12mp won't be anything when the traditional wedding photogs are back using medium format - digital medium format - I think it's merely a matter of time. . . IMHO
Yes I know that a correctly exposed image from a 20D can be enlarged to big prints. And with interpolation programs like Genuine Fractals, those prints can be huge. And with affordable full-frame sensor bodies on the horizon like the 5D . . .
I've read a few articles in the rags that still point to the "bigger is better" advantage. I think the pros who have the deeper pockets and the clients to support them will go for the bigger format when all is said and done.
With Pentax, Mamiya, and Hasselblad releasing new models, I think we are just beginning to see real, usable MF choices - that aren't tethered and other cumbersome challenges. I think the MF digital world is where DSLR's were about 6-7 years ago -
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
12mp won't be anything when the traditional wedding photogs are back using medium format - digital medium format - I think it's merely a matter of time. . . IMHO
... I think the MF digital world is where DSLR's were about 6-7 years ago -
I guess I'd better hold on to my 4x5 view camera then. Imagine when we get full-frame 4x5 digital:
Virtually no noise: ISO 12800?
Pixel density and count out the yinyang? 120MP?
Really big lenses would have no Depth of Field wide open?
Impress the ladies with, "yeah, mine's bigger'n anybody's" (and I have the truss to prove it.)
Impress your banker too, with a mortgage on your camera the same amount as your house.
Ah..., to dream!!
(BTW wholenewlight, I think you are right and I am holding onto my Hassy for that reason. I doubt that large format makes a comeback however.)
I guess I'd better hold on to my 4x5 view camera then.
Zig, do you really still have a 4x5? I just got rid of mine a few months ago to a photo student who gave me pretty good $$ for a well used zone VI model.
Oh oh, I think I'm being a thread hijacking violator. Apologies in advance:uhoh .
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
12mp is nice, but I need the speed and I need the zoom for filming sports. I will wait for the 1dMk3 or see about a 1dMk2 when the glut is forced to drop in price.
i will probably give this camera tryout - what'll kill it for me though is battery performance, hopefully it's as good as the 20d...
Actually Andy, battery performance HAS been considerably improved! When you hold the battery within a mere 8 inches of the camera, it locks up for 48 hours. Don't know how they do it...
12mp won't be anything when the traditional wedding photogs are back using medium format - digital medium format - I think it's merely a matter of time. . . IMHO
I think the MF digital world is where DSLR's were about 6-7 years ago -
A long matter of time. You said it yourself, 6 to 7 years ago. A 22 MP digital back for MF at $22,000? Ow.
When are we going to see a high dynamic range camera on the market? As an enthusiast (i.e. without specific need for fast fps or 16 megapixel resolution) I feel like being able to capture 8 or 10 stops of exposure rather than 5 or 6 would be a tremendous advance, far more so than whatever differences exist between any of the cameras on the market today.
When are we going to see a high dynamic range camera on the market? As an enthusiast (i.e. without specific need for fast fps or 16 megapixel resolution) I feel like being able to capture 8 or 10 stops of exposure rather than 5 or 6 would be a tremendous advance, far more so than whatever differences exist between any of the cameras on the market today.
What would make this different to using RAW & setting it yourself at home on the computer ?.
Because (as has been said) a RAW image captures only abut 5 stops of light. You can adjust the tone of a RAW image with far greater flexibility than with an 8-bit jpeg, but that doesn't alter the actual contents of the image. There is only one way to expand the exposure information contained in one RAW image, and that is to use more than one RAW image, captured using different camera settings. Hence we layer shots together or use HDR features. A RAW image (many would argue) still has a lower dynamic range, especially in the highlights and shadows, than 35mm film and particularly black and white film.
If you do a net search you'll find some info about high dynamic range image sensors, but it seems to still be in the setting of journal articles (and I'm sure in the covert alcoves of the Canon corporation, etc). They are experimenting with things like having two separate sensors per pixel, one of which is a smaller sensor that has an ND filter over it -- thus you are able to capture more highlight detail at any given pixel. Just imagine, though, how different it would be to shoot inside a cathedral or to shoot a sunset (with a single exposure) if you had 8 or 10 stops of leeway with a digital sensor.
What would make this different to using RAW & setting it yourself at home on the computer ?.
Raw is just a container, like a gallon bucket. What we're saying is that today's cameras are like pouring a quart of water in that gallon bucket, because that's all today's sensors can collect. We want a whole gallon!
Side note: It's generally known that digital cameras respond more like slide film than negative film. You have to nail the exposure or it looks like c***. Raw helps a lot, but if the sensors had more latitude like negative film, we'd have even more leeway in Raw. The great hope of some of us is that someday, digital might give us more latitude than even negative film did. That would be the holy grail. Megapixels and very wide exposure latitude. Then you could really take advantage of Raw.
By the way, I don't remember where I read this but there was a poll taken of professional photographers asking what features they wanted. Many of them said they had the megapixels they needed, and that better dynamic range was now a bigger need. So we're not alone.
I'm hoping for more cameras like the Fuji mentioned above. I think it has two sets of sensors for highlights and shadows.
Raw is just a container, like a gallon bucket. What we're saying is that today's cameras are like pouring a quart of water in that gallon bucket, because that's all today's sensors can collect. We want a whole gallon!
Or, perhaps, taking a picture of the real world with today's cameras is like pouring a gallon into an 8 ounce bucket. Using RAW just keeps it from spilling as you slosh it around.
Because (as has been said) a RAW image captures only abut 5 stops of light.
It's not the Raw image that's the limitation, is it? Isn't it today's sensors that only capture 5 stops? I think that's what you meant, but I want to make sure. Because it is too common to confuse bit depth with dynamic range when discussing this technology, I feel it's important to be careful with the terms. While I'm not a mathematician, I am under the impression that today's 16-bit Raw files can store many more stops of dynamic range, if only the sensors were capable of collecting it.
Or, perhaps, taking a picture of the real world with todays cameras is like pouring a gallon into an 8 ounce bucket. Using RAW just keeps it from spilling as you slosh it around.
Yes, I think that's a useful extension of the idea. You sample the real world with today's 8-ounce sensor, and pour that into the gallon bucket of a Raw file that is then not near full. If we had sensors that could hold 16 ounces or more of be... uh, dynamic range, then we would make much better use of our gallon Raw bucket.
Comments
Yes I know that a correctly exposed image from a 20D can be enlarged to big prints. And with interpolation programs like Genuine Fractals, those prints can be huge. And with affordable full-frame sensor bodies on the horizon like the 5D . . .
I've read a few articles in the rags that still point to the "bigger is better" advantage. I think the pros who have the deeper pockets and the clients to support them will go for the bigger format when all is said and done.
With Pentax, Mamiya, and Hasselblad releasing new models, I think we are just beginning to see real, usable MF choices - that aren't tethered and other cumbersome challenges. I think the MF digital world is where DSLR's were about 6-7 years ago -
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Virtually no noise: ISO 12800?
Pixel density and count out the yinyang? 120MP?
Really big lenses would have no Depth of Field wide open?
Impress the ladies with, "yeah, mine's bigger'n anybody's" (and I have the truss to prove it.)
Impress your banker too, with a mortgage on your camera the same amount as your house.
Ah..., to dream!!
(BTW wholenewlight, I think you are right and I am holding onto my Hassy for that reason. I doubt that large format makes a comeback however.)
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Also heard/read rumors of a 200mm f/1.8 IS and a 300mm f/2 IS. Maybe Andy could ask Jim if he is working on pdf 's?
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Oh oh, I think I'm being a thread hijacking violator. Apologies in advance:uhoh .
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
$3495.00
http://news.techwhack.com/1878/canon-5d-is-finally-unveiled/
hmmm sid, where have we heard that before
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
They know how manipulate folks like us, get us all atwitter, thinking we're peeking behind the curtain. Silly us. Clever them.
Good fun, though.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Posted on this site http://news.techwhack.com/1878/canon-5d-is-finally-unveiled/
My Photo gallery- rohirrim.smugmug.com
Selective Sharpening Tutorial
Making a Frame for your image (Tutorial)
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5841378.html
I didn't find the release on Canon's website yet...
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/index.html
Ruud
Canon D60/20D, 17-35,75-300IS USM, 100-400MM Kenko x2 convertor. Manfrotto tripods/monopods
Fuji S3-Pro.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
The RAW file is still inhibited by the chip's inability to capture a wider dynamic range without blowing out highlights or making shadows black.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
If you do a net search you'll find some info about high dynamic range image sensors, but it seems to still be in the setting of journal articles (and I'm sure in the covert alcoves of the Canon corporation, etc). They are experimenting with things like having two separate sensors per pixel, one of which is a smaller sensor that has an ND filter over it -- thus you are able to capture more highlight detail at any given pixel. Just imagine, though, how different it would be to shoot inside a cathedral or to shoot a sunset (with a single exposure) if you had 8 or 10 stops of leeway with a digital sensor.
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck
Raw is just a container, like a gallon bucket. What we're saying is that today's cameras are like pouring a quart of water in that gallon bucket, because that's all today's sensors can collect. We want a whole gallon!
Side note: It's generally known that digital cameras respond more like slide film than negative film. You have to nail the exposure or it looks like c***. Raw helps a lot, but if the sensors had more latitude like negative film, we'd have even more leeway in Raw. The great hope of some of us is that someday, digital might give us more latitude than even negative film did. That would be the holy grail. Megapixels and very wide exposure latitude. Then you could really take advantage of Raw.
By the way, I don't remember where I read this but there was a poll taken of professional photographers asking what features they wanted. Many of them said they had the megapixels they needed, and that better dynamic range was now a bigger need. So we're not alone.
I'm hoping for more cameras like the Fuji mentioned above. I think it has two sets of sensors for highlights and shadows.
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck
It's not the Raw image that's the limitation, is it? Isn't it today's sensors that only capture 5 stops? I think that's what you meant, but I want to make sure. Because it is too common to confuse bit depth with dynamic range when discussing this technology, I feel it's important to be careful with the terms. While I'm not a mathematician, I am under the impression that today's 16-bit Raw files can store many more stops of dynamic range, if only the sensors were capable of collecting it.
Yes, I think that's a useful extension of the idea. You sample the real world with today's 8-ounce sensor, and pour that into the gallon bucket of a Raw file that is then not near full. If we had sensors that could hold 16 ounces or more of be... uh, dynamic range, then we would make much better use of our gallon Raw bucket.