A Few 60D Specs [CR2]

[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.

 

[Rocky]

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.

How do you tune the 40D with the lens??? Is it doe by Canon??Thanks

 

[gkreis]

How do you tune the 40D with the lens??? Is it doe by Canon??Thanks

It is done by Canon. I discovered this when my Xsi took outstandingly crisp photos with the same lens that was very mediocre on my 40D. I researched on the web and found folks talking about. I sent the body and lens to Canon (the body was under warranty so they covered shipping and the procedure) and when it came back I was thrilled. It was just as sharp as the Xsi, perhaps even sharper. Then I knew that all those folks selling their lenses because they got a soft copy might just have needed Canon to do their magic...

Perhaps there is a way to get a good price on someone's soft lens... ;-)