Anybody heard anything about when the New Canon 40meg camera will hit the shops ?
Anybody heard anything about when the New Canon 40meg camera will hit the shops ?
Do you mean the 50MP ones : the 5Ds and the 5Ds-r ?
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
are giving a date of Monday, June 29, 2015 at 12AM.
How's that for specific for something nearly 3 months away.
Unusually early prototype show release for Canon on these models (Feb 6th), they must have be worried someone might steal their thunder.
Last edited by Dug; 08-03-2015 at 4:23pm.
Will it help you take better photos???
I do not know if 50meg camera will help me take better pictures..But I am trying to visualize just what, a beautiful coloured bird taken with a 600mm or for that matter any sharp lens.in raw as to any 12 to 18 meg file would look like
Pet hate of mine - "People saying that is a beautiful photo, you must have a really good camera" Grrrr :-). With tht in mind - will the new 50mp bodies help my photography. Well, it wont make me a better photographer but it may:
Assist with shots I got a little wrong with exposure as I assume (and it is an assumption) should be able to recover more underexposed or shadow areas with more detail and less noise. I may make editing a less time consuming process in view of dynamic range and the above comment. It may assist with cropping and maintaining details.
Hmm, I could gone on and one about maybes and assumptions but I cannot see where the body would benefit me unless I wanted to print the size of a small home movie screen.
One major draw back that would be an issue in my space - the size of the files - more storage, bigger CF and SD cards, photoshop smashing my PC trying to deal with enormous raw files.
I am really keen to see how much benefit the 50MP body is in a real world overview so if you by one - mini reviews please.
Sometimes I cant (after processing) tell the different between a shot between my 50D and same lens 5D3 unless I start blowing it up to small poster size. But before processing OH yea - sure.
Please be honest with your Critique of my images. I may not always agree, but I will not be offended - CC assists my learning and is always appreciated
Canon 5D3 - Gripped, EF 70-200 L 4 USM, , 24-105 L 5 IS USM, 580 EX II Speedlite, 2x 430 Ex II Speedlite
That one thing is --- concentrate on technique --- especially hand holding the camera and lens.
The slightest mistakes are magnified by a large factor, seemingly much larger than the % jump in pickles would indicate, when heading off into the higher numbers.
I reckon that correcting / improving technique will make you, I and many others better photographers.
- Or even: That's a good photo. You just have a good photo.
CC, Image editing OK.
The problem with the new 5DS' s for me, is that they are low ISO cameras, and I do need high ISO's for many of the events I cover let alone processing a thousand or so shots for one event.
When people tell me that I must have a good camera, I say yes, and Picasso used good paints too.
All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.
Why aren't the pro bodies from Canon and Nikon endowed with as many megapixels as the enthusiast bodies from these companies?
There would seem that there is an anomaly here.
Canon's 1DX has 18Mp; the 5DIII has 22; the 5Ds/sr have 50 : Nikon's D4s has 16; most mids have 24; the D800 & D810 have 36.
Could it be that there are camera factors other than the sheer number of megapixels which facilitate the capture of great images ?
Otherwise, why would Joe Pro turn up with a 1DX or a 4Ds when his competitors bring a 5Ds or a D810?
Remember that output size is a very important factor in this too tho!
that is, as long as the camera has the capability to be set to a high ISO, the higher Mp camera may actually produce cleaner looking final images when set to a specific size compared to one with a lower Mp count at the same ISO.
eg. say you shoot at ISO12800 regularly with your 5DMvIII(22MP?) and now you shoot at the same ISO level with a 50Mp 5Ds(or 5Dr) .. if your output is always at 2000x3000 pixels .. there is a very good possibility that the 5Ds/r will produce cleaner looking images at 2000.3000 pixels than the 5DMkIII. Even tho at the pixel level(100% zoom) the 5DIII looks cleaner.
This is what Nikon have done with the D800 vs D600/750 vs Df/D4 etc.
Until the camera gets into the wild and sample images are analysed no one actually knows .. but I believe that for the same output level(eg. print size!) .. the 50Mp camera will almost certainly look better(and hence rate higher on many review site's scores).
If you want more Mp tho for the ability to crop tighter/more .. almost certainly you may end up being a bit disappointed once you start pushing ISO levels.
Take the 1Dx you mention first. From Canon's site " the EOS 1DX is always ready for action ". It also makes a great photojournalism camera. When you consider most sport/journalism shots go into magazines, newspapers, or on the web, you do not really need 50mp
Canon designed the 1Dx for action..sport etc... what you need for sport is good high ISO results, fast shutter (12 FPS) with a high speed rate of 14fps. The 18mp allows good low noise at higher ISO's, and fast frame rate to catch all the action (in a sequence if you want).
Now lets look at the D810 from Nikon. 5fps. And whilst image noise at higher ISO improves as new tech comes along, the D810 as per Nikon's marketing info aims is squarely at the Landscapers. Thus the big MP count lets you print these babies huge to go on the wall.
So the difference in MP count is just simply, aiming a particular camera at a particular market at the top end of photographers/photography.
Last edited by ricktas; 13-03-2015 at 9:06am.
I find the way many people cant wait for the next best camera or lens quite amusing. Will a client suddenly say I will only purchase your image if its from the latest greatest, or can you suddenly double your price as you double your pixels. For me Ive found I can still sell images from a compact and gopro so will stick there and not buy another slr ever again, not good for the economy but lets me spend more time at play and not working.
Most of the high end gear is just to big and heavy to lug around, by the time you get it out of the bag or box its to late.
Last edited by freelancer; 13-03-2015 at 10:42am.
So many variable ways to answer this question .. it's hard to even think of where(or how) to start.
But my first reaction to this comment is why does it have to be about 'the client'?
Who says every decision we make(not just in photography related life) have to be related to what clients want/need/expect.
The problem with your comment is that you're looking at other folks requirements, only from your specific point of view!
I have no clients, but I'm always interested in what new cameras the manufacturers come out with.
My decision to acquire the next 'latest and greatest' incarnation of a product therefore has nothing to do with what anyone's clients expect .. it's purely based on personal need/want/expectation.
I want a camera that does .. <insert capability here> .. so I get it, because my current one doesn't do that.
capability could be anything from more pixels(if I think there's an advantage), to better frame rates, to better focusing system, to a better operating environment ... or whatever!
What actually amuses me(more than the humour of people waiting anxiously for the next latest and greatest camera) .. is this incessant derision of the advantages of having more pixels in the next camera model.
It's as though ever since the invention of the smart phone, coupled with facebook ... that no one anywhere in the world now wants large prints of something that's been photographed .. ever again!
I find this argument that more pixels aren't what we need, intriguing at the least .. idiotic at worst.
Are these so called photography experts so well versed that no one anywhere in the world ever wants or needs more pixels ever again?
It's all come as a consequence of some ignorant perspective that all images are now placed on the net at 1024p wide and that's it. No more than that is required, so more pixels from the next camera is a waste.
I'd like to know which idiot on the net started this lowest common denominator point.
There's more to photography than just the one specific outlook and expectation of how it should be catered too.
If person A is happy with a go pro for all their work .. that's fine .
If person B needs 500Mp to afford them the ability to print at 10m and 300dpi resolution .. is this now not allowed because of the internet, or that Person A now has their preferred gear.
My low end gear with little to no resolution simply doesn't get used or just stays at home .. and I only have time to bring the bag with the high end gear.
Two different people, two entirely different needs.
Just because you have no need for it, doesn't mean that the other person also doesn't.
Why another person's requirements are amusing to you is something I can't ever imagine, I guess.