I'm confused, Neuro. Are you calling me a troll?
I just want to confirm this, because, as you know, I've been on this forum for years. So, please, confirm it for me.
Canon executives say a lot more coming in 2019
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I just want to confirm this, because, as you know, I've been on this forum for years. So, please, confirm it for me.
My first digital camera was a not-quite-4-megapixel Casio that had a Canon lens. I printed a 13" x 19" picture of a shot I took with it in 2002 of the Grand Pacific Glacier (I think it is called) in Alaska. It looks great, even at closer than normal viewing distance. The subject matter helps, I'm sure. Otherwise on my walls are prints I've made on that size paper from shots from my G7X II and before that the S120.
My front room doubles as a guest room or a sitting room. The furniture has a kind of island motif. I decided that before I had guests in last summer I'd print some of the shots I had taken in Hawaii the previous December, to put on the walls in that room. I picked out four pictures that I had posted on line. I could find the original RAW files for three of them to use in preparing the print files. The fourth, it turned out, had been made with my iPhone 6S. (Rather than always syncing the G7X II to the phone for GPS, I'll occasionally just do a shot with the phone, and I can figure out where I was at the time that way.) It's a contrasty picture at a beach, so not the most difficult thing to shoot, but still, it is not obvious that it was made with a phone camera even at that size.
I prefer to have about 300 pixels per inch for inkjet printing, but 170 can give really decent results, as in your 24 x 36 example, more or less. Also, the bigger the print, the farther away you are likely to view it, so you don't need so much resolution. After all, nobody but The Beaver views billboards up close.
A long forum tenure and being a troll are certainly not mutually exclusive. Remember Mikael?
I think we reach a certain point where it is a diminish return for most photographers. 24-30 mpx should fulfill most photographers need. Most photographers aren't going to print large if at all. I only print large for my wedding clients. I'm sure there are few photographers that will benefit from such higher resolution monster, but they represent a niche. If the quality is unsatisfactory, I would use software to resize it.
I also use my living room to showcase my landscape and family pictures, but I try to limit only the best to be feature on high quality professional metal or acrylic on smaller size. At a much smaller print, 300 pixel/inch is easily achieve even with heavy cropping. I hate to clutter the wall too much.
60 mpx would be a workflow nightmare for 60 mpx from culling, editing, to storage (locals and cloud storage).
Last edited:
Debate requires a debate worthy opponent to start with. I don't see anyone worthy there. Sorry. Go and play in your fantasy world.
No, I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers actually had to pay attention to light instead of depending on DR and post-processing to rescue photos shot at poor angles with reference to the direction of the light.
I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.
I agree with this... as times and trends change, we learn to adapt and benefit from them. Those who don't, tend to get left behind.. I used to have a $200 Canon angle finder.. until I learned how useful a tilt flippy screen was and I don't even have to get my knees dirty. Heck, I don't even feel amateurish shooting this way anymore..
Thanks for the reminder. I still have one (although I bought it used for $50). Handy for macro shooting with my 1D X, although going forward I’ll be using my EOS R for that. Guess I should put the angle finder up for sale...
All that’s confused is your interpretation. The camera market is collapsing, driven mainly by the precipitous drop in compact camera sales. A few year ago there were three times as many compact cameras sold as ILCs. Then twice as many. Last year there were more ILCs sold than compact cameras. ILC sales are also contracting, mainly due to market saturation. A strategy to focus more on higher margin items is reasonable to maintain profits in a contracting market.
My first real camera is an Exakta II b. Waist level/ ground level view finder is standard view finder
It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.
If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.
There are definitely times when you want manual focus, or to manually set shutter speed, F stop, ISO, or whatever. That’s why almost all cameras have an M mode and most lenses have an AF ON/OFF switch..... but yeah, I really like the ability to go AUTO when you want. No such thing on my old Nikon or OM-1. Certainly not on a 4X5
Canon does some fancy things with their video sensors, but it's not really comparable to stills. they basically do HDR in the video stream to create a wider DR video capability.
As do I. Modern AF systems when used properly tend to perform better than even the best shooters could during the MF period. Just go back and critically examine some of the iconic sports/action photos from the second half of the 20th century.
To my eye there's still no comparison between an image shot using good light and one shot in poor light and then doctored in post, even when doctored by the best PS wizards.
Yes, one can make those shots that were taken in less than ideal light better now than one could in the past.
Yes, sometimes the only choices are between a shot using less than ideal light or no shot at all.
But there is still no substitute for an image that is captured when the lighting is right. Such an image also leaves a lot more room for what can be done with it in processing.
Yeah, I agree with that sentiment, you're not worth it- too much childish ignorance and not enough personality.
Actually, some people are still arguing the relevancy of 4K...which is how all that started.
Totally agree with you on the gist of your post- doesn't matter if the next Wes Anderson shoots something on dog crap, if it's amazing, the industry will overlook that point. But when you're in film business, you want to comply with the format requirements as much as possible, because they will look for ways to disqualify you...
Sometimes what is true for apples may not be true for oranges.
With transmissions, it all depends upon the application. Heavy commercial trucks with diesel engines and 9 to 18 speed non-synchronized transmissions can be shifted by a microprocessor (which also controls the throttle input to the engine during a shift) and servos. They will do better than the average or novice driver. But some of the most experienced drivers can still get better fuel mileage than the computer can, because not only do they know the torque, horsepower, and fuel efficiency curves of the engine, but they can also see things ahead, such an approaching hill or downgrade, or traffic signals a quarter mile away, that the computer can't factor into the equation. (They can also shift faster than the microprocessors are programmed to do). As systems become increasingly sophisticated, there will probably come a day when GPS and other data is incorporated into the shifting routine that will allow for approaching grades or traffic signals to be included in shift point decisions, but they are nowhere near there yet, even with the "autonomous" vehicles.
Or take anti-lock brakes. They can outperform the average driver using non-ABS brakes in stopping in less that ideal (or for some drivers, even in ideal) conditions. But the best race car drivers in the world can still outperform anti-lock brakes because they can anticipate the changing conditions of the road surface ahead before the tires begin to slip or stop slipping. Some can even modulate the brake application faster than generic ABS systems do.