gferdinandsen said:
+1 on that.
www.lensbaby.com and skinkpinhole.com are some of my favourite 'artistic' lenses, and you can't get any softer than a pinhole (ok, besides a Zone Sieve, kind of a 'soft-focus' pinhole)
Upvote
0
-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
- Thread starter unfocused
- Start date
- Status
+1 on that.
www.lensbaby.com and skinkpinhole.com are some of my favourite 'artistic' lenses, and you can't get any softer than a pinhole (ok, besides a Zone Sieve, kind of a 'soft-focus' pinhole)
L
Loswr
Guest
dr croubie said:
Even fast lenses that are 'sharp from wide open' still get sharper when stopped down slightly. A 38 MP APS-C (1.6x) sensor will have an estimated DLA of f/5.6. Since that's the point where most current lenses are at their sharpest, cramming more MP into a sensor that size will reduce or eliminate the aperture 'sweet spot'. Canon's 120 MP APS-H sensor has a DLA of f/4. Ouch.
macgregor mathers said:
Why not?
Upvote
0
dr croubie said:
Dont forget diffraction isn't so much an issue with the camera per se but the cameras resolution showing the flaws within each lens, hence why each lens has their own breaking point. Some of the older lenses 17-40, 16-35, 50mm 1.4 etc were created in the film days and were class leaders at that time. As digital cameras grew and grew and started outresolving film and showing flaws in the lenses, canon has been upgrading lenses based (probably) on sales volume and demand hence the 16-35 mii, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS II, etc... While I slightly agree with neuro regarding the higher MP cameras the higher the lens total resolution, however i feel it isn't a direct linear curve reflecting the higher MP... The higher the resolution of the camera will degrade lenses.. some lenses will degrade quicker than other, however, it should be noted. For instance a 28-80 will have a quicker degrade and quicker diffraction point than lets say a 24-105 or 24-70...
Upvote
0
B
Bob Howland
Guest
macgregor mathers said:
That is just plain weird. As I've written before, it isn't that I don't want more pixels. It's that resolution above 12-16MP is so far down my priority list that it is largely irrelevant. I want improvements in high ISO image quality and dynamic range that are so dramatic that I think it unlikely they can be achieved with 16MP FF, much less 32MP. If Canon can prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to pull out my credit card.
Upvote
0
The consumer market - people who buy the Rebel, 60D, 7D, etc. - are too fixated on megapixels for Canon to withdraw from the megapixel war. In the consumer market, megapixels are more about marketing than they are about image quality. On the other hand, in the pro market (1D and 1Ds) Canon seems to take a more practical approach by packing their bodies with the feature sets most useful to working professionals without packing the sensors with a boatload of megapixels just for the sake of marketing.
If you need to make a living with your camera, things like a fast AF, FPS, dynamic range, high ISO performance, weather sealing, dual card slots, and rugged build quality are more important than having a few extra megapixels to brag to your online buddies about. Otherwise, if megapixels were the only thing that mattered, why would anyone pay four times as much for a 21 megapixel 1Ds instead of just buying an 18 megapixel 7D for 1/4 the price? Of course, if you're a professional fashion, landscape or wedding photographer, you need all the megapixels you can get, but no working pro in their right mind would shoot with a 1.6:1 sensor body over a full-frame body just because small-sensor camera has almost as many megapixels for a lot less money.
The bottom line is Canon gives pros what they need to get the job done, and Canon gives consumers what they think they need, but will rarely actually use in super high megapixel totals.
If you need to make a living with your camera, things like a fast AF, FPS, dynamic range, high ISO performance, weather sealing, dual card slots, and rugged build quality are more important than having a few extra megapixels to brag to your online buddies about. Otherwise, if megapixels were the only thing that mattered, why would anyone pay four times as much for a 21 megapixel 1Ds instead of just buying an 18 megapixel 7D for 1/4 the price? Of course, if you're a professional fashion, landscape or wedding photographer, you need all the megapixels you can get, but no working pro in their right mind would shoot with a 1.6:1 sensor body over a full-frame body just because small-sensor camera has almost as many megapixels for a lot less money.
The bottom line is Canon gives pros what they need to get the job done, and Canon gives consumers what they think they need, but will rarely actually use in super high megapixel totals.
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:
Yes and No... I think you're glorifying "professional photographers" budgets a bit much... I know several wedding photographers making a living on a 7D/5D MII... I'm a "professional" and shoot primarily 7D. I shoot architecture/landscape/commercial and my photography shown on TV, the Olympics in Vancouver, on printed catalogs and flyers for companies sent internationally, however if I didn't think my gear couldn't do what I need it to do, I wouldn't be shooting with it. Being "pro" isn't about gear as much as it is knowing what to do with your gear that you had. Even since college I knew I didn't have a lot of money to play with so I bought what gear I could afford at that time (10D and a couple of lenses) and have incrementally upgraded as business picked up and my budget increased. I could save up and budget for 1d this, 1ds that, however at the end of the day, 5D mark III is more within my crosshairs if and when it comes... Until then I will keep doing my "pro" work with my 7d.
Upvote
0
Once upon a time, Bill Gates allegedly said 640kByte RAM is enough for everyone. Not too long ago, the Olympus president said 12 Mpx is more than enough for everyone... see the similarity?
Once upon a time, people complained that there was no need for more powerful processors, Moore's Law will not persist in the next 5 years.. well, back to the future, Moore's Law held and processors kept packing more transistors with no signs of slowing down... And guess what? We kept finding new uses for all that processing power.
This is technology... with it, we are meant to overcome the shortcomings while improving the capabilities of our equipments. Without it, we are no different from our banana eating, tree swinging cousins.
Haven't anyone noticed the wonderful innovations that have gone into our sensor technologies. The Nokia N8 with its glorious 12mpx sensor will blow the old 2mpx sensors in my old Sony Ericsson phone out of the water in terms of noise performance and Drange. The BSI sensors will easily out do old 4mpx camera sensors in terms of DRange and noise performance. And the great 7D sensor with its gapless microlens and reduced photosite distance is a great break through in sensor design worth admiring.
So diffraction is a problem now? Is it an indication that lens design might be falling behind sensor design? Well, lens engineer go solve it... Is this a limitation with laws of Physics? Did they not say that microprocessor will face an inevitable limit with laws of Physics at xx nm and there is no way to go beyond? ... well, we are well into 20nm territory now and going strong....
So I say, go for 100 mpx... solve the issues, improve Noise Issues, improve DRange issues, innovate and make a better camera each year.
The issue of prioritizing Drange vs Mpx is a slightly more tricky one... However, if we look at the Fujifilm Super CCD technology which groups pixels into two groups, each taking the same scene at different brightness and then combining them to form a HDR image, it would seem like having more pixels might help your Drange after all. Back to my imaginary 100 mpx sensor. I may be able to group them into four groups which capture a scene at 4 different exposure. I can then use these 4 sets of images to cancel out random noise and create a HDR photo. This would give me a glorious 25mpx HDR image which has very low noise...
So why is more megapixel bad?
Once upon a time, people complained that there was no need for more powerful processors, Moore's Law will not persist in the next 5 years.. well, back to the future, Moore's Law held and processors kept packing more transistors with no signs of slowing down... And guess what? We kept finding new uses for all that processing power.
This is technology... with it, we are meant to overcome the shortcomings while improving the capabilities of our equipments. Without it, we are no different from our banana eating, tree swinging cousins.
Haven't anyone noticed the wonderful innovations that have gone into our sensor technologies. The Nokia N8 with its glorious 12mpx sensor will blow the old 2mpx sensors in my old Sony Ericsson phone out of the water in terms of noise performance and Drange. The BSI sensors will easily out do old 4mpx camera sensors in terms of DRange and noise performance. And the great 7D sensor with its gapless microlens and reduced photosite distance is a great break through in sensor design worth admiring.
So diffraction is a problem now? Is it an indication that lens design might be falling behind sensor design? Well, lens engineer go solve it... Is this a limitation with laws of Physics? Did they not say that microprocessor will face an inevitable limit with laws of Physics at xx nm and there is no way to go beyond? ... well, we are well into 20nm territory now and going strong....
So I say, go for 100 mpx... solve the issues, improve Noise Issues, improve DRange issues, innovate and make a better camera each year.
The issue of prioritizing Drange vs Mpx is a slightly more tricky one... However, if we look at the Fujifilm Super CCD technology which groups pixels into two groups, each taking the same scene at different brightness and then combining them to form a HDR image, it would seem like having more pixels might help your Drange after all. Back to my imaginary 100 mpx sensor. I may be able to group them into four groups which capture a scene at 4 different exposure. I can then use these 4 sets of images to cancel out random noise and create a HDR photo. This would give me a glorious 25mpx HDR image which has very low noise...
So why is more megapixel bad?
Upvote
0
V8beast, case in point about your gear comments, I knew 2 photographers... one works on Hollywood movie posters and the other taking photos at airports... The airport photographer had to take some pictures of airplanes taking off on runways... He sat on the runway and took pictures of airliners as they charged at him. He didn't shoot 1ds's or medium formats or such, he had this little point and shoot camera so when he got the picture he needed he can run off the runway. The other Hollywood guy took the original photo for the "i am legend" movie poster with Will Smith with a point and shoot as well. Not all pro's shoot with $4000-8000 gear...
Upvote
0
aside: this thread, and actually the whole issue in general, is reminding me waay too much of the MegaHertz race (later the GigaHertz race).
Short recap:
intel and AMD made computer chips, racing each other to have higher cpu MHz. Intel won the race, their pentium 4s got up to over 4GHz. But the AMDs were much more efficient, they got more number-crunching done for the same MHz, consumed less power, they brought in dual-core years before intel.
flash forward a few years, it turns out AMD's tech won the war, now it's reversed and almost a race to see how many cores you can put on a chip even at lower MHz, and lots of marketing goes on power consumption too...
But in the end, did it translate to market share? The whole time intel kept pushing the MHz numbers, consumers just kept buying it. A few nerds knew what they were buying and amd's sales went up a little bit, but not everyone reads the reviews, the average consumer just went for the higher numbers (and alleged business practices by intel currently in court, which we won't start on).
By the time the average consumer realised that more MHz didn't mean better computing, intel was ready with their Core-series and they kept on selling...
So will there be a parallel to cameras? is canon like intel and going to keep pushing the MP up, while, say, nikon keep the MP low and push the other side, like ISO and Dynamic Range? Will canon keep their market share because of their marketing and higher numbers, while eventually the consumers drift more to a company that offers lower MP and higher dynamic range? By the time it starts affecting sales figures, will canon have a better dynamic-range/iso option?
and most importantly, will canon make a sensor with so many megapixels that it catches fire?
Short recap:
intel and AMD made computer chips, racing each other to have higher cpu MHz. Intel won the race, their pentium 4s got up to over 4GHz. But the AMDs were much more efficient, they got more number-crunching done for the same MHz, consumed less power, they brought in dual-core years before intel.
flash forward a few years, it turns out AMD's tech won the war, now it's reversed and almost a race to see how many cores you can put on a chip even at lower MHz, and lots of marketing goes on power consumption too...
But in the end, did it translate to market share? The whole time intel kept pushing the MHz numbers, consumers just kept buying it. A few nerds knew what they were buying and amd's sales went up a little bit, but not everyone reads the reviews, the average consumer just went for the higher numbers (and alleged business practices by intel currently in court, which we won't start on).
By the time the average consumer realised that more MHz didn't mean better computing, intel was ready with their Core-series and they kept on selling...
So will there be a parallel to cameras? is canon like intel and going to keep pushing the MP up, while, say, nikon keep the MP low and push the other side, like ISO and Dynamic Range? Will canon keep their market share because of their marketing and higher numbers, while eventually the consumers drift more to a company that offers lower MP and higher dynamic range? By the time it starts affecting sales figures, will canon have a better dynamic-range/iso option?
and most importantly, will canon make a sensor with so many megapixels that it catches fire?
Upvote
0
ok there's a lot of replies and stuff here. I'm quite sure I know what I'm talking about so I'll try to rephrase some stuff.
Dxomark scales their lpmm values, so for APS-C they are not "true" lpmm, they're scaled to be directly comparable to fullframe. So yes, some EF-S lenses are sharper than fullframe lenses. Actually compact camera lenses are sharper than costly fullframe lenses, smaller lenses seems to be easier to make sharper. Problem is, with the smaller lenses the sensors are even smaller so the effective resolution becomes lower anyway. Still, a compact camera lens may resolve ~2um on the sensor while a sharp full-frame lens does ~5um.
About the need for megapixels. In handheld photography you most likely don't need more than ~12 megapixels, higher resolution will be lost due to camera shake or noise factors due to low light. High resolution is for tripod-mounted photography only, generally still life. The kind of stuff you use medium format cameras for if you can afford it. The talk about technical quality is not important the image content is what counts is of course relevant but there are many different types of photography. Some still life photography is dependent on high technical quality, and corner-to-corner sharpness can be important. But in for example portrait photography corner sharpness is almost irrelevant, but instead out of focus blur really important. But just because you have an interest in a type of photography that don't gain from extra resolution that does not mean that there are not others.
About diffraction. Yes it is a problem, that's why you in a high res system want tilt lenses so you can control depth of field so you can solve depth of field problems with larger apertures. That's why "old school" technical view cameras is still used by many professionals. There is one way to overcome diffraction though, which is through deconvolution in post-processing, already used in microscopy and to some extent in photography (mostly to combat lens softness today which generally is larger problem than diffraction currently, but diffraction is actually an easier problem to solve technically). We will probably see a lot more deconvolution in the future, perhaps directly in the camera. In a distant future you could use deconvolution to combat camera shake and thus increase hand-holding resolution past those practical 12 megapixels too.
Anyway, I currently see lens sharpness as a larger limiting factor than diffraction in terms of resolution.
About lens sharpness on full-frame. Yes for every increase in megapixels you'll get an increase in resolution. But current lens sharpness such as for the new TS-E 24mm II does seem to be good for say 25 - 30 megapixels. You would not get much extra real resolution in your prints going from 30 to 60 megapixels with that lens. Take a photo with a 7D and you'll see how the center portion of a 45 megapixel fullframe lens will perform.
As an interesting side fact, one could mention one of the most well-known considered super-sharp medium format digital wide angle lenses, the Rodenstock digital 23mm (costs about 5000 USD), it is said to be good for 5 um on the sensor, which means 34 megapixels for 35mm fullframe and about 90 megapixels for the largest medium format sensors.
Dxomark scales their lpmm values, so for APS-C they are not "true" lpmm, they're scaled to be directly comparable to fullframe. So yes, some EF-S lenses are sharper than fullframe lenses. Actually compact camera lenses are sharper than costly fullframe lenses, smaller lenses seems to be easier to make sharper. Problem is, with the smaller lenses the sensors are even smaller so the effective resolution becomes lower anyway. Still, a compact camera lens may resolve ~2um on the sensor while a sharp full-frame lens does ~5um.
About the need for megapixels. In handheld photography you most likely don't need more than ~12 megapixels, higher resolution will be lost due to camera shake or noise factors due to low light. High resolution is for tripod-mounted photography only, generally still life. The kind of stuff you use medium format cameras for if you can afford it. The talk about technical quality is not important the image content is what counts is of course relevant but there are many different types of photography. Some still life photography is dependent on high technical quality, and corner-to-corner sharpness can be important. But in for example portrait photography corner sharpness is almost irrelevant, but instead out of focus blur really important. But just because you have an interest in a type of photography that don't gain from extra resolution that does not mean that there are not others.
About diffraction. Yes it is a problem, that's why you in a high res system want tilt lenses so you can control depth of field so you can solve depth of field problems with larger apertures. That's why "old school" technical view cameras is still used by many professionals. There is one way to overcome diffraction though, which is through deconvolution in post-processing, already used in microscopy and to some extent in photography (mostly to combat lens softness today which generally is larger problem than diffraction currently, but diffraction is actually an easier problem to solve technically). We will probably see a lot more deconvolution in the future, perhaps directly in the camera. In a distant future you could use deconvolution to combat camera shake and thus increase hand-holding resolution past those practical 12 megapixels too.
Anyway, I currently see lens sharpness as a larger limiting factor than diffraction in terms of resolution.
About lens sharpness on full-frame. Yes for every increase in megapixels you'll get an increase in resolution. But current lens sharpness such as for the new TS-E 24mm II does seem to be good for say 25 - 30 megapixels. You would not get much extra real resolution in your prints going from 30 to 60 megapixels with that lens. Take a photo with a 7D and you'll see how the center portion of a 45 megapixel fullframe lens will perform.
As an interesting side fact, one could mention one of the most well-known considered super-sharp medium format digital wide angle lenses, the Rodenstock digital 23mm (costs about 5000 USD), it is said to be good for 5 um on the sensor, which means 34 megapixels for 35mm fullframe and about 90 megapixels for the largest medium format sensors.
Upvote
0
If there's any sort of "war" going on, it's a quiet one.
I can't remember the last shot heard from Canon.
An indicator of how all is quiet on the Canon front is the latest newsletter I (probably all of us) just got from B & H. In the photo section, the Canon name does not even appear. Panasonic is there. Nikon, Sony, Kodak, Olympus all get some mention. That suggests how quiet it is.
Again, if there's a war going on, I'm hoping Canon is busy reloading.
I can't remember the last shot heard from Canon.
An indicator of how all is quiet on the Canon front is the latest newsletter I (probably all of us) just got from B & H. In the photo section, the Canon name does not even appear. Panasonic is there. Nikon, Sony, Kodak, Olympus all get some mention. That suggests how quiet it is.
Again, if there's a war going on, I'm hoping Canon is busy reloading.
Upvote
0
Dr Croubie, you brought up a very interesting point. In the past Mhz = Performance, until the multi-core strategy came in and changed everything.
Maybe the future, higher resolution may not be dependent on Mpx alone. Hasselblad just introduced a sensor shift technology that takes a 200mpx picture from a 50mpx sensor.
I would think the future of high resolution sensor technology may employ techniques such as sensor shift, multi layer sensor (ala Foveon) or multiple sensor (ala video cam)... or maybe not.
Note that while the Mhz war has sort of taken a different course for Intel/AMD, the number of transistors packed into a microprocessor has been doubled every two years as predicted by Moore's law without change...
Since we are in this topic, here are some articles discussing the application of Moore's law to camera sensors
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/moore-rebuttle.shtml
Maybe the future, higher resolution may not be dependent on Mpx alone. Hasselblad just introduced a sensor shift technology that takes a 200mpx picture from a 50mpx sensor.
I would think the future of high resolution sensor technology may employ techniques such as sensor shift, multi layer sensor (ala Foveon) or multiple sensor (ala video cam)... or maybe not.
Note that while the Mhz war has sort of taken a different course for Intel/AMD, the number of transistors packed into a microprocessor has been doubled every two years as predicted by Moore's law without change...
Since we are in this topic, here are some articles discussing the application of Moore's law to camera sensors
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/moore-rebuttle.shtml
Upvote
0
torger said:
Torger... regarding your post, it seems like you are trying to point out all the limitations and saying if you want to do this, this, and that, you cannot use x, y and z. Handholding is bad on a 7d because of camera shake? Ever hear of faster shutters and as a backup? Tilt Shift to make up for DOF? Are you kidding me? Yes you can (if you have your angles right) get a horizontal focus however subjects on the floor and ceiling will be OOF at shallow F Stops... The fact is yes we are venturing into a new horizon, and yes, canon, nikon, sony, et al are all creating new lenses/cameras/gadgets to prepare for the new wave of cameras... Yes, diffraction is a reality, but it's just something to overcome... anyone remember reciprocity in the film days? a 1 second exposure quickly turned into a 30 second exposure just depending on the type film you were using! Diffraction has always been there but print sizes and resolution were so small with 35mm's that no one saw it. Odds are with the 7D, at 8x10, you probably wouldn't see it with decent glass. Stop worrying about what your camera CANT do and starting finding ways to overcome and be a better photographer.
Upvote
0
photosites said:
Well Diffraction is a slight problem now, and will only become more so with more (especially denser) megapixels, that's a law of physics. Moore's "law" was never a law, it was an observation made in the '70s and just happens to have held reasonably well since. Limitations at whatever-nm process were just based on the current knowledge, and the engineers managed to overcome the problems with new discoveries.
Diffraction is different, there's no way to change the relationship between DLA and pixel size, no matter what lens/sensor designers do.
But whether it's enough of a problem is the other thing.
So there's still a good margin of MP to go before we really hit the limits, good to know. And as said, it's just going to reduce where the sweet-spot lies.neuroanatomist said:
Put X lens on a 7D, you get so many lppmm at wide open, you get more at f/5.6. Put the same lens on 1Dsmk6 and you get more lppmm at wide open, but you get *less* than that at f/5.6. Changing the shape of the MTF charts is not such a bad thing, as long as you know how to use it.
In the end, the line "the lens sharpens up as you stop down" will disappear, at a few hundred MP every lens will be sharpest wide-open and will reduce with aperture size.
What it will be the worst problem for is bad lenses. Take the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. its resolution starts low, and does get better with higher f-number, peaking at f/8 (or higher, f/8 is the end of the graph). Put that lens on a sensor with a DLA of something closer to f/4 or so and the MTF will peak at f/4 or even lower, the lens will be worse at f/8 than at f/4 for the same higher mp sensor.
So in a way it means lens designers will have to become better, they won't get the benefit of a 'sweet-spot' as mentioned.
But some other ideas I like. Like the 'split sensor in 3' to do some in-camera combining for HDR, one other idea I had is an automatic 'focus on 3 different lengths for 3 shots and combine'. OK, so people do it manually now, and it only works for static/landscapes, auto-incamera would be nice though...
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
I think you're missing the point. Given enough time and patience, and commitment to spending long hours in post processing, I can get the same shot with a 60D as I can with a 1DMKIV. Is it satisfying to get similar results with lesser equipment and chalk it up to superior technique? Absolutely. Unfortunately, time is a commodity that's rarely on your side for a busy pro photographer. As the adage goes, time is money, and if your photography tools enable you to get a job done more quickly and efficiently, you'll be able turn around a greater quantity of work in a shorter duration of time, and pay off the extra premium you paid for nicer equipment. I can see how it might be unimaginable for a hobbyist to spend three times as much for a 1Ds than for a 5DMKII, when the 5D can match the 1Ds in image quality, but working pros are almost always under time constraints. As such, a camera that just works and "doesn't get in your way" is just as important as image quality, and the 1Ds higher FPS and far superior AF just flat out crushes the 5D.
Let's say I'm covering a race and there's a wreck or a pivotal pass that needs to be captured to adequately cover the event. If luck is on your side, you can get away with a slow, portrait/studio oriented camera like a 5D. If you're really lucky, maybe even a point and shoot will work. However, the truth of the matter is that wrecks or passes like that happen in a few brief seconds, and you can't risk missing the shot of something that's only going to happen once. Plus, you're standing next to a half dozen photographers from magazines that compete directly with the magazine you're working for. If you're the only loser that doesn't get the shot, and all the competing magazines have it, you can bet your sweet hiney that your editor will be pissed. He could very well hire another photographer the next time around, so there's just too much at risk by limping around with lesser equipment.
I've been cheap before, whether it's with glass or bodies, but every time I make the plunge and invest in nicer gear, I always ask myself why I didn't do it sooner. That's not to say that novices should go out and spend $20K in gear, only to wonder why their images suck, but their comes a point where you've maximized the potential of your equipment and no amount of practice or improvement in technique will make up for it. Granted it take a LONG time to get to that point, but with enough practice, everyone will get there.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
photosites said:
That's pretty cool. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the idea is that individual pixels have sweet spots, so by slightly translating the sensor, you can capture additional 'real' resolution. Of course, for Canon to implement that, they'd have to get rid of the gapless microlenses (which remove the sweet spot by concentrating light from the entire pixel area into the photosensitive rea in the center of the pixel). Looks like Hasselblad also implements the full-pixel moves to eliminate the interpolation made necessary by the Bayer mask - that has the additional benefit of reducing chromatic aberration.
Incidentally, Zeiss implemented these technologies nearly 10 years ago, in their AxioCam line of microscope cameras. The original versions used Sony 2/3" 1.4 MP CCD sensors, and used 'microscanning' in a 3x3 subpixel array to yield a 12 MP resolution (with an available 2x2 array for a 5 MP image), and also full pixel shifts called 'co-site sampling' so each pixel captured all three colors in the Bayer mask.
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:
I understand where you are coming from, however, in my experience as a working professional (making 100% of my income due to my photography), there are 4 groups of people who own and use these 1d series cameras in which you call "pro"... 1st... agencies who deal with high price clients and photographers working with said agencies (including newspapers, magazines, etc). These are the creme of the crop photographers... 2nd... people who work freelance for newspapers/magazines/etc who negotiate prices for photographs which easily pays for said camera. These are the photogs not good enough to be hired full time. 3rd... Hobbyists who need to have the latest and greatest, and lastly, those who are incredibly stupid with their money and cant compensate otherwise. There are a lot of "working professionals" that dont fit within those categories that make due with what they have.
I've always been taught to do everything possible to get it "right" in camera so post processing is at a minimal. I am comfortable with post where I dont have to spend long on each photo if I royally screw up, but thankfully those are few and far between. I wont lie and say I want the 7D AF in the new 5D MIII... however I feel the 7D AF is more than capable for 99% of all situations. If I run into that 1% situation, I also, as a pro, have canon CPS to borrow cameras/lenses for when needed. Lastly, I've shot several low light football games, air races, air shows, etc when I had my 30D, 50D's and it was rare I got missed focus. If anything it was too slow shutter than anything else. I feel its commentators such as you that make people feel that it's all about the gear and not about skill. If you got the skill, you should get good photos off of any camera as you would with the $8000 cameras... It's just the $8000 cameras make it that much easier which has taken away some of the skill factor from many good photographers.
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
No argument here, except I don't know any wannabe photogs - the people who you say "aren't good enough to be hired full time" - that shoot with the 1D or 1Ds. They're just too much damn money for something that doesn't pay the bills full time. I'd also venture to say that the cream of the crop photographers, as you describe them, are full-time freelancers, not people tied down to agencies or full-time staff photographer gigs for editorial outlets. That's besides the point, so no need to dwell on that.
I commend your skill, but I rarely see pro sports photographers shoot with anything other than a 1D or a D3x. The 7D is a great body if all you need is speed, but for instances where you need both speed and IQ in the same shot, the 7D is sorely lacking. As the owner of a 5D, you should be able to attest t this. I can see how you might be able to get away with a 50D if you only shoot sports part time, but Canon wouldn't have invented a 45-point AF system and bodies that shoot 10 FPS if the demand wasn't there. By your logic, all sports photographers who shoot with a 1DMKIV are inept and they'd all be shooting with 50Ds if they had any skill at all.
Quite the contrary. Gear wise, I'm a minimalist by nature and only upgrade to better equipment when my old gear starts costing me money, or it becomes such a PITA to use in the field that it has to go. I'd venture to say that 90% of people that have Rebels and 50/60Ds would be better off with a point-and-shoots. I can't even count how many times I've steered people away from SLRs, and recommended point-and-shoots instead.
The reason this topic even came up in the first place is because the original question at hand had to do with megapixels. I simply stated my opinion that Canon will continue to pack as many megapixels into its consumer grade cameras not because the average consumer actually need them, but because megapixels is what sells consumer-grade cameras. In comparison, Canon's pro bodies seem to have more practical features and specs geared toward the needs of working professionals who aren't as fixated on megapixels as the typical tech geek. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but considering that a 7D has more megapixels than the 1D, Canon seems to understand this as well.
Upvote
0
"Pro" sports photographers you see at races, games, etc I would bet you my paycheck came from a bigger company such as but not limited to magazines (espn, sports illustrated), newspapers, other media outlets that either has photographers on staff they send out to games/events whom they provide the gear for.. They usually also have press passes and access the typical photographer wouldn't have. Pro photographers in those instances are the ones on the sidelines and wannabe's are in the stands with the camera security screened before letting them in the event.
7D, in most events minus lets say indoor arena's or whatever with low low light, is more than adequate and has very nice IQ for most of my needs and my clients needs. I do not claim to be a professional sports photographer, however when I get the request, I have had no problems using my 7D to shoot a 2 page spread magazine shot. 7D is not as poor IQ as you let on.
Personally I couldn't give a rip what you or any other person says about photography, but I just want to get out the truth, not the opinion of photography. Crop sensors can hold their own if that's all you need and you dont need to sell your xxd or xxxd cameras for point and shoots if your willing to put in the time and energy to learn this craft. Dont worry about hurting my feelings, however if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill. That's all I'm getting at.
7D, in most events minus lets say indoor arena's or whatever with low low light, is more than adequate and has very nice IQ for most of my needs and my clients needs. I do not claim to be a professional sports photographer, however when I get the request, I have had no problems using my 7D to shoot a 2 page spread magazine shot. 7D is not as poor IQ as you let on.
Personally I couldn't give a rip what you or any other person says about photography, but I just want to get out the truth, not the opinion of photography. Crop sensors can hold their own if that's all you need and you dont need to sell your xxd or xxxd cameras for point and shoots if your willing to put in the time and energy to learn this craft. Dont worry about hurting my feelings, however if you cannot get a shot with a xxd camera with the quality that you could get with a 1ds... then that kinda reflects on your ability to fully utilize your gear and skill. That's all I'm getting at.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
