A Few 60D Specs [CR2]

[that1guy]

Sounds awesome, thanks for the info you two.  Grendel, I will check out the links, Woody, I will check back for your photos.  Thanks again

[lol]

Getting fed up of the endless speculation on diffraction limiting without basis, I actually went and did a practical test on the 50D before the 7D was available. More on it here.

Thinking more, I overlooked one factor in that test... as I was relatively close the magnification should start to contribute:
   effective_aperture = physical_aperture * (1+magnification)
While I'm not 100% sure on the physics, the effective aperture value seems to impact the diffraction softening as opposed to the physical aperture value. Only something that becomes significant as the magnification increases so not something you would normally encounter.

[wuschba]

Wasn't today another possible "announcing-day" for the 60D?! Anything happening?

[visceralpsyche]

First spy photos are out:

http://bbs.kakaku.com/bbs/00490111139/SortID=11748888/ImageID=709823/

Looks like a significant change on the 50D!

HTH!

[match14]

Looks like a dissapointment then if these pictures are real.

Things missing that are on 50D are :-

C1 and C2 on the mode dial only C now

No picture style button

No multi controller for af point selection

Looks like most of these are to be done via the Q menu

Also buttons appear to be scattered around a bit.

[visceralpsyche]

No multi controller for af point selection

It looks like the back wheel has a smaller inner ring that might be the multi-controller and an outer ring which behaves like current generation bodies.

[match14]

Ah never saw that.  Also looks like a push button in the center of the mode dial.

[gkreis]

Do you feel like you can rely on 3200?  From the test shots I have seen in reviews, the noise begins to climb on that sensor quicker after 800 than I have seen with the 40D, 30D...

NOT true according to the RAW files here:
http://pixinfo.com/cikkek/dslr_evolution.3
with everything upscaled to 40 MP.

The 18 MP 7D/550D sensor trashes ALL older APS-C sensors from low to high ISO. That's why Nikon is going to release a 16 MP D90 update soon.

Even when the 7D RAW files are compared to the 1Ds3:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_7d_review.htm

"Surprisingly, the 7D is relatively good in this aspect. It is not as good as the 1DsIII, but the difference is small - I'd say about 0.5 stop - and it is a bit better than the 500D and 50D."

"The 7D seems to capture slightly more detail into highlights (even though it shows a slight magenta cast), while the 1DsIII captures a bit more detail in the shadows - but the differences are so small that in practice you won't see any real difference."

I guess this pixel density myth won't die till the 16 MP Nikon D95 is released.

Wrong. This idea doesn't take into account the inherent noise in the technology.

  http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/#Depth_of_Field_Myth

People like to point to photos that show the 7D doing just fine, BUT that is in well lit scenes.  When the light begins to drop -- when some of us photographers like to shoot or are forced to shoot -- the 7D's small pixels are a problem. There is no substitute for larger pixels, period, if you are looking for better dynamic range and reduced noise.  In the link above he explores the ideal pixel size (too few hurts images and too small hurts).  The 7D and 50D crossed the line for the APS-C.  I think a 13-14 megapixel APS-C is the sweet spot.  Nikon, if the rumors are true, is being dragged into this pixel war that is not helping us folks.

[lol]

Skimming through the clarkvision link, the author of that suggests 5 micron pixel spacing (I work that out to be around 13MP for crop sensor) is his optimum preference on the basis of a diffraction limited f/8 lens. If you pick a lower aperture as limit, then it would shift the peaks in the chart to smaller pixel pitch. Yes, it does mean if you use higher aperture values you wont get the maximum resolution possible from the sensor, but you wont get any less than if you had a low resolution sensor either. See also my earlier link where I did a practical example of diffraction effects. You don't need to fear the onset of diffraction softening. The author also appears to be targeting optimal pixel sharpness. That's a common failing of the low MP fan group who fail to see the bigger picture.

In practice, I'm often shooting in poor light and the Canon 7D is the best >1.5x crop sensor camera I have ever used particularly at high ISO, and it also beats two bigger sensor cameras I've owned too.

[mushin]

Not only that, but his example at the end of the article to "prove his point" really destroyed his credibility for me. One, you can't prove anything with an example (although you can certainly disprove something by providing a counter-example.) Two, he "shows" that photo-stacking to reduce noise doesn't work, when people have been successfully using that technique for quite a while (just go take a look at astrophotography sites.) In the end, all the example does is show that he doesn't know how to utilize the technique, he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about, or both.

[gkreis]

Skimming through the clarkvision link, the author of that suggests 5 micron pixel spacing (I work that out to be around 13MP for crop sensor) is his optimum preference on the basis of a diffraction limited f/8 lens. If you pick a lower aperture as limit, then it would shift the peaks in the chart to smaller pixel pitch. Yes, it does mean if you use higher aperture values you wont get the maximum resolution possible from the sensor, but you wont get any less than if you had a low resolution sensor either. See also my earlier link where I did a practical example of diffraction effects. You don't need to fear the onset of diffraction softening. The author also appears to be targeting optimal pixel sharpness. That's a common failing of the low MP fan group who fail to see the bigger picture.

In practice, I'm often shooting in poor light and the Canon 7D is the best >1.5x crop sensor camera I have ever used particularly at high ISO, and it also beats two bigger sensor cameras I've owned too.

Thanks for your feedback. I hope you are right....  because I don't see that I have an alternative. I am too deep into Canon and I can't justify a FF as a hobbyist. I will wait to see the 60D reviews, for sure, but I may have to just bite the bullet and buy it, hanging onto my 40D as a backup 2nd body.

[that1guy]

Not only that, but his example at the end of the article to "prove his point" really destroyed his credibility for me. One, you can't prove anything with an example (although you can certainly disprove something by providing a counter-example.) Two, he "shows" that photo-stacking to reduce noise doesn't work, when people have been successfully using that technique for quite a while (just go take a look at astrophotography sites.) In the end, all the example does is show that he doesn't know how to utilize the technique, he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about, or both.

I found the photo stacking thing to be a bit of a turn off myself.  I actually didn't read a ton more after I skimmed it quick and found that right off the bat.

The good news here for me is that I actually have a better understanding of not only diffraction itself, but what it means to my pictures.  Turns out I was half right and half wrong, and it was mostly because I was looking at it the wrong way a bit.  Feels good to have that cleared up in my head though

chrome_dude: If I were you, I would just think about getting rid of the 40D to help finance something else.  If you are just a hobbyist, I don't think that you need to keep a backup on hand.  Why not sell it now while it has some value and put the money into your next camera.  If the new one does break, you should be able to find a good 30D/40D/50D on craigslist (or locally) within a day or two for the same as you sold yours for (or less if it is a while before the new one breaks).  I actually take paid jobs on the side and I only have one body (of course, I don't shoot any weddings or events that are critical without borrowing or renting another body because that would be irresponsible). The majority of my work though is just small portrait sessions that could be re-scheduled if disaster struck.  Anyway, it was just a thought to help you finance that nice new purchase

[Inst]

Ehhh, more MP actually improves dynamic range to some extent by increasing total signal, although the D700 is significantly ahead of the 5D2 in DR. Remember, you're evaluating image quality, not pixel quality, so low quality pixels can be offset by simply having more of them.

Re: 15mp being the limit, whiners were complaining that 50D was worse than 40D and that 12mp was the limit for reasonable performance, and now Nikon is about to follow suit into 16mp. For FF, Nikon D3x at 24 mp actually outperformed 1Ds3 at 21mp, so it seems as though it's more a matter of technology than hard physical limitations.

Remember, on compacts, the G11 dropped back from the G10's 15 MP, but scaled up to APS-C formats pixel density would be equivalent to 70 MP.

[gkreis]

chrome_dude: If I were you, I would just think about getting rid of the 40D to help finance something else.  If you are just a hobbyist, I don't think that you need to keep a backup on hand.  Why not sell it now while it has some value and put the money into your next camera.  If the new one does break, you should be able to find a good 30D/40D/50D on craigslist (or locally) within a day or two for the same as you sold yours for (or less if it is a while before the new one breaks).  I actually take paid jobs on the side and I only have one body (of course, I don't shoot any weddings or events that are critical without borrowing or renting another body because that would be irresponsible). The majority of my work though is just small portrait sessions that could be re-scheduled if disaster struck.  Anyway, it was just a thought to help you finance that nice new purchase

My 40D body is now only worth about $500-$550 on eBay. Having had my 40D break on a trip, I realize how totally frustrated I would be without an instant replacement on an expensive trip.  Besides, why not have two lenses ready to go without swapping?

The biggest reason, however, to keep this body is all the work that has gone into tuning this body with my lenses. The difference in focus quality is dramatic and just buying a replacement 40D means all new tuning efforts AND who knows what I am getting problem wise in a used camera. (Not likely, I guess, but one more thing to consider.) I know my 40D's history...  and that is worth something, especially since I treat my cameras with extra care.

[Jan]

Ehhh, more MP actually improves dynamic range to some extent by increasing total signal, although the D700 is significantly ahead of the 5D2 in DR. Remember, you're evaluating image quality, not pixel quality, so low quality pixels can be offset by simply having more of them.

Concerning SNR, you're right, but DR range increases with increasing pixel size.