Yes, to get back on topic now, all these new cameras coming out now are quantum leap advances in improved signal-to-noise ratios, which enables an extension of ISO... Greater dynamic range, just better pictures. The new Nikon D3 is going to be awesome, as well as the new D300, but I cannot WAIT for the Canon 1Ds MKIII... 21 freakin' megapixels for $8,000. Can you say "Goodbye, 'blad..." Who would pay $32,000 for 31MPs when you can get 21 for $8,000? Not me... the cost difference is not worth it. Lot's of people felt that way about the 1DsMKII, so...
... the Canon 1Ds MKIII... 21 freakin' megapixels for $8,000. Can you say "Goodbye, 'blad..." Who would pay $32,000 for 31MPs when you can get 21 for $8,000? Not me... the cost difference is not worth it. Lot's of people felt that way about the 1DsMKII, so...
Phil
With digicams producing 12 MPix, why would anyone buy a dSLR with fewer pixels? Not all pixels are created equally.
The larger imagers of medium format digital backs still have a number of advantages over even full-frame 35mm cameras.
I agree that the camera market will embrace these new cameras, but larger format digital camera backs are far from dead.
Yes, to get back on topic now, all these new cameras coming out now are quantum leap advances in improved signal-to-noise ratios, which enables an extension of ISO... Greater dynamic range, just better pictures. The new Nikon D3 is going to be awesome, as well as the new D300, but I cannot WAIT for the Canon 1Ds MKIII... 21 freakin' megapixels for $8,000. Can you say "Goodbye, 'blad..." Who would pay $32,000 for 31MPs when you can get 21 for $8,000? Not me... the cost difference is not worth it. Lot's of people felt that way about the 1DsMKII, so...
Phil
Megapixels, just tells you how many divisions the sensor is divided into, it doesn't change the size of the sensor. A much larger sensor with even fewer divisions (megapixels) will have an advantage over the smaller sensor image. Think back to film, 35mm film v a medium format negative, it gives you a visual reference to compare.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
Megapixels, just tells you how many divisions the sensor is divided into, it doesn't change the size of the sensor. A much larger sensor with even fewer divisions (megapixels) will have an advantage over the smaller sensor image. Think back to film, 35mm film v a medium format negative, it gives you a visual reference to compare.
I do not deny that the Hasselblad medium format sensor produces a superior image to the upcoming 21 meg Canon. Yes, the pixel count is higher, pixel pitch is higher, all true. But the difference in image quality is not sufficient enough to warrant the $14 thousand difference in price. I recall an article in PDN in which this issue was discussed and the concensus seemed to be that except for the most demanding of clients, and bottomless pits of money, the Hasselblad just did not give $14,000 increase image quality.
Don't get me wrong; I wish I had a Hasselblad digital to take my landscape shots, but I can buy two Canon 1DsMKIIIs for the price of one blad and have lots of money left over! And have a bitchin' image to boot!
I recall an article in PDN in which this issue was discussed and the concensus seemed to be that except for the most demanding of clients, and bottomless pits of money, the Hasselblad just did not give $14,000 increase image quality.
Phil
Yeah I remember reading something similar in I think Shutterbug or DPP just a couple months ago before Canon dropped the 1ds bomb.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
Camera Raw 4.2 and Lightroom 1.2, as well as PSE 6.0 and PRE 4.0, will support the new Canon 40D’s standard RAW format. Camera Raw 4.2 and Lightroom 1.2 are due to be released next Thursday night, September 13th, at 9:01 p.m. Camera Raw 4.2 will be updated automatically via AUM for CS3 customers, and Lightroom 1.2 is a free download as well.
Note, there is no immediate support planned for sRAW because Canon has not shared that info with Adobe. However, they are working towards a November date
THanks much, Nikolai! So very soon we'll have ACR and LR support for 40D, but not support for sRAW.
I've heard that sRAW files are 1/2 the size of RAW files but only 1/4 of the pixels -- if true, then I can't figure what sRAW is to anyone, anyway, so it's OK with me if sRAW is never supported. (there must be some use for it; I just don't know what it is ...)
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
Finally: selectable 2 sec vs 10 sec timer
It only took a few years to allow a user to choose between 2 timers (while even on low end P&S you can actually choose whatever number of seconds you want). Oh well, at least you don't have to use MLU for 2sec delay...
Thanks for posting this, Nikolai. I hope it's true, because in the few days since I got the 40D I've accumulated a lot of images standing in line for ACR 4.2. I haven't been through this with Canon before, so it was a shock to discover that CS3 has no clue about this new camera!
It was also a shock to find out that Canon Tech Support doesn't even have a 40D yet, and didn't expect it for another week!!! Hello-o-o-o-o!!!
I gotta say though, I really like this camera, aside from a couple of things I've run into. I'll share my experience with it when I do a couple more tests and get some things figured out.
Thanks for posting this, Nikolai. I hope it's true, because in the few days since I got the 40D I've accumulated a lot of images standing in line for ACR 4.2. I haven't been through this with Canon before, so it was a shock to discover that CS3 has no clue about this new camera!
It was also a shock to find out that Canon Tech Support doesn't even have a 40D yet, and didn't expect it for another week!!! Hello-o-o-o-o!!!
I gotta say though, I really like this camera, aside from a couple of things I've run into. I'll share my experience with it when I do a couple more tests and get some things figured out.
I've heard that sRAW files are 1/2 the size of RAW files but only 1/4 of the pixels -- if true, then I can't figure what sRAW is to anyone, anyway, so it's OK with me if sRAW is never supported. (there must be some use for it; I just don't know what it is ...)
I wondered about that myself, so googled like crazy and found one seemingly authoritative explanation for sRaw. Supposedly it was created at the request of "high end wedding photographers" for shooting at receptions. The claim is that the volume of shots at receptions is high, you don't need full resolution like you do for the actual ceremony shots, but you still want the corrective abilities of shooting raw. Of course, why these "high end" wedding photographers can't keep a few extra CF cards in their pocket and shoot full-size RAW is beyond me.
Other rationale included the fact that it's just a firmware feature and was essentially free, and it's another bullet on the glossy brochure, so why not.
... one seemingly authoritative explanation for sRaw. Supposedly it was created at the request of "high end wedding photographers" for shooting at receptions. ...
Other rationale included the fact that it's just a firmware feature and was essentially free, and it's another bullet on the glossy brochure, so why not.
Cheers,
-joel
I find both of those reasons plausible. (The second is more likely. Marketing hyperbole. )
The buffer would flush twice as fast and you would get twice as many images on a card. Since most of the candids are just going to print at 4" x 6", it might make some sense, especially as pixel counts skyrocket in the future.
I would only find it helpful if it were really easy to switch between the two RAW formats.
...especially as pixel counts skyrocket in the future.
That's what I find plausible. Not much need for sRAW on an 8-10 megapixel SLR, but I'll bet more of us will want it if SLR sensors start going 16, 24, 32... megapixels per frame. Back in the film days, we only had to high-res scan the frames that were very important, but with digital, we have to store, track, and redundantly back up every non-rejected frame we shoot. I'd rather not be forced to buy a whole new set of cards and hard disks just because the Canon 80D consumes 32 raw megapixels even for a simple grab shot.
For the 40D, though, sRAW is probably mostly marketing.
...found one seemingly authoritative explanation for sRaw. Supposedly it was created at the request of "high end wedding photographers" for shooting at receptions. The claim is that the volume of shots at receptions is high, you don't need full resolution like you do for the actual ceremony shots, but you still want the corrective abilities of shooting raw. Of course, why these "high end" wedding photographers can't keep a few extra CF cards in their pocket and shoot full-size RAW is beyond me.
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing this. So there is at least one halfway-plausible explanation.
...Especially if these wedding photogs are shooting receptions in "continuous" mode at 6fps :photo.
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
I would only find it helpful if it were really easy to switch between the two RAW formats.
I find switching quality modes (on 20D) too much of a pain, so just leave it always set on RAW+JPG (highest quality JPG). I get about 160 shots on a 2GB CF card, so that setting works for me.
When I'm filing the photos, I save some space by deleting RAW and JPG for "loser" shots, deleting just the RAW files for non-critical photos for which the JPGs are "good enough", and keeping both RAW & JPG for real "keeper" shots or for those which will need substantial correction.
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
I know nothing about this guy and don't really know how he did his test but I threw it up for discussion.
"Methodology:
The test very simply consisted of setting up the Canon 40D on a tripod and running at the camera over and over with an operator simply pressing down and holding the shutter for the duration of the run. They were instructed to ensure focus lock prior to each run and not to attempt to move or track the subject in any way. They were to simply press and hold down the shutter. An aperture of f/2.8 was chosen because it provides a more stringent testing of the focus point."
Please feel free to retouch and repost my images. Critique, Suggestions, and Technique tips always welcomed. Thanks for your interest.
I ordered one from the local Mom & Pop Shop, "Quality Cameras" as they were willing to match any reputable price I could find in Canada. I probably won't see it for a few weeks, in fact I'm not sure there any 40D's delivered in Canada yet. I'll be waiting on user reports from Nik and drdane, etc. as they get the chance to post here.
Please feel free to retouch and repost my images. Critique, Suggestions, and Technique tips always welcomed. Thanks for your interest.
Best Buy had 4...sold
Finally able to get one from Best Buy...they had four, two sold in the first hour of store opening (arrived by truck this morning in some of their stores); picked up mine and a few other goodies. The last gone within an hour after...now to read and get familiar!
Amazon has about 10 of them in (11 before I ordered mine!) this morning. I couldn't wait for the new 5D. I need that bigger, brighter LCD now! (It ships on my birthday!)
Amazon has about 10 of them in (11 before I ordered mine!) this morning. I couldn't wait for the new 5D. I need that bigger, brighter LCD now! (It ships on my birthday!)
Second that on the brighter and bigger LCD screen. Was getting so tired of that little tiny screen on my 20D. Let me ask you this. I was only able to take it out for a few shots yesterday but is it me or is it hard to read where the end of the histogram is on the right side up against the black of the border around the screen. Does this make any sense!!! I am very sick today and approaching full burn out so forgive me if I do not.
OK, so this thread dates back to August, 2007, but I just got my first brand new camera, ... a Canon 40D.
That's right, my very first brand new dSLR, ever!
WooHoo, this thing is great! One of the first tests I did was to test autofocus. I used a Sigma 50-500mm, f/4-6.3 EX APO HSM (not DG) at 500mm and f6.3, in a dark bedroom, with a single window light but indirectly lit corner. I was able to consistantly achieve focus lock using the center focus dot and a not so great stuffed animal target/subject.
I mean, even the Canon 1D MKII has about the same speed and success as the 40D in the same test, so pretty darned good.
Canon 50mm, f1.4 had no problem whatsoever, of course.
I am impressed with all the new features and can see the use for the live image view in a studio setting.
Lots to learn. I'll probably have some questions. Maybe a few shots.
Comments
Phil
http://yosemitefun.com
http://action-sports-shots.com
With digicams producing 12 MPix, why would anyone buy a dSLR with fewer pixels? Not all pixels are created equally.
The larger imagers of medium format digital backs still have a number of advantages over even full-frame 35mm cameras.
I agree that the camera market will embrace these new cameras, but larger format digital camera backs are far from dead.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Megapixels, just tells you how many divisions the sensor is divided into, it doesn't change the size of the sensor. A much larger sensor with even fewer divisions (megapixels) will have an advantage over the smaller sensor image. Think back to film, 35mm film v a medium format negative, it gives you a visual reference to compare.
I do not deny that the Hasselblad medium format sensor produces a superior image to the upcoming 21 meg Canon. Yes, the pixel count is higher, pixel pitch is higher, all true. But the difference in image quality is not sufficient enough to warrant the $14 thousand difference in price. I recall an article in PDN in which this issue was discussed and the concensus seemed to be that except for the most demanding of clients, and bottomless pits of money, the Hasselblad just did not give $14,000 increase image quality.
Don't get me wrong; I wish I had a Hasselblad digital to take my landscape shots, but I can buy two Canon 1DsMKIIIs for the price of one blad and have lots of money left over! And have a bitchin' image to boot!
Phil
http://yosemitefun.com
http://action-sports-shots.com
Yeah I remember reading something similar in I think Shutterbug or DPP just a couple months ago before Canon dropped the 1ds bomb.
dak.smugmug.com
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3875322&postcount=34
I've heard that sRAW files are 1/2 the size of RAW files but only 1/4 of the pixels -- if true, then I can't figure what sRAW is to anyone, anyway, so it's OK with me if sRAW is never supported. (there must be some use for it; I just don't know what it is ...)
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
http://www.canon-eos-40d.com/Canon-EOS-40D-Manual.PDF
It only took a few years to allow a user to choose between 2 timers (while even on low end P&S you can actually choose whatever number of seconds you want). Oh well, at least you don't have to use MLU for 2sec delay...
Thanks for posting this, Nikolai. I hope it's true, because in the few days since I got the 40D I've accumulated a lot of images standing in line for ACR 4.2. I haven't been through this with Canon before, so it was a shock to discover that CS3 has no clue about this new camera!
It was also a shock to find out that Canon Tech Support doesn't even have a 40D yet, and didn't expect it for another week!!! Hello-o-o-o-o!!!
I gotta say though, I really like this camera, aside from a couple of things I've run into. I'll share my experience with it when I do a couple more tests and get some things figured out.
Blessings,
Dane
Celebrating the essence of Nature, the Human Spirit, and the Divine Presence in all
http://www.drdane.smugmug.com or:
http://www.inner-light-images.com
Nice! I'm hoping to get mines next week.
I wondered about that myself, so googled like crazy and found one seemingly authoritative explanation for sRaw. Supposedly it was created at the request of "high end wedding photographers" for shooting at receptions. The claim is that the volume of shots at receptions is high, you don't need full resolution like you do for the actual ceremony shots, but you still want the corrective abilities of shooting raw. Of course, why these "high end" wedding photographers can't keep a few extra CF cards in their pocket and shoot full-size RAW is beyond me.
Other rationale included the fact that it's just a firmware feature and was essentially free, and it's another bullet on the glossy brochure, so why not.
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
I find both of those reasons plausible. (The second is more likely. Marketing hyperbole.
The buffer would flush twice as fast and you would get twice as many images on a card. Since most of the candids are just going to print at 4" x 6", it might make some sense, especially as pixel counts skyrocket in the future.
I would only find it helpful if it were really easy to switch between the two RAW formats.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That's what I find plausible. Not much need for sRAW on an 8-10 megapixel SLR, but I'll bet more of us will want it if SLR sensors start going 16, 24, 32... megapixels per frame. Back in the film days, we only had to high-res scan the frames that were very important, but with digital, we have to store, track, and redundantly back up every non-rejected frame we shoot. I'd rather not be forced to buy a whole new set of cards and hard disks just because the Canon 80D consumes 32 raw megapixels even for a simple grab shot.
For the 40D, though, sRAW is probably mostly marketing.
...Especially if these wedding photogs are shooting receptions in "continuous" mode at 6fps :photo.
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
When I'm filing the photos, I save some space by deleting RAW and JPG for "loser" shots, deleting just the RAW files for non-critical photos for which the JPGs are "good enough", and keeping both RAW & JPG for real "keeper" shots or for those which will need substantial correction.
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/74359-canon-40d-interactive-review.html
I know nothing about this guy and don't really know how he did his test but I threw it up for discussion.
"Methodology:
The test very simply consisted of setting up the Canon 40D on a tripod and running at the camera over and over with an operator simply pressing down and holding the shutter for the duration of the run. They were instructed to ensure focus lock prior to each run and not to attempt to move or track the subject in any way. They were to simply press and hold down the shutter. An aperture of f/2.8 was chosen because it provides a more stringent testing of the focus point."
I hope to run a test between my mkII and 30D. I am curious to see how the quality of the images will compare.
Hope to get them for Glacier :-) :ivar
Shipped!
Finally able to get one from Best Buy...they had four, two sold in the first hour of store opening (arrived by truck this morning in some of their stores); picked up mine and a few other goodies. The last gone within an hour after...now to read and get familiar!
picked mine up from the post office yesterday - so.... yes they are shipping in Canada now.
Shane
Blogs:
www.imagesbyshane.blogspot.com
Canon 20d and 40d
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 70-200L IS 2.8
Boy, will I have a fine evening tonight!
Second that on the brighter and bigger LCD screen. Was getting so tired of that little tiny screen on my 20D. Let me ask you this. I was only able to take it out for a few shots yesterday but is it me or is it hard to read where the end of the histogram is on the right side up against the black of the border around the screen. Does this make any sense!!! I am very sick today and approaching full burn out so forgive me if I do not.
Shane
Blogs:
www.imagesbyshane.blogspot.com
Canon 20d and 40d
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 70-200L IS 2.8
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=71968
Thanks,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That's right, my very first brand new dSLR, ever!
WooHoo, this thing is great! One of the first tests I did was to test autofocus. I used a Sigma 50-500mm, f/4-6.3 EX APO HSM (not DG) at 500mm and f6.3, in a dark bedroom, with a single window light but indirectly lit corner. I was able to consistantly achieve focus lock using the center focus dot and a not so great stuffed animal target/subject.
I mean, even the Canon 1D MKII has about the same speed and success as the 40D in the same test, so pretty darned good.
Canon 50mm, f1.4 had no problem whatsoever, of course.
I am impressed with all the new features and can see the use for the live image view in a studio setting.
Lots to learn. I'll probably have some questions. Maybe a few shots.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums