18 megapixels on a 1.6x crop camera - Has Canon gone too far?

David Kilpatrick wrote:


I see that one photolibrary newsletter mentioned the 7D today as a
possible major turning-point - one of those cameras which might change
things.

One thing it might change is the speed of product cycles. *d cameras
don't tend to get updated as frequently as **d and ***d models.

Me writes:
Did they mention why? The small amount of extra resolution doesn't seem
revolutionary.

100% viewfinder of a decent size for a crop camera.
On-demand gridlines
Virtual horizon
8fps continuous shooting
AF system to keep up (hopefully)
Weather sealing
Integrated flash commander

There are probably others I missed. It's a very significant upgrade.

Those are nice features, and I'm sure it's a "significant upgrade", but
it's basically evolutionary -- upping some numbers (but not really in a
major way), and adopting some nice features from other cameras; only the
gridlines thing is actually new, and it's at best a nice little tweak
(and it's not without cost -- no interchangeable screens means no
sticking in a nice little split-image/microprism screen for manual
focusing!). The price is still high enough that none of this actually
seems particularly surprising. Calling it "a major turning-point" just
seems like hype.

[I like the move towards a somewhat bigger VF though... hopefully other
APS-C manuf.s will follow!]

-Miles

--
Success, n. The one unpardonable sin against one's fellows.

Miles Bader wrote:
Me writes:
Did they mention why? The small amount of extra resolution doesn't seem
revolutionary.
100% viewfinder of a decent size for a crop camera.
On-demand gridlines
Virtual horizon
8fps continuous shooting
AF system to keep up (hopefully)
Weather sealing
Integrated flash commander

There are probably others I missed. It's a very significant upgrade.

Those are nice features, and I'm sure it's a "significant upgrade", but
it's basically evolutionary -- upping some numbers (but not really in a
major way),
They're actually "pro" features, that contribute toward the huge
difference in price between say a Canon 5d, and a 1Ds. SO IMO, they are
significant upgrades.
and adopting some nice features from other cameras; only the
gridlines thing is actually new, and it's at best a nice little tweak
(and it's not without cost -- no interchangeable screens means no
sticking in a nice little split-image/microprism screen for manual
focusing!).
AFAIK you'll still be able to do that. You can with Nikon anyway.
The price is still high enough that none of this actually
seems particularly surprising. Calling it "a major turning-point" just
seems like hype.

[I like the move towards a somewhat bigger VF though... hopefully other
APS-C manuf.s will follow!]

Nikon has had that size VF in APS-c (although a bit easier, as crop
factor is 1.5 vs 1.6) since the D2 series, and now the D300 & s.
It's not as large as a 35mm VF, but at least when switching between
using a D300 and 5d, the first impression isn't "wow - this viewfinder's
small", as was the case with APS-c Canons (though I never tried a 50d -
is it the same as the 40d?)
OTOH, for composition a small VF like the old D70 I once had, wasn't all
bad news. I like very simple composition - and a good test for that is
to shrink an image to thumbnail size, and if it still looks good, then
you've probably "nailed it". I've never dared to say that before, as it
goes against "common knowledge" that a large viewfinder must always be
better.

Me writes:
(and it's not without cost -- no interchangeable screens means no
sticking in a nice little split-image/microprism screen for manual
focusing!).

AFAIK you'll still be able to do that. You can with Nikon anyway.

The other reports I saw mentioned that the VF screens are not
interchangeable in the 7d, because of this feature. Dunno how reliable
that info was tho...

[I like the move towards a somewhat bigger VF though... hopefully other
APS-C manuf.s will follow!]

Nikon has had that size VF in APS-c (although a bit easier, as crop
factor is 1.5 vs 1.6) since the D2 series, and now the D300 & s.

Hmm? The D300(s) VF is 100% @ 0.94x magnification. There are other
cameras with 100% VFs, it's the magnification that seems so unusual about
the 7d (I don't find any VFs in recent APS-C DSLRs with more than about
0.95x magnification).

I do find that the somewhat smaller VF image of most APS-C DSLRs seems
more usable with glasses -- I can actually see the whole image at once!
-- but there's definitely a visceral "wow" factor to a big VFs image...

-Miles

--
"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra

Miles Bader wrote:

Hmm? The D300(s) VF is 100% @ 0.94x magnification. There are other
cameras with 100% VFs, it's the magnification that seems so unusual about
the 7d (I don't find any VFs in recent APS-C DSLRs with more than about
0.95x magnification).

The 7d and D300 have almost exactly the same virtual viewfinder FOV.
Both are 100%. Magnification is higher for the Canon, as the sensor
(hence screen) size is slightly smaller, but in the end they're the
same. They could make the view bigger, but that would make it dimmer, so
it's a compromise, and probably pretty reasonable.
From about the D80/200 onwards, the Nikon APS-c viewfinders aren't bad,
better (larger and brighter) than Canon's **d series. They are almost
useless for manual focus at large apertures, as are standard "bright" AF
viewfinders in 35mm dslrs. They're okay when using a fast lens stopped
down smaller than f2.8 - f4 or so. A good AF system with plenty of AF
points (to avoid focus:compose) is a boon. Better (IMO) than split
screen, unless your in the habit of putting subject dead-centre.
I think the 7D looks very good, Forget high ISO comparisons with
full-frame, it's not going to win except against old dinosaurs like the
Canon 5d, or Kodaks. For $1600 or so, there's now several choices in
professional level APS-c cameras. That's good, even if full frame
zealots say otherwise.

Miles Bader wrote:

Hmm? The D300(s) VF is 100% @ 0.94x magnification. There are other
cameras with 100% VFs, it's the magnification that seems so unusual about
the 7d (I don't find any VFs in recent APS-C DSLRs with more than about
0.95x magnification).



D300S = 0.94 / 1.5 = 0.626 apparent size
7D = 1.0 / 1.6 = 0.625 apparent size

In other words, you appear to see a bigger window with the D300S by a
very small margin

In comparison, old Minolta D7D (the original 7D!) 0.9 x 0.95 / 1.5 =
0.57 apparent size which is much the same as most other glass prism, 95%
finder models

One difference with this older model is a 25mm eyepoint, very generous
relief compared to a lot of current cameras which are coming out with
under 20mm

David

In rec.photo.digital David Kilpatrick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

I've seen several detailed images from the Sony a350, and while okay
noise wise (lower ISO) they were soft in appearance.

The pixel density is very high and there is enough noise (or variance)
in dynamic, so processing contributes to a softer look. A lot of that
likely gets down sampled out when printing to 8x12 inches - by 16x24 it
is probably noticeable - David Kilpatrick may provide more info.

The A350 is not really soft, it just happens to have been sold with
slightly less impressive lenses. It makes too many demands on the
18-250mm which is overwhelmingly popular (that lens is actually at its
best on the 10 megapixel models), it's pretty good on the 16-105mm but
that lens is a medium contrast design, and it outclassed the old 18-70mm
kit lens so much that very few ever kept using the 18-70mm on 14.2
megapixels.

I suspect that most if not all of the A350's reputation for softness
comes partly from using one of the two kit lens packages, which are
not up to the resolution of the sensor, plus using ex-camera jpegs,
which seem to be unusually soft. I was delighted by how much extra
detail I could get from the RAW files and good prime lenses. And if
you avoid Sony's own noise reduction, and use good specialist noise
reduction, it's clear that quite a lot of the noisy reputation of the
A350 comes from Sony's own poor in-camera noise reduction, and the not
good noise reduction of Sony's RAW processsing software.

The only thing I did which might need more work was to set the A380 up
on a pole, with the live view visible from below, and use a $6 IR remote
made by Jianisi (slightly more powerful than Sony's trigger) to shoot
pix from 12-15ft above ground. I could not really see the screen well
enough to do anything except check the horizon position. But I may keep
the A380 for its light weight in this context, and try the same using a
long HD cable and a small HDTV compatible monitor with a longer
sky-pole. I'd like to make a very low cost rig able to do 30-50ft with
14.2 megapixels. ISO 100 of course...

I do a lot of pole shooting with my A350, mostly just held overhead on
a monopod, but sometimes over twenty feet up on a window cleaner's
extension pole. If the A380 has a remote trigger cable socket, you
might find it better to use one of the cheap radio shutter
triggers. Much more range and reliability than the IR ones, and no
need to point it at the camera, which can sometimes be difficult if
you're using both hands to hoist a big camera up on a very long pole :-)

I have a cable link to a small LCD TV, so I can see the live view, but
the long cable is annoying enough in combination with an awkwardly
long pole that I'm going to switch to a small battery powered TV
transmitter of the kind that lets you broadcast a TV image from one
room to another.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:


I do a lot of pole shooting with my A350, mostly just held overhead on
a monopod, but sometimes over twenty feet up on a window cleaner's
extension pole. If the A380 has a remote trigger cable socket, you
might find it better to use one of the cheap radio shutter
triggers. Much more range and reliability than the IR ones, and no
need to point it at the camera, which can sometimes be difficult if
you're using both hands to hoist a big camera up on a very long pole :-)

I have a cable link to a small LCD TV, so I can see the live view, but
the long cable is annoying enough in combination with an awkwardly
long pole that I'm going to switch to a small battery powered TV
transmitter of the kind that lets you broadcast a TV image from one
room to another.




OK Chris, you're hired for an article in the next Photoworld mag!

I have never used the old-style video out of the A350 with a
conventional TV, only the HD video out from various other models with
HDTV, so I didn't realise the live view was transmitted on that system
the same way it is with the HD on the Nikon models, or indeed on the A380.

The A500/550 has both the HDTV output (which is enhanced for review
images - you get better than 640 x 480 over the HD link for reviewing or
playback, but only 640 x 480 for live view and shooting menus of course)
and the remote release socket.

I'm forgetting I also have the D5000 (but no cable release) which will
do the same as the A500/550.

Benefit of the cable release, wired, is that autofocus can be actuated
reliably. The wireless trigger does not appear to do a normal AF lock.
But then again, having the lens set to just minus infinity and MF is
probably safer.

David

Miles Bader wrote:
Me writes:
Did they mention why? The small amount of extra resolution doesn't
seem revolutionary.

100% viewfinder of a decent size for a crop camera.
On-demand gridlines
Virtual horizon
8fps continuous shooting
AF system to keep up (hopefully)
Weather sealing
Integrated flash commander

There are probably others I missed. It's a very significant upgrade.

Those are nice features, and I'm sure it's a "significant upgrade",
but it's basically evolutionary -- upping some numbers (but not
really in a major way), and adopting some nice features from other
cameras; only the gridlines thing is actually new, and it's at best a
nice little tweak (and it's not without cost -- no interchangeable
screens means no sticking in a nice little split-image/microprism
screen for manual focusing!).

Personally having done that once I doubt I'd do it again. I find that if
the focus is really critical I get better results from an eyepiece magnifier
than from the split image/microprism.

The price is still high enough that
none of this actually seems particularly surprising. Calling it "a
major turning-point" just seems like hype.

[I like the move towards a somewhat bigger VF though... hopefully
other APS-C manuf.s will follow!]

-Miles

In rec.photo.digital David Kilpatrick wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

I do a lot of pole shooting with my A350, mostly just held overhead on
a monopod, but sometimes over twenty feet up on a window cleaner's
extension pole. If the A380 has a remote trigger cable socket, you
might find it better to use one of the cheap radio shutter
triggers. Much more range and reliability than the IR ones, and no
need to point it at the camera, which can sometimes be difficult if
you're using both hands to hoist a big camera up on a very long pole :-)

I have a cable link to a small LCD TV, so I can see the live view, but
the long cable is annoying enough in combination with an awkwardly
long pole that I'm going to switch to a small battery powered TV
transmitter of the kind that lets you broadcast a TV image from one
room to another.

OK Chris, you're hired for an article in the next Photoworld mag!

Seriously? Next one might be too soon. I'll get back to you in email.

Benefit of the cable release, wired, is that autofocus can be actuated
reliably. The wireless trigger does not appear to do a normal AF lock.
But then again, having the lens set to just minus infinity and MF is
probably safer.

My cheap radio trigger has full shutter functionality, half and full
press.

--
Chris Malcolm