Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
- Thread starter pedro
- Start date
Aye, it just reads a little odd to me, perhaps because I'm used to seeing the smaller number followed by "effective pixels" rather than "CMOS"?
In my head it still reads like it's telling us "there are a total of 50.6mp on the CMOS sensor but you can resolve 53 of those 50.6!" - but that's just me then?
In my head it still reads like it's telling us "there are a total of 50.6mp on the CMOS sensor but you can resolve 53 of those 50.6!" - but that's just me then?
Upvote
0
I think the crop function will be useful for video. so unlike photo that probably will reduce the file size,
cropping the picture in video mode won't result in lost of size, so basically you'll get zoom ranges. as basically video only need e.g. 1920 1080 pixel where the actual photo that is available is way above that.
I remember vaugely there was a camera that have this function for video. meaning 100mm lens will be 160mm with the 1.6 crop in video mode.
cropping the picture in video mode won't result in lost of size, so basically you'll get zoom ranges. as basically video only need e.g. 1920 1080 pixel where the actual photo that is available is way above that.
I remember vaugely there was a camera that have this function for video. meaning 100mm lens will be 160mm with the 1.6 crop in video mode.
Upvote
0
weddingvideosydney said:
The 70D and a couple of the Rebels have a 100% crop mode (1 output pixel = 1 input pixel). The fact that not all of the cameras have this (notably the 7DII) is just crazy from Canon.
I doubt these crop modes will apply to video.
Upvote
0
Proshooter said:
If you don't mind losing a stop (shooting architecture, I reckon you won't) skip right past the 16-35 2.8 II and indulge in the 16-35/4 IS. Cheap(er) and bounds sharper - sharper than the 14mm/2.8 II. Or, skip that and wait for the 11-24/4 - given the recent releases Canon seems to be getting the new glass just right.
Cheers
Upvote
0
Re: FPS and Flash Sync Speed
Ambient light isn't a problem in my indoor setup. But 1/250 and slower is one of those limitations I've never understood why there hasn't been any progress in decades. I make do and usually end up shooting at 5.6 and up, but sometimes I want to shoot wide open (and yeah, sometimes it is a problem bringing the studio lights' level low enough for what I want).
privatebydesign said:
Ambient light isn't a problem in my indoor setup. But 1/250 and slower is one of those limitations I've never understood why there hasn't been any progress in decades. I make do and usually end up shooting at 5.6 and up, but sometimes I want to shoot wide open (and yeah, sometimes it is a problem bringing the studio lights' level low enough for what I want).
Upvote
0
Re: FPS and Flash Sync Speed
A variable ND filter will fix that. Unfortunately it can also make it quite difficult to see through the viewfinder depending on the strength.
shunsai said:
A variable ND filter will fix that. Unfortunately it can also make it quite difficult to see through the viewfinder depending on the strength.
Upvote
0
I'll toss a two stop ND on if need be but I'd prefer a higher sync speed regardless. I usually shoot at 1/125. I've had a few hit and miss at 1/180 on the 6D where my shot is catching the shutter at the bottom of the frame. Don't hVe that problem when I slow it down a half stop. Anyone else have this issue? Anyway, I'd rather a faster speed just to reduce the propensity for motion blur. Most shits come out tack sharp at 125 but occasionally I'll get some where the model moved etc... (Dancers posing I my case). Getting a clean 250 with no shutter roll in frame would be awesome. 500 even better. It's not always convenient to have your strobes be your shutter. Hoping the new DX will surprise us with something crazy here. I have two Buff Einsteins. You can control those things up and down 9 stops from 2 watts to 640. And I'd rather use the shutter speed and lights than having to resort to an ND filter anyway.
Upvote
0
Re: FPS and Flash Sync Speed
Yes but you'd get much shorter exposure times if you didn't use HSS and controlled the ambient, thereby relying on very short flash duration as your effective shutter speed. Which is very doable and was the point of my first comment about this.
ranplett said:
Yes but you'd get much shorter exposure times if you didn't use HSS and controlled the ambient, thereby relying on very short flash duration as your effective shutter speed. Which is very doable and was the point of my first comment about this.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
Outside I agree, in your own studio I don't.
I also have a couple of Einsteins, but when I do narrow dof product shots I often can't get them low enough without ND gelling them, particularly for snooted accents.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
That's essentially what I meant. Anywhere you don't have control of ambient lighting
Upvote
0
Re: FPS and Flash Sync Speed
It's a matter of travel speed of the moving parts of the shutter. From 1/250 downwards only a "slit" is traveling over the sensor for exposure. It's getting smaller for shorter exposures. (Think about a flat bed scanner as loose analogy.)
If you need shorter sync times go Mamiya - the go down to 1/800 or 1/1600 with leaf shutters.
Photo_e said:
It's a matter of travel speed of the moving parts of the shutter. From 1/250 downwards only a "slit" is traveling over the sensor for exposure. It's getting smaller for shorter exposures. (Think about a flat bed scanner as loose analogy.)
If you need shorter sync times go Mamiya - the go down to 1/800 or 1/1600 with leaf shutters.
Upvote
0
Re: FPS and Flash Sync Speed
Well if speedlights are being used I would say use hss but strobes are a different breed. Putting gels over the strobes would decrease the amount of light hitting the subject but at some point you would risk an amount of ambient light being introduced. This can create issues with blur and colour casts. Depends on the amount of light in the room. Also adding modifiers and bouncing the light will help reduce the amount of light on the subject. Of course this will also change the look of the image, so might not be an option.
ranplett said:
Well if speedlights are being used I would say use hss but strobes are a different breed. Putting gels over the strobes would decrease the amount of light hitting the subject but at some point you would risk an amount of ambient light being introduced. This can create issues with blur and colour casts. Depends on the amount of light in the room. Also adding modifiers and bouncing the light will help reduce the amount of light on the subject. Of course this will also change the look of the image, so might not be an option.
Upvote
0
Khufu said:
I think it must be a mistranslation and they must've meant 53MP total sensor with 50.6MP imaging.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
This is to do with flash duration not shutter speed. Unless you've introduced ambient light into your scene which is causing that blur. Some stobes have a long duration making them not as good as other higher end stobes.
Upvote
0
Re: FPS and Flash Sync Speed
Controlling ambient is pretty easy. I have a small home studio and the flash power is too high. I solved this by getting a lee ND filter system, but it makes it harder to focus as the view finder is dark, plus some introduce a color cast that needs to be corrected in post. The higher sync speed would've been cool to freeze action for strobes with a long flash duration, my profoto D1's are pretty good but they aren't the fastest. I just would've like to have see something better than 1/250 to push the tech forward in this area. They're pushing it forward in so many other areas.
privatebydesign said:
Controlling ambient is pretty easy. I have a small home studio and the flash power is too high. I solved this by getting a lee ND filter system, but it makes it harder to focus as the view finder is dark, plus some introduce a color cast that needs to be corrected in post. The higher sync speed would've been cool to freeze action for strobes with a long flash duration, my profoto D1's are pretty good but they aren't the fastest. I just would've like to have see something better than 1/250 to push the tech forward in this area. They're pushing it forward in so many other areas.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
My best guess is b/c if they'd decided they wanted a non-AA version, they decided to prioritize that. And it's better to remove the filter altogether than to have a canceling filter. At that point, it's more difficult to produce versions with and entirely without an AA filter, as the filter stack thickness changes, which means there'd be additional considerations in manufacturing and assembly.
This is my best guess as to why, for any particular model, companies don't introduce a model with, and without, an AA filter... instead they introduce one with a canceling filter.
In this implementation, the filter stack thickness remains the same. The AA version has two lowpass filters, one that 'separates' the image in a horizontal direction, and the other in the vertical direction. The AA canceling version has one that separates in the vertical direction, and one that combines in the vertical direction.
I may be wrong, that's just my guess. Anyone know any different?
Upvote
0
