- Nov 2, 2016
That makes sense for a stills only generalist. At that point, the 5D Mark III is good enough for me on stills, the 5D Mark IV would be icing on the cake and would be preferred over the R if video wasn't a priority.I mentioned video but I really meant the stills part. I can't imagine carrying a 1DX for anything but sports. You mention the EOS R being insufficient but not the 5D MK IV.
Ok, so 150 lines of rez, which is a large portion of high quality journals, is 300dpi. But a large number are just 133 lines, which is just 266dpi. a few really high quality publications are 175 lines, which of course, is 350. high quality books are between 150 and 175 lines as well, usually, for graphics and photos. Newspapers used to print photos at just 85 lines, but I think it’s a bit higher today. The cheap paper has problems with fine halftones and color.And I wonder if any newspaper or magazines even REALY print at 300dpi.
300dpi is a term which is widely named "necessary for print" but I doubt that many newspapers print that resolution. It requites good printer and also very good paper...
And that’s why the answer is yes, not no. A problem with these types of forums is that the people are skewed towards those who care more about technical advances than the person who is just using the device.No.
There are still 1DS MkIII holdouts that want, like or need the 1 series but also want and need more than the 20 odd MP they have had since 2007. I bought the 1DS MkIII when it was the only way to get that resolution, I refused to go backwards on resolution to the 1DX but really had to get new cameras after 10 years use so got the 1DX MkII's. I'd welcome any resolution increase in the 1 series and would pay very dearly for a high resolution 1 series with limited (comparatively) fps as the technological tradeoff for that higher resolution.
But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.
The whole idea about the camera making jpg files is to have something quick that is viewable over a wide variety of devices. Replacing jpg with an uncommon file type negates that reason. If you want real quality, you shoot RAW. If you want fast and portable, you produce a jpg. A file format that meets neither set of conditions is doomed to failure.Ok, that’s good to know. It’s rare though. If the computer itself doesn’t support it, then having the camera support it won’t help.
The numbers you are using are technically correct but those are the absolute minimum acceptable standards. We wouldn't typically accept original art at resolutions below 300 DPI and we would prefer it to be much higher. All editing is usually done on high rez files and we don't sample down until we are ready to do seperations and go to press. 150 LPI may be OK for some publications but you are not going to get a photgraphic quality image at that LPI. The screen pattern will usually be visible on high quality coated paper at 150 or lower LPI.Ok, so 150 lines of rez, which is a large portion of high quality journals, is 300dpi. But a large number are just 133 lines, which is just 266dpi. a few really high quality publications are 175 lines, which of course, is 350. high quality books are between 150 and 175 lines as well, usually, for graphics and photos. Newspapers used to print photos at just 85 lines, but I think it’s a bit higher today. The cheap paper has problems with fine halftones and color.
Is it though? My understanding is that HEIF is sort of a middle ground, allowing non-destructive editing like a raw, but smaller file sizes like jpg. The major question I have is how much data is "cooked" into an HEIF file. For, me, one of the main advantages of raw is the flexibility of not being locked into pre-determined color balance, but being able to adjust the balance during post-processing. I might be very interested in HEIF if it offers similar flexibility to raw. I would still use raw for my personal work, but I could see there might be some advantage to HEIF with certain client photos.The whole idea about the camera making jpg files is to have something quick that is viewable over a wide variety of devices. Replacing jpg with an uncommon file type negates that reason. If you want real quality, you shoot RAW. If you want fast and portable, you produce a jpg. A file format that meets neither set of conditions is doomed to failure.
Says the guy who is telling people who actually use the 1Dx II what they need and don't need.And that’s why the answer is yes, not no. A problem with these types of forums is that the people are skewed towards those who care more about technical advances than the person who is just using the device.
I only know what I have read. Apparently, all the major photo players joined hands and developed a file format HEIF which will have standards which are universal
Think you will see it in the new cameras and likely some firmware updates. Canon and Adobe was part of the collaboration that developed HEIF.
I completely agree. All these More fancy setting often don’t make a huge difference. The focusing systems in general are pretty good. Not so fantastic for fast moving objects and hopefully can be improved upon. Being better able to lock into the subject would be great.I get a little tired of this trope that only people who don't know what they are doing complain about the autofocus.
The fact is, many if not most sports shooters still default to single point or single point expanded because virtually none of the other settings do well at locking on a subject when shooting sports. That shows right there that there is room for improvement.
To say that people just need to study the various use cases and refine their choices is a red herring. I can guarantee you that top sports photographers like Peter Read Miller aren't digging through the menu like that. In fact, he says as much on his video channel. If a system isn't intuitive right out of the box it needs work. Canon's autofocus is good, but it definitely can be improved and judging by Canon's own development announcement, they realize that.
Except the 1D X and 1D X Mark II are more accurately a continuation of the full frame 1Ds line, not the APS-C 1D series.The 1D range has always opted for quality rather than quantity where resolution is concerned, but I thought I would take a different angle on the discussion:
Perhaps I have been influenced by the recent UK Elections, but worried by the 'suggested' resolution, I have been looking at the statistics for the EOS-1D range...
View attachment 187832
So, throwing photography, hopes and wishes out of the window, and taking into account ONLY the date and resolution of the 'normal' bodies (i.e. not the 's' or 'C' ranges), then the suggestion of a 20MP sensor looks entirely wrong. 22.3MP would be a direct continuation of the development/evolution of the '1D X' series. Something around 24MP would start to bring the sensor size back in line with previous incremental developments (24.4MP being the statistically predicted resolution), with 28MP being the data point that best matches the evolution from 1D to 1D MkII, as well as from 1D MkIII to 1D MkIV.
I would like to see the sensor around 24MP, not least because I have just exchanged my 1D X as a deposit against the MkIII. However, even if the resolution remains around 20MP, developments in the DIGIC processors et al. would help to produce improvements in AF, dynamic range, low light capabilities and shooting speed. I would welcome improvements in the low light capabilities and dynamic range over image resolution.
Cameras will support it when enough devices can display it.
Meh. I've shot astro at night with the camera on a tripod. The buttons are still all in the same place they've always been.I'd very much like illuminated buttons, not for when I am hand holding where muscle memory is plenty good enough, but for tripod mounted dawn, dusk, and night shots they would be much nicer than a night vision busting flashlight. A common scenario for me would be using a stupid high iso to get the exposure I want in a relatively speedy timeframe then changing iso, shutter speed and aperture to get much lower noise, this would be much faster with illuminated buttons. Dawn shoots are another example where I'd find them useful especially if Canon do the regular 1 series trick of moving one or two buttons, I cannot say how often I have missed the magnify button on the 1DX MkII because it changed place from my 1DS MkIII's and earlier.
You are better than me then. I do use a very compact travel tripod so I'm regularly shooting from 12"-18" above the ground so even though the buttons might be in the same place relative to each other they are not in the same place relative to me. I also regularly use and adjust lights for dawn shots so walk to and from the camera a lot of times in the dark. But I'll often use a CamRanger or WFT in situations like this so I don't have to keep bending down to adjust the camera and I can do test shots from the light position rather than the camera position.Meh. I've shot astro at night with the camera on a tripod. The buttons are still all in the same place they've always been.