Read more.Quote:
Latest addition to the EOS range vows to take aspiring photographers beyond the still with advanced video features.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Latest addition to the EOS range vows to take aspiring photographers beyond the still with advanced video features.
Oh dear, I'm a photographer, and I'm sorry, but this is a straight up waste of time and money. Entry level/consumer photographers do not need an 18MP sensor.
Sorry Gage, I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by GageC
Not that "I'm a photographer" makes any difference but, at the risk of also sounding arrogant, I am too... the way I see it is as a development in DSLRs. If larger sensors that are identical or similar to the sensors in the pro/semi-pro bodies mean the cost of those said bodies are reduced through simply spreading the cost of development over several bodies, bring it on!!
Generealising a bit more, it should also bring generally better performance, such as noise, ISO sensitivity, etc to lower-end bodies... and what's up with that?
This RRP business is also nonsense and perhaps off-putting - in 5 months, this £800 550D will be, what, £600ish. Just look at the 7D. Had my eye on one since launch and it's lost £500. Woo! :)
However, I'd never buy a 500/550D-class camera for other reasons - chief amongst which are the size of it (it's just too darned small to use comfortably) and the fact that I have CF cards coming out of my ears.
This made no sense to me what-so-ever; what was your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by bandsaw
And I'm on the 18MP sucks bandwagon.
Point? I think it's quite clear. A "photographer" dismissed a whole new 'entry level' camera because someone doesn't need 18MP... seems a bit, well, blinkered to me.
These larger sensors use the latest manufacturing techniques and processes which should mean they are better than the previous generation. A sensor that's almost the same or identical to those in a higher-end body means cheaper bodies with those sensors for all as Canon (or Nikon or Sony, etc) can get their money back from more body sales more quickly. I can't help but think a reason for the 7D price drop is because the imager production increased to support not only increased 7D production but 550D production.
If you honestly think we should still be in the dark ages with smaller sensors, that's up to you.
I don't currently own any 18Mpixel bodies but the difference between a 12Mpixel 40D and 6Mpixel D60 is light and day - better images, better ISO sensitivity, less noise, better processing, greater performance, etc.
Presumably you also reckon AMD shouldn't have fiddled with their manufacturing processes to make that X2 5000+ of yours then? Wasn't a 3800+ enough?
Looks like a great lil camera.
And I disagree with "Entry level/consumer photographers do not need an 18MP sensor." What's all that about? If it's a decent sensor, then why not.
Just because it's an entry level DLSR, there's no reason why it can't be used by the pros. Ken "I AM NIKON" Rockwell claimed his favourite is/was the Nikon D40 or D40x (which were similarly entry-level to this), just because they were smaller and lighter.
The higher end the body, the quicker it is to adjust various settings, the low light performance is usually better, it'll have a remote release and it'll usually be quicker at continuous shooting, but if you're not going to need those features, then it's nice to just carry around a dinky little camera. The only thing that in theory stops me using my D40x for studio portraits is the lack of a flash sync socket... other wise I can't think of anything it would offer anything over my D300 (other than a grip for the portrait orientation of buttons I guess).
It's not aimed at pros, but there's nothing to stop pros using them, be it as second bodies or even as a main camera.
More megapixels does not automatically mean better image quality.. surprise, it just means more pixels.
My camera phone does 5 megapixels, it's great right? Much better than 1 megapixel!
Did you know that the 7D produces softer images than the 450D?
It's true http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/
More pixels on a sensor actually means more noise, not less.
I would much rather they used this "new advanced sensor tech" on improving noise and low light performance rather than file sizes.
At least Nikon are doing it right, D3s as an example: 12.1MP and high iso performance that kicks Canon's 1d4 ass without breaking a sweat.
I'd want to know if it still has the ridiculously painful grip that the 450/500D have.
if only - usually they improve the performance in some areas but at the cost of poorer performance elsewhere .Quote:
Originally Posted by bandsaw
the 7D & 550 sensors apparently whilst closely related aren't the same.Quote:
I can't help but think a reason for the 7D price drop is because the imager production increased to support not only increased 7D production but 550D production.
Imo cost reductions more likely to be due to increased volumes due to larger market (which is of course growing larger due to lower costs so it's a self-sustaining cycle)) & increased process efficiency (better yields etc.).
slightly confused as the sensor in a 40D is a 10MP CMOS design & a D60 is a 10MP CCD ...:confused:Quote:
the difference between a 12Mpixel 40D and 6Mpixel D60 is light and day - better images, better ISO sensitivity, less noise, better processing, greater performance, etc.
see above about gaining in some areas at the cost of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSK
also an 18MP sensor is more likely to show up performance flaws in cheaper lenses that most of them are likely to be using.
well, it's right for some but not for those who need/want more resolution & aren't too bothered about high ISO - of course that's why there is a D3x :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Blastuk
Not to mention Nikonian sounds much better than Canonian...
Dammit Fake chuck! He's made me into a Nikon fanboy and I don't even shoot Nikon -.-
I'm using a D40x at the mo, with a few decent lenses, and find it an alright camera, currently saving for a D300s.
I'm a Nikon man through and through, and Nikon have it right in my eyes, they're keeping the resolutions reasonable, bar that of the D3x, of course. But I still fail to see the need of an 18MP sensor on an entry level camera, I'd rather see them with better ISO performance and better noise reduction, failing that, faster FPS would be nice.
There's nothing wrong with a 10mp or a 12.3mp sensor, even at pro-sumer/professional level 12.3mp is enough, unless of course you *need* high resolutions, in which case there are D-SLRs that offer that. But if high res is really your game, then go for a Medium Format or Large Format camera.
This was pretty much the answer Chase Jarvis gave during a live shoot the other week to the question "Why aren't you shooting with your Hasselblad?" (he was shooting with the 12MP D3)Quote:
Originally Posted by GageC
He was shooting an album cover that didn't need the resolution, he would use the Hasselblad if he knew he'd need to have things printed big.
(Also the D3 has high frame rate)
Right tool for the right job!
Nope, it's not! ;) EOS D60.Quote:
slightly confused as the sensor in a 40D is a 10MP CMOS design & a D60 is a 10MP CCD ...
As far as soft images go, the higher-end Canon bodies have long been known to produce softer "out of the box" images than the lower-end stuff. With out of the box settings, my 300D produced (and still does!) sharper images than my D60 with what was apparently the same imager... those buying 3/4/500/1000D class cameras want images to match/surpass their previously used digicam, those buying 50D+ class cameras don't mind post-processing. I'm sure I've even seen this in a Canon comment somewhere a number of years ago. I'm also well aware that MPixels is a willy waving marketing thing but that's a slightly different discussion.
I see the point about improvements in some areas at the expense of others but I did say "should". I'm still currently using a 40D and 20D (until I get my paws on a 7D) but the move from D60 to 20D to 40D has proved to be an improvement in pretty much every area.