Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

[Don Haines]

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

nobody qualified skill levels.... Pro's, amateurs, snapshooters, enthusiasts, and even (GASP!!!!) people with cell phones are photographers. nobody mentioned if they knew what they were doing or if they are any good at it....

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

nobody qualified skill levels.... Pro's, amateurs, snapshooters, enthusiasts, and even (GASP!!!!) people with cell phones are photographers. nobody mentioned if they knew what they were doing or if they are any good at it....

I would think that's part and parcel to the whole debate. I wouldn't consider anybody who snaps a shot as a "photographer" - just as I would not consider myself to be a "plumber" because I bought a wrench and replaced a gasket on my sink. Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table. Just as I would not consider myself an "auto technician" because I changed my oil by myself.

 

[Loswr]

Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table.

Damn. I just put together an IKEA table for the deck. Guess that means I'll have to cancel that business card order I placed.

 

[Don Haines]

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

nobody qualified skill levels.... Pro's, amateurs, snapshooters, enthusiasts, and even (GASP!!!!) people with cell phones are photographers. nobody mentioned if they knew what they were doing or if they are any good at it....

I would think that's part and parcel to the whole debate. I wouldn't consider anybody who snaps a shot as a "photographer" - just as I would not consider myself to be a "plumber" because I bought a wrench and replaced a gasket on my sink. Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table. Just as I would not consider myself an "auto technician" because I changed my oil by myself.

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

 

[ecka]

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

nobody qualified skill levels.... Pro's, amateurs, snapshooters, enthusiasts, and even (GASP!!!!) people with cell phones are photographers. nobody mentioned if they knew what they were doing or if they are any good at it....

I would think that's part and parcel to the whole debate. I wouldn't consider anybody who snaps a shot as a "photographer" - just as I would not consider myself to be a "plumber" because I bought a wrench and replaced a gasket on my sink. Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table. Just as I would not consider myself an "auto technician" because I changed my oil by myself.

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey ;D

 

[Don Haines]

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey ;D

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

 

[ecka]

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey ;D

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

That depends on a buyer, I guess.

P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro?

 

[David Hull]

So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will look at the rawfiles I can send them to you

I never said that there was no difference. Don't need raw files, I have looked at RAW files in the past.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey ;D

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

That depends on a buyer, I guess.

P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro?

And more importantly, why does sasquatches only live in US?

 

[David Hull]

So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will look at the rawfiles I can send them to you

Just out of curiosity, I set up a similar comparison on the DPR site and there is very little difference between the images. IMO, none of the three cameras (D800, 5DII and 5DIII) produces a decent image at 12800. All your test shows is that you can take two perfectly good cameras and make bad images with them and argue about which is worst. I would rather make two optimal images and compare that -- no rules; you can do whatever you want. That is, after all, how the equipment is actually used in real life.

 

[David Hull]

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey ;D

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

That depends on a buyer, I guess.

P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro?

And more importantly, why does sasquatches only live in US?

Taxes are lower.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey ;D

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

That depends on a buyer, I guess.

P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro?

And more importantly, why does sasquatches only live in US?

Taxes are lower.

Three we have it.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table.

Damn. I just put together an IKEA table for the deck. Guess that means I'll have to cancel that business card order I placed.

By all means, don't! I'm from Sweden and by birthright we can all certify foreigners for their IKEA skills. Consider yourself a certified table assembler... Congratulations

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

nobody qualified skill levels.... Pro's, amateurs, snapshooters, enthusiasts, and even (GASP!!!!) people with cell phones are photographers. nobody mentioned if they knew what they were doing or if they are any good at it....

I would think that's part and parcel to the whole debate. I wouldn't consider anybody who snaps a shot as a "photographer" - just as I would not consider myself to be a "plumber" because I bought a wrench and replaced a gasket on my sink. Just as I would not consider myself to be a "carpenter" because I put together a table. Just as I would not consider myself an "auto technician" because I changed my oil by myself.

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

To bring this back to the point -

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

I'll just say it like this

Yes, all photographers are consumers - but, some consumers just buy cameras - that doesn't necessarily make them photographers. Yeah yeah yeah its a nebulous term. But, many trades are learned by apprenticing. Like plumbing - you learn from a plumber...again, just because I buy a wrench and replace a gasket that doesn't make me a plumber. Just because you buy a camera and snap a few shots, that doesn't make you a photographer. That's the point the original person was making. It's a dividing line between those who are serious and willing to learn and those that buy it cause its fancy - the latter cares about what the specs really mean, the former says that # is bigger than the other so it must be better.

 

[ecka]

Right, because the majority of the people buying the cameras are consumers and not photographers.

ummmm....... ALL photographers are consumers, and all consumers who purchase cameras and take at least one picture are photographers.....

NO, those are just snapshooters ;D
The real photographer is a person who actually knows what he is doing
I've seen a monkey taking pictures of tourists, was it a photographer too?

I'll just say it like this

Yes, all photographers are consumers - but, some consumers just buy cameras - that doesn't necessarily make them photographers. Yeah yeah yeah its a nebulous term. But, many trades are learned by apprenticing. Like plumbing - you learn from a plumber...again, just because I buy a wrench and replace a gasket that doesn't make me a plumber. Just because you buy a camera and snap a few shots, that doesn't make you a photographer. That's the point the original person was making. It's a dividing line between those who are serious and willing to learn and those that buy it cause its fancy - the latter cares about what the specs really mean, the former says that # is bigger than the other so it must be better.

Exactly. There are cameras for non-photographers with shooting modes like "dog", "cat", "baby", "flower", "tree", "fireworks", etc.

 

[RocklandDragon]

So...any word on what's happenin' on April 23rd? Could it be the unveiling of the 70D or 7D Mark II?

 

[iKenndac]

Yes, all photographers are consumers - but, some consumers just buy cameras - that doesn't necessarily make them photographers. Yeah yeah yeah its a nebulous term. But, many trades are learned by apprenticing. Like plumbing - you learn from a plumber...again, just because I buy a wrench and replace a gasket that doesn't make me a plumber. Just because you buy a camera and snap a few shots, that doesn't make you a photographer. That's the point the original person was making. It's a dividing line between those who are serious and willing to learn and those that buy it cause its fancy - the latter cares about what the specs really mean, the former says that # is bigger than the other so it must be better.

Perhaps more succinctly: Just because you can write doesn't make you a writer.

 

[David Hull]

So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will look at the rawfiles I can send them to you

Just out of curiosity, I set up a similar comparison on the DPR site and there is very little difference between the images. IMO, none of the three cameras (D800, 5DII and 5DIII) produces a decent image at 12800. All your test shows is that you can take two perfectly good cameras and make bad images with them and argue about which is worst. I would rather make two optimal images and compare that -- no rules; you can do whatever you want. That is, after all, how the equipment is actually used in real life.

this is 5dmk3 and d800 at 25000iso
the resolution is higher from the nikon
as I have been writing earlier, Im surprised about the d800 high iso capability

To me, this makes more sense as it is closer to what I am used to seeing in comparisons I have made -- not that I spend a lot of time on such endeavors but I am curious like everyone else. I look at the two cameras from the images provided by the review sites, from the perspective of the measurement data on DxO, B. Claff, Sensorgen etc. and once you get the gain up so the low ISO read noise s out of the picture (pun intended, I guess), the images are comparable (IMO). Most of the time (in practice) I would never run it at 12800 anyway and as you dial it down closer to the reality of where I would run it, moves even closer, which was my real point. I am not surprised that the Nikon is that good, IMO, the measurement data says it should be.

 

[roguewave]

Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?

P-Mpix isn't a measure of resolution, although resolution is a contributing factor. Resolution ≠ sharpness. A true measure of spatial resolution involves a physical distance. Usual units are line pairs / mm (LP/mm). For a spatially normalized measure in LP/mm, the higher density sensor will outresolve the lower density sensor.

However, that's a per-unit basis - and that's not how we look at images. MTF50, a commonly used measure of sharpness, is reported in line pairs / picture height (LP/PH). In that case, the greater 'height' of a FF sensor means higher values. You can see that on photozone.de - when you compare a lens on FF vs. APS-C, the MTF50 values will be higher for the 5DII tests than the 50D tests, despite the higher pixel density of the 50D. This isn't just a numerical phenomenon - take a look at the TDP comparison of two 18 MP sensors, the 1D X vs. the 7D (same lens, the 200/2L IS at f/4). The 1D X is producing a noticeably sharper image.

P-Mpix isn't exactly measuring sharpness, either. It's basically a measure derived from subjective quality factor (SQF), which simply put is an MTF measurement that's adjusted to match human perception (the psychophysical basis is that humans percieve some spatial frequencies better than others, and viewing distance is relevant to perception of sharpness, too).

That difference you see in TDP's ISO 12233 crops can be measured by SQF, and that's basically what P-Mpix is telling you. For example, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II that delivers 22 P-Mpix on the 5DIII achieves only 14 P-Mpix on the 7D. In fact, the 300mm f/4L IS at $1400 delivers better perceived sharpness on the 5DIII than the $7000 supertele lens on the 7D.

Neuroanatomist, thank you for the reply. I believe I understand your explanation, but I think I am not making myself clear trying to communicate my point.

I agree that sensor size matters if we look at the whole image. In your example, 1D X and 7D have exactly the same number of pixels, but different pixel density. By spreading its pixels over 2.56 times larger area, 1D X is less demanding on the lens and resolves more LP for the same PH.

However, I am not trying to compare the final image in terms of FF vs crop sensors. Instead, I look at the per-unit resolution to show that a good lens should not be the limiting factor for a 22 MP FF sensor. Looking at Photozone.de APS-C tests with different lenses, there is often substantial improvement in LP / PH, going from 8 MP (350D) to 15 MP (50D). 350D with 2304 pixels per 14.8 mm height has vertical pixel density of 156 pixels / mm and 50D has 214 px / mm (3168 / 14.8 ). So, these lenses obviously do not limit the system at 156 px / mm, and can benefit from increasing the sensor density up to at least 214.

Now, 5DIII has 3840 vertical pixels per 24 mm, i.e. 160 px / mm - about the same as 350D. Doesn't that prove that another FF sensor with increased pixel density (more MP) would produce better overall resolution (LP / PH) without being limited by the lens? A FF sensor with the same pixel density as 50D would be 38 MP.

This post from Roger at Lensrentals seems to confirm my speculations. In short, it concludes that Nikon D800E with a good lens (Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ) out-resolves the 5D III with a great lens (Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II) and that the difference is bigger with the same lens (Tamron 24-70). While P-MPix, being a subjective QF, might not reflect the improvement (thank you for clarifying that), I originally wanted to make a point that a FF camera can benefit from more MP beyond 22 MP, even with the current lenses, contrary to your original claim.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

Of course, I understand that these are lab tests and these results may not be relevant in real shooting conditions. Also, they may be partially attributed to removing the AA filter.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Yes, all photographers are consumers - but, some consumers just buy cameras - that doesn't necessarily make them photographers. Yeah yeah yeah its a nebulous term. But, many trades are learned by apprenticing. Like plumbing - you learn from a plumber...again, just because I buy a wrench and replace a gasket that doesn't make me a plumber. Just because you buy a camera and snap a few shots, that doesn't make you a photographer. That's the point the original person was making. It's a dividing line between those who are serious and willing to learn and those that buy it cause its fancy - the latter cares about what the specs really mean, the former says that # is bigger than the other so it must be better.

Perhaps more succinctly: Just because you can write doesn't make you a writer.

+10000 --- TY, was searching for the right way to say this but skipped right over writing...