Big Megapixel Camera in 2014

[dilbert]

...
I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.

You might as well take a high resolution video camera...

And indeed that is what various people used to do to get good action shots of animals: they used film to capture lots of frames to get the one they wanted and blow that up large.

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

I sincerely hope that you take all your photos in manual mode using manual focus and don't bother to look at exposure displays or anything else, because that would be like cheating.

Well I actually do use "M" for about 80% of my photographs, including indoor photographs, so go figure.

Burst mode is a tool, to help you in times where action happens too fast for you to react.

These are all tools to enhance your abilities and creativity. Only a fool ignores good tools.

Depends on your perspective. Lots of FPS is like saying you don't know if a good photograph will appear with what you're doing so you capture lots on the pretense that at least one will be what you want. I've seen lots of people do it - including those with large format cameras.

[dilbert]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

[Hobby Shooter]

...
I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.

You might as well take a high resolution video camera...

And indeed that is what various people used to do to get good action shots of animals: they used film to capture lots of frames to get the one they wanted and blow that up large.

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

I sincerely hope that you take all your photos in manual mode using manual focus and don't bother to look at exposure displays or anything else, because that would be like cheating.

Well I actually do use "M" for about 80% of my photographs, including indoor photographs, so go figure.

Burst mode is a tool, to help you in times where action happens too fast for you to react.

These are all tools to enhance your abilities and creativity. Only a fool ignores good tools.

Depends on your perspective. Lots of FPS is like saying you don't know if a good photograph will appear with what you're doing so you capture lots on the pretense that at least one will be what you want. I've seen lots of people do it - including those with large format cameras.

Maybe in your world. Without stating the obvious around sports photography I shoot some swim meets at my children's school. Taking the group picture afterwards with 20 or so worked up kids, burst is not a bad idea.

[Don Haines]

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

So does this mean that bracketing is bad because it lowers the keeper ratio?

Also, what's the higher ratio... 0/3 or 1/20?

[bdunbar79]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

And your point is being stated because?  What?  There are many shots I couldn't have gotten during fast-action basketball games, that I did get, simply because of fps.  I guess at the end of the day, who really cares when I got the shot and you didn't.  It's hard to print an 8x10 of something you don't have.

[jrista]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

I have been trying (and failing) to get some decent pictures of chikadee's in flight. Do you have any idea how freaking fast those tiny wings flap..... and they don't fly level..... it's flap like crazy and climb, then tuck the wings in and go ballistic.... then flap.. then ballistic. It has to be the hardest thing I have ever tried photographicly.... taking pictures of the ISS was childs play in comparison.

Hah! Indeed! Getting a good shot if a perching chickadee is a chore...those little twits never stop moving, even for an instant. Even my best shots of chickadees have some blur somewhere on the bird (even in long sequences if 16 or more with my 7D). You need very high shutter speeds to capture them in flight, and a proper flight setup is pretty much essential.

[dilbert]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

And your point is being stated because?  What?  There are many shots I couldn't have gotten during fast-action basketball games, that I did get, simply because of fps.  I guess at the end of the day, who really cares when I got the shot and you didn't.  It's hard to print an 8x10 of something you don't have.

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

[insanitybeard]

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

Not really. Do you have the money for a 1DC? I don't.

[Don Haines]

I have been trying (and failing) to get some decent pictures of chikadee's in flight. Do you have any idea how freaking fast those tiny wings flap..... and they don't fly level..... it's flap like crazy and climb, then tuck the wings in and go ballistic.... then flap.. then ballistic. It has to be the hardest thing I have ever tried photographicly.... taking pictures of the ISS was childs play in comparison.

Hah! Indeed! Getting a good shot if a perching chickadee is a chore...those little twits never stop moving, even for an instant. Even my best shots of chickadees have some blur somewhere on the bird (even in long sequences if 16 or more with my 7D). You need very high shutter speeds to capture them in flight, and a proper flight setup is pretty much essential.

We are getting way off topic here. I am going to start a thread under "Gear Talk - EOS Bodies for stills", called chikadees in flight. Could you explain a proper flight setup there?

[jrista]

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

You do realize how LOW 4k resolution is as far as still photography goes, right? Not everyone is just out to "get the snapshots" like you. To some of us, photography is the core of our being and the primary outlet for our artistic tendencies. I don't want to relegate myself to purposely softened 4k video at 8mp when I can have way better than 4k at 20, 22, 24, 36, or even 40-50 mp. I want the highest quality in the best-made STILL photography camera I can afford. If I can get 20-24mp of high quality pixels at 8-12fps, with a top-notch AF system, and ideal ergonomics, lenses, and other gear for STILL photography, I'm going to do just that.

Video is an entirely different thing, works in a different way, and is in no way a direct replacement for a still photography camera. You will never achieve the same level of quality at the same price point with a video camera as you can with a still camera.


It is quite clear you are just a troll at this point. You have no reasonable arguments, there is no basis for your arguments at all...there is no other logical conclusion other than that you are arguing the contrarian argument simply for the sake of being contrary. If that is the only way you can get your jollies off, to be frank, I pity you. There is more to life than digging lulz out of what you would consider hapless, easy targets on a Canon-dedicated forum. It is a no-win situation for you...terrible and often illogical arguments against a thoroughly aligned front of happy Canon fans... (Of course, as a troll, that is probably exactly where you want to be...so, I'm calling it quits.)

[bdunbar79]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

And your point is being stated because?  What?  There are many shots I couldn't have gotten during fast-action basketball games, that I did get, simply because of fps.  I guess at the end of the day, who really cares when I got the shot and you didn't.  It's hard to print an 8x10 of something you don't have.

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

I'm getting that you don't know what you're talking about.  At all.

[expatinasia]

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

It doesn't lower the keeper ratio, it gives you more keepers and can sometimes give you a headache in which to choose.

You can do the same with lower fps but then there is a certain amount of skill and luck involved, high fps removes some of the luck especially.

Take baseball or cricket or hockey or some such sport. The ball is moving at such speed that milliseconds count.

Ask anyone that shoots pro sports with a 1DX whether they would switch for a high megapixel camera with an fps of 6 and they would most likely laugh at you. High fps makes it easier and increases your chances of getting a perfect shot compared to a good or great shot.

And I have no idea about shooting in video mode or using a 1DC. Those file sizes are insane and you would have to shoot the entire game to make sure you do not miss anything, it would be a night mare. Plus there are a lot of very strict rules about taking moving pictures (video) at sporting events (even if you promise to later on take stills from it. But it does not matter sports=more fps please.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

But my second point which I meant to add on is that either shooter, skilled or not gets more better sports shots with 12fps than 4fps or a better AFing camera than a poor one, etc.

It doesn't just give more, it gives more better. At 4fps you basically get one key frame from most sports action sequences and if something gets blocked or goes weird with that frame or if an even more dramatic thing happened an instant later, forget it. At 6fps you might get two frames from around peak action time and if you are at 8fps you almost always get two key frames.

And with wildlife, maybe the bird hits the perch and is gone quickly and at 4fps you get all shots timed where it moved it's head or blinked eye or something bad and you get no good frames while at 6fps or 8fps maybe you get that one good frame.

[RLPhoto]

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 

[neuroanatomist]

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 

And a 135mm f/1.8L IS to go with it, right?