up in another forum, but the American dollar has taken a beating as well. Bodies are cheaper here in Canada then they are in the United States, but lenses are cheaper in the United States then in Canada.
I just don't like the attitude of some people, some people even asked if the equipment would be contaminated with Radiation!
So they're making more profit but more money isn't going to Canon?
Price gouging is rampant.
Before this all happened I was going to pick up an 85/1.8, was $419, now $599+. Big box retailers (BestBuy, etc.), followed closely by Canon direct have become the cheapest option for anything they have in stock.
One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.
For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?