Moontjuh schreef:
TS...er bestaan geen slechte toestellen. De 7D is een prachtige camera met zijn specifieke eigenschappen net als de 5DmkII. gewoon uitproberen.
klopt maar ik geloof dat er eigenlijk 2 dingen gewild worden en dat is de performance van de 1DMkIV met een 1DsMkIII voor de prijs van een 7D
Kijk crop of niet, bij langere brandpunten is de kijkhoek stijler en zal dat niet 1-2-3 leiden tot een voordeel tov fullframe met eventueel een extender of croppen. Beeldhoek heb ik het over omdat die zo stijl is dat die vrijwel overeen komt. Bij wideangle lenzen is dat wat anders, omdat de kijkhoek veel breder is.
Ik heb gisteren nog even zitten lezen op de site van David Noton. En behalve zijn stuk over kleding (erg goed overigens) voor in de winter, en lenzen en camera's gaf hij zelf aan toch voor de 1DsMkIII te gaan ivm de sesorperformance en de beeldhoek die hij heeft zeker met een TS 17. Echter zegt hij ook dat als hij meer dieren natuur ipv landschappen zou doen dat hij ipv een 5DMkII een 7D of 1DMkIII/IV genomen had ivm de verwaarloosbare kijkhoek afwijking en het op gelijke grote afdrukken als fullframe opnames toch makkelijker is dat altijd maar croppen. Hij zegt namelijk, dat hij het onbegrijpelijk vind waarom je een sublieme 21Mp sensor camera koopt om steeds een groot gedeelte weg te gooien. Koop dan een langere lens of een APS-H of C camera.
De 5DMkII en I zijn erg goed en ook erg goed als walkaround te gebruiken, voor portraiten en voor natuur maar ook voor sport.
Mensen die een 5D afschrijven qua sport vind ik, nogmaals ik, dat ze eerst maar eens moeten leren fotograferen. Snelheid van de sluiter is gelijkwaardig en 100 opnames maken en er 99 moeten weggooien ipv iemand die gewoon 15 opnames maakt en er zo 5 kan gebruiken levert minder tijdsverlies op.
En vergeet niet dat we steeds zeggen dat iets nu kan. Denk na over wat de MkIII kan, en dan zeggen we straks weer dat we nooit sport zonder de 7DMkII kunnen vastleggen, omdat die 15 Frames perseconde op een 21Mp CF sensor vastlegt met IS.
Wel eens de specs van den 1DMkI bekeken of een 1DsMkI?
Kijk het is of 5D en af en toe loop je tegen een lengte probleem misschien maar croppen kan heel goed of je koop op den duur een langere lens of een extender. Of je kiest voor een cropcam, gaat enorm twijfelen over de gemiste resolutie en kijkhoek en mogelijk minder ruis.
Ik zeg je dat NIEMAND kan zien welke camera welke foto heeft gemaakt als je afdrukt.
Ik zeg je dat NIEMAND de ruis die we soms wel hier zien op schermen en vaker pixels zijn dan ruis, niet kunnen waarnemen op een A4 grote afdruk of zelfs groter.
Ik zeg je dat je of het ene of het andere moet en als enige heeft Canon een mazzel namelijk een APS-H. En als je 10Mp nu al te weinig vind omdat je weer zoveel kwijt raakt, vraag ik me af of je niet te ver weg staat, een te korte lens hebt, of gewoon te luidruchtig bent.
En hoe groot druk je af? 6Mp is meeeeeeeeeeer dan genoeg om A3 te vullen.
Lees aub het onderstaande ff, is echt goed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despatches
October 2010
The Perfect Camera
It’s inevitable. The 1D mkIV was out earlier in the year. Photokina has been and gone, but within the next few months a 1Ds mkIV is bound to be announced. Beyond that Canon are probably hatching a plot for the 5D mkIII, whilst over at Nikon, with the D3 variants and D700 in middle age successors will be gathering in the wings. So what? I’m happy with my existing set up. Do I need a new camera? No. Do I want a new camera? No. Will I acquire the 1Ds mkIV when it eventually appears? Probably.
I’m wearily resigned to that fact of life. Time was when cameras earned their keep over a decade. My Nikon F5s did 9 years and several hundred thousand miles of globetrotting service between 1996 and 2005. Now the life of a DSLR seems to be about 3-4 years maximum. A photographic retail trade that used to earn its bread and butter selling us consumables like film and paper now needs to sell us new hardware more often. But do we need them?
If the 1Ds mkIV is just a revamp with more pixels and HD video thrown in it’s going to be a hard sell for Canon. I don’t need more pixels, 21 MP is quite enough. Giving us more would be counterproductive; a greater pixel density means more noise and more memory requirements for neglible gains. The sensor resolution is already beyond the capabilities of the lenses to match, more pixels won’t give us better quality. And HD video is useful for some, we’re using it more and more for the Road Shows, DVDs and future web content, but with it already available on the 5D mkII and 7D it’s unlikely to be the sole reason for the painful parting of hard earned cash. In these uncertain economic times persuading us beleaguered tax payers to fork out £5K+ for a few more pixels and video will be tough. People are nervous about their jobs and in the world of professional photography just surviving is an achievement. Never has the commercial and perceived value of a photograph been so low. No, if I was the person pulling the strings at Canon or Nikon I wouldn’t be rushing into this; I’d wait and strive to produce a camera that gives pros and enthusiasts what they really need. I’d aim to produce the Perfect Camera at an affordable price.
Camera manufacturers don’t seem to understand our need to slow exposures down.
Let’s look at where we’re at. If you’re wondering why I’m only mentioning Canon and Nikon there is a reason; I have no idea at all how the other manufacturers pay the bills. We had a guest on one of our workshops with a Sony, once. I vaguely remember someone with an Olympus. Apart from that it’s been a 100% attendance record for the Big Two. And the camera that shows up on our guests tripods more than any other, maybe 60% of the time, is the Canon 5D mkII. In many ways Canon got it right with that one. I have one, it’s a great camera. OK, I prefer the 1Ds mkIII because of details like the eyepiece curtain, auto bracketing options and the weather seals, but with a £3K price difference it’s easy to see why the 5D is so popular. The quality of the 21 MP full frame sensor is every bit as good as its pro spec stable mate. But with both my current cameras there are things that drive me mad, convincing me that the people who design cameras have never actually used them on a cold, dark windy hill top. Camera designers give us functions because they can, not because we need them. Has anyone ever used the print facility on a 5D? They don’t understand us, and have no notion of what we need our cameras to do in the middle of a poppy field or with the waves lapping around our tripod legs on a winters evening. So let’s tell them.
With a sensor that we were able to vary the sensitivity of over selective areas of the frame, neutral density graduated filters would be redundant.
But first we’ll consider the positives. We’ve never had it so good. The quality and flexibility available from our state of the art DSLRs now is phenomenal. Prints over a meter wide from a sensor the size of a 35mm piece of film have the crispness and tonal qualities previously only associated with large cumbersome formats. I’ve just digested my Despatch from January 2004 on this website and it reads like ancient history; those early DSLRs were pretty useless. Things have come on so far, and I’m not talking just about pixels. The technological developments that make the most impact on us out in the field are not usually the sexy ones. Take batteries for example; early digital cameras would run out of steam half way through one chilly autumnal dawn session, despite a night spent cuddling up to the charger. I now can expose for weeks with just two batteries. Camera monitors are so much better. Sensor cleaning isn’t such a recurring headache. Noise is mostly invisible, even at high ISOs, and full frame sensors are now commonplace. Crucially lens performance is catching up with sensor resolution. In short cameras like the Canon 5DmkII and Nikon D700 are flexible, affordable tools that can deliver incredible results in the right hands. But they could be better. How?
Lets start with sensor sensitivity. Now I know a sensor is designed to work at an optimum sensitivity; typically ISO 100. I cannot believe the brains who enable them to work at ISO 12800 can’t apply some of that ingenuity in the opposite direction. Very few of us save a few MI5 surveillance specialists or dodgy voyeurs need these sky high ISOs. What we do need fairly often is the option of slowing things down to record movement. The lowest ISO available is 50, not slow enough by far so we have to resort to putting expensive opaque bits of glass in front of our lenses to achieve exposures of several minutes. 10x ND filters have become like gold dust. Surely the boffins can manage a low sensitivity below ISO 5? Ideally we would determine the long shutter speed we desire to optimise movement and sensor sensitivity retardation could be applied to suit. And on the Perfect Camera we could apply that retardation selectively to sectors of the image area like the sky to make neutral density graduated filters redundant. Think of it; using our finger, stylus or cursor we could select the sky on the camera back, apply the degree of graduation and density required and away we go. Now that really would be useful. Dream on? We’ll see.
Sticking with sensor performance cameras with a built in High Dynamic Range facility are now available; Apple’s iPhone for one. As it stands this will be of interest only to those who like the gruesome "Harry Potter" look of multiple exposures merged using HDR software. But any development which lets us hang on to more highlight and shadow detail is going to be useful. Please could we have the option to make multiple auto bracketed simultaneous exposures? I hate HDR pictures but I sometimes use subtle manual exposure merging. This way we could make perfect merges from hand held exposures of moving subjects. It’s going to test the cameras processor and buffer but that’s not my problem.
Generally the last place you want the point of focus is in the centre of the frame.
My cameras have loads of auto focusing points which can be individually selected, but they’re all clustered around the centre of the image area. In practice it’s just not useful. In the heat of the decisive moment selecting an AF point is a fiddle that is just not quick enough, and when all is said and done the focus points need to be out on the intersections of thirds to be of use. Sports photographers may shoot with the action in the centre then crop to improve composition, but I’ll be damned if I’ve invested in 21 MP full frame quality only to subsequently throw dollops of it away. What we really need is the ability to select an AF point anywhere in the frame, or at least to the margins of the thirds, with just a touch to the screen on the camera back. Obvious, isn’t it?
For landscape photography auto focus is largely redundant. Usually we need to select our composition, determine what angle of view and focal length works best then determine our aperture and focusing point to give us the depth of field required. Normally we’ll be focusing at the hyperfocal distance so everything from half that distance to infinite will be sharp. In a Somerset field with a 28mm lens the nearest poppies in the frame are about 2 meters from the lens. At an aperture of f11 focused at the hyperfocal distance of 4 metres for that focal length/aperture combination I can shoot away knowing that the nearest blobs of scarlet and the distant hills will be sharp. It used to be with the old fixed focal length lenses thse calculations were much simpler, the depth of field scales were etched on the lens barrel. Now i have to consult a little laminated card downloaded from the internet which lives in my Lowepro. It is low tech and indispensable, but really, couldn’t all these calculations and focus commands be done in-camera? What we need is a camera that reacts to our input of the nearest and furthest points we need sharp, reads the focal length in use then sets the necessary aperture and focuses at the appropriate hyperfocal distance. Wouldn’t that be useful. I don’t want a camera trying to do everything for me, I want to be in control, but surely the data on little laminated card could be incorporated into the camera’s brain?
As with our images simplicity is the key. The old style dial for exposure modes on the top left of the 5D mkII is far more practical then the tedium of scrolling through menus. The important stuff like mirror lock needs to be immediately accessible, not buried in the menus. And generally speaking the bods who design our cameras need to know that we do use them in the cold, in high winds, in the dark and with gloves on.
Maybe the next generation of cameras will be unleashed on us next year with some or all of these ideas built in. If so I’ll be jostling for position in the queue.
Howabout hyperfocal distance calculations performed in camera?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
).
