- Status
Picsfor said:How many of us can play our favourite DOS game on a Windows 7 computer? (sorry, pre 1995 computer era for the children reading in)
Those children you mention are now in their early 20s.
Upvote
0
G
GND
Guest
@ wellfedCanuck
> What airplane is that from?
Boeing 757. GND coincides my name initials, George N.D.
There, it is. New rumor for a forthcoming 45Mp 5DX and a refined 5D3 at 22Mp (maybe similar to the 1DX gapless sensor). Have existing lens gear, go for the 45Mp or better stick to the 22Mp? Tricky.
Might be prudent to avoid ordering without first demo-ing each camera at the shop with the older lens, see the difference.
> What airplane is that from?
Boeing 757. GND coincides my name initials, George N.D.There, it is. New rumor for a forthcoming 45Mp 5DX and a refined 5D3 at 22Mp (maybe similar to the 1DX gapless sensor). Have existing lens gear, go for the 45Mp or better stick to the 22Mp? Tricky.
Might be prudent to avoid ordering without first demo-ing each camera at the shop with the older lens, see the difference.
Upvote
0
Hi,
I just wonder whether anyone notice that a 36MP DSLR (eg. Nikon D800) might face a very practical usability issue... the size of a 36MP RAW file and the time for a 75MB RAW file to write to the memory card. Even at the current highest write speed card of 100MB/s (assume the DSLR is able to write at maximum speed and a RAW file is 75MB), it'll took Nikon D800 3s to write 4 RAW files to the card and current price of high capacity, high speed CF card is not cheap.
Have a nice day.
I just wonder whether anyone notice that a 36MP DSLR (eg. Nikon D800) might face a very practical usability issue... the size of a 36MP RAW file and the time for a 75MB RAW file to write to the memory card. Even at the current highest write speed card of 100MB/s (assume the DSLR is able to write at maximum speed and a RAW file is 75MB), it'll took Nikon D800 3s to write 4 RAW files to the card and current price of high capacity, high speed CF card is not cheap.
Have a nice day.
Upvote
0
weixing said:
I think 75MB was the uncompressed format which noone uses, normal size is about half. Still I think it is a mistake by Nikon not to have sRAW and mRAW formats like Canon has. They still seem to think that people shoot only JPEG and design their cameras for that. They do have reduced size JPEG formats, but not RAW.
Reduced size RAW formats makes a high res camera more versatile and all-around. If I do hand-held high ISO action-packed high volume shooting I always use reduced size RAWs. Speeds up workflow and reduces disk space, without any impact on quality, since the shooting conditions won't allow getting max resolution anyway.
I imagine that D700 users that think 12 megapixels is more than enough for their shooting style are put off by D800 huge files. This would have been simply fixed by providing reduced size RAW formats. I'm sure D800 scaled down to 12 megapixels provides better image quality than D700.
Upvote
0
Looked familiar, but I've been Airbus for the past 10 years.GND said:@ wellfedCanuck
> What airplane is that from?
Upvote
0
Outresolving a lens... I asked this 3 months ago and was reassured that this is never gonna happen under 40 MP. Well, if we follow the pace of Canon EF updates and improved optics then there is for sure another advice:
1. There will be a 40+MP EOS soon
2. The current EF line will look awkward on it
1+2= 3 : 40+MP users will need deep pockets for lens upgrades - as usual Canon sells only lenses matching best the current bodies. The next generation of bodies needs a lens upgrade to get the maximum sharpness.
I think that the centre of the lens will be difficult to out-resolve up to 60MP (amateur opinion = uneducated guess) but the corners are gone fishin' already on the 5D2. You can't say "a 7D at 18 MP croper has no issues - this sensor does not see the corners of the non-EF-S lenses at all.
But as we all know - "sharpness is a mere bourgeois prejudice". Who cares about the FF-corners except lunatic landscape-ists.
1. There will be a 40+MP EOS soon
2. The current EF line will look awkward on it
1+2= 3 : 40+MP users will need deep pockets for lens upgrades - as usual Canon sells only lenses matching best the current bodies. The next generation of bodies needs a lens upgrade to get the maximum sharpness.
I think that the centre of the lens will be difficult to out-resolve up to 60MP (amateur opinion = uneducated guess) but the corners are gone fishin' already on the 5D2. You can't say "a 7D at 18 MP croper has no issues - this sensor does not see the corners of the non-EF-S lenses at all.
But as we all know - "sharpness is a mere bourgeois prejudice". Who cares about the FF-corners
except lunatic landscape-ists.
Upvote
0
G
GND
Guest
Exactly. I think checking lens MTF charts shall be a good hint. The lower the curves off-centre the likely to fail at the edges at very high Mps (FF sensor). There is a built-in correction for light fall-off in the EOS line but resolution is a different animal. I trust the forum's reassurance though.
Upvote
0
pdirestajr said:Here is a shot using an old Nikkor 24 f/2 Ai-S lens on my 7D. I think this lens is from the 70's-80's? Her eye and some hair are pretty sharp considering there was no focus confirmation, lens is manual and the DOF was super shallow (I was sitting really close to her @f2.8.). Oh and she doesn't stop moving!
This image is also saved down pretty low res for web. And the lens is totally beaten up with tons of scratches over the front element...
Great pics pdirestajr, you should share them in the Canon Body Nikon Glass thread!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Picsfor said:
I'd like to see the shots and/or learn more about the method you used to make this comparison and conclude that the 5DII is outresolving the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I trust that you realize the pixel density of the 5DII and 30D are the same, and that the pixel density of the 40D is actually higher than the 5DII.
Upvote
0
ions said:pdirestajr said:Here is a shot using an old Nikkor 24 f/2 Ai-S lens on my 7D. I think this lens is from the 70's-80's? Her eye and some hair are pretty sharp considering there was no focus confirmation, lens is manual and the DOF was super shallow (I was sitting really close to her @f2.8.). Oh and she doesn't stop moving!
This image is also saved down pretty low res for web. And the lens is totally beaten up with tons of scratches over the front element...
Great pics pdirestajr, you should share them in the Canon Body Nikon Glass thread!
Thanks! I will
Upvote
0
"outresolving the lens" is rather subjective thing.
Even if image degradation is evident due to limitations in resolving power, one will get still a little more resolution out of the system if sensor pixel count is increased further.
So it's all about when we reach the point when adding more pixels gives diminishing returns, and that is subjective indeed.
One extreme is that if we see evidence of resolution loss in corners of the cheapest lenses wide-open then we have reached that point, the other extreme is only to look at the sharpest lenses at ideal apertures in the center and accept rather soft pixels there.
In any way you see it, it is subjective. I think the point-of-diminishing returns is around 55-60 megapixels, a guess based on what I see on the 7D and dropoff on the 5D.
Even if image degradation is evident due to limitations in resolving power, one will get still a little more resolution out of the system if sensor pixel count is increased further.
So it's all about when we reach the point when adding more pixels gives diminishing returns, and that is subjective indeed.
One extreme is that if we see evidence of resolution loss in corners of the cheapest lenses wide-open then we have reached that point, the other extreme is only to look at the sharpest lenses at ideal apertures in the center and accept rather soft pixels there.
In any way you see it, it is subjective. I think the point-of-diminishing returns is around 55-60 megapixels, a guess based on what I see on the 7D and dropoff on the 5D.
Upvote
0
When digital came out the purists cried that it would never match 35mm film, but here we are —at the opposite end of the problem.
Upvote
0
Daniel Flather said:
You know, this is odd... When people used film, it had an impressive tonal range, but in actuality, you only had so many ways to display your pictures... either on slides (on a wall with people at an appreciable distance away) or on print... but paper did not have the DR latitude of the film, and even at that, on negatives, the grain was always at a point where you had a catch 22 where you typically printed the 35mm film at 8x10 or smaller. On occasion you printed an 11x14 or larger but that was pushing the limits and you expected some image degradation of some sort and some pros would counter that by putting those pics on canvas or such. In the digital age, the best film was rated as roughly 24MP, but with printers, there's no appreciable difference between a DPI of 300 and 800 unless you really use a microscope and that is questionable at that... so now you have the 21MP 5d2, which is pretty darn close to the top film resolutions and since it cannot get any more appreciable resolution and we're stuck at 300 DPI, you now get a native 13x19 and can interpolate it even bigger... On one hand I think what much more do you really want/need/expect out of a 35mm source, a source which on film maxed out at 8x10's, but then again if it can pump more out with minimal loss of IQ, then...
Upvote
0
GND said:
This seems like a larger problem that people are making out to me considering a large part of the market for 36 megapixel is going to be landscape and other uses where edge to egde sharpness is desired. Alot of the non specialised lenses people use for landscape like the 17-40 and 24-105 already have problems with boarder sharpness at 21 MP.
I wonder if this is the main reason for the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8 IS's? perhaps Canon are antcipating that there current wide zooms are going to be found wanting for landscape shooting on a high megapixel camera so have designed these primes to allow those on a budget to fully exploit such a camera? would seem to explain why the appatures are relatively modest and why they have IS, the MTF's seem to suggest both will have strong boarder performance stopped down.
Upvote
0
G
GND
Guest
The way I see it IS on wide angle lenses has marketing value only for the video mode. Say, in the new 24/2.8 IS hand-held camera shake occurs under 1/24sec. Four-stop IS gives you the opportunity to shoot what, 1/2sec or slightly lower? Such slow speeds are deliberately used for streaming lights, or water flow, you don't use a stabilizer for that. Sure I guess there might be a chance to take advantage of IS in a narrow apperture situation (say, f/11-16), nobody sees this as an issue. On the other hand on video means you move (pan), you may need the IS continuously working. So, Canon just combines the two worlds still and video. It makes sense all EF series to be equipped with IS now that it's affordable. For still photography shooters it's just adapting to demands of a broader, different target group.
Upvote
0
To sum it up - let's first get the 40+MP DSLR (if at all) and we'll start worrying only AFTER that. Will be an interesting testing season. I am curious what the field test and real life tests of the D800 will tell us about the practicability of a high-resolution body.
Upvote
0
GND said:
Umm...you can't do video at 1/2sec shutter speed. That'd give you 2 frames per second. But, what IS can do, is reduce hand-held shake at 1/25sec or 1/30sec with 4 stop to make it look more like something more like the frame rate is 1/100sec or faster. Less wobble in the video without a tripod.
Also, as you said, panning can be improved, especially with the newer cameras that reduce/remove the hated moire effect and jello effect during panning.
Upvote
0
- Status
