Yes.I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.
Not necessarily. depends on whether or not they make the 90D physically bigger like the 7D, or simply drop the 7D and add a few features into the 90D and call it a day.If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.
I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.
So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression.I am sure there are a lot of people out there happily shooting their 24 mp aps-c cameras stopped down to f8.0 and beyond, not noticing the effect of diffraction limitations.
20 fps is generally fine for sports and wildlife but using a TFT display for that purpose e.g. with a 4.0 600mm isn't that ergonomic.I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.
If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.
I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression.
Of course there is diffraction at f/1.4, and even more at f/32. The effect becomes noticeable gradually. I would guess that the "limited" moment comes when diffraction starts to be the limiting factor more so than anything else. But I don't know for sure.
I've not done extensive tests in various contexts, but I did a series of shots at various apertures with my 100mm macro on the T3i at 1:1 magnification of a millimeter scale to see how much depth of field there was at each one. Diffraction was not that noticeable until the f/32 shot. There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.)
If that is the effect with tiny white tick marks on a black rule shot beyond f/16, I can easily imagine that with less contrasty and detailed subjects, then there is no reason for sudden panic at f/8 in an APS-C camera.
There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.)
You might have noticed that I used the future tense in my statement. It is not now yet, but will happen in 2 to 4 years I think. What is required is sensors with many more channels of parallel processing. And more processing power. This is only a matter of time before Sony has that, and I would say short rather short amount of time, as the rewards are huge and technologically this is not insurmountable. The current Sony sensors have up to16 independent channels and the processing chips do the processing in 16 channels. But in the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) world there are already chips doing 2,048 independent channels, albeit currently at a higher power consumption level.Can you name a MILC without a mechanical shutter?
If Moore's law still works, then what you want will happen in 15-20 years from now.You might have noticed that I used the future tense in my statement. It is not now yet, but will happen in 2 to 4 years I think. What is required is sensors with many more channels of parallel processing. And more processing power. This is only a matter of time before Sony has that, and I would say short rather short amount of time, as the rewards are huge and technologically this is not insurmountable. The current Sony sensors have up to16 independent channels and the processing chips do the processing in 16 channels. But in the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) world there are already chips doing 2,048 independent channels, albeit currently at a higher power consumption level.
As a 7DII user, that is what I would like too. 24MP is enough if it were sharp. Many have said that the softness of the 7DII is due to the AA filter. I've written to Canon too to ask for noAAF, I'd really be pleased if it competed with the N**** D500, but I've got too much Canon glass to change.
Yes, that was very helpful. You'll note that I responded to the thread at the time. All of our settings involve compromise, and the better we understand the factors, the better we can choose.I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212
Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?If the 7DII replacement has no AA filter, then I'm out, and I'll keep my 7DII.
No AA filter = images you can't trust. If I'm going without one, I have to be diffraction limited at all apertures, and that means gigapixel sensors.
Yes, one needs to decide what is important in making the compromises. Obviously the choices will be different in shooting a misty woodland scene from doing product photography.It is totally unpleasant and work-ruining when the subject needs to be tack-sharp, for publishing or whatever. Which leads to the use of ND filters in order to keep the f-stop below f/8 which in turn slightly degrades the image but hopefully less than diffraction will etc
I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212
Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?
Great. I have added some as well.I have added some JPEGs I had made from the shots from f/11 to f/32 on that thread. I still haven't got around to trying the test with my 6D2 to see how sensor size might affect the result.
Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?
I know full well that there is always a nitpicker who tries to be clever by saying that the 5DSR has a self-cancelling AA-filter system as if I didn't know that and I thought that the 5DSR doesn't have one. Which is precisely why I wrote "which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter". "Equates to" means "consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another" or "(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another)." or *cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value". Just google "equates to" + meaning.For a start the 5DsR does have an AA filter, plus an attempted-cancellation filter. So it's not a bare sensor.
But a lot of the 'detail' allegedly seen in non-AA photos is actually not real detail, it is the hard contrast boundary between photosites on the sensor. With an AA filter the transitions are softened.