When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
But it's not though. The sensor is the same size, the pixels just got smaller just like with all of the point and shoots out there with 20mp that actually get worse image quality than lower res sensors. The point of the FF and MF sensors over the APS sensors is that the pixels are physically larger.
If so then a 5D classic should have way better IQ than a D810/5D3/D750
You're right but IQ of a 5DC at low ISO isn't that much different than the newer ones at your average print sizes. The benefits of the newer bodies is the lower noise at higher ISO and/or low light conditions.
I made a blanket statement saying that the higher the MP the worse the quality and that's not right but when you get up to the extremes, it does have a negative impact.
Anyway, 50MP is essentially pointless IMO unless it's in a real MF sensor.
But it's not though. The sensor is the same size, the pixels just got smaller just like with all of the point and shoots out there with 20mp that actually get worse image quality than lower res sensors. The point of the FF and MF sensors over the APS sensors is that the pixels are physically larger.
this is an older line of thinking. the new technologies account for these phenomena.
this is an older line of thinking. the new technologies account for these phenomena.
yeah, I would have to agree with that... my a6000 produces better IQ and better noise control at 24MP vs the 2010 NEX 3/5 (the original NEX cameras), and those were 14MP, so in only 4 years they are able to improve on that... I guess Nikon was behind all that too
yeah, I would have to agree with that... my a6000 produces better IQ and better noise control at 24MP vs the 2010 NEX 3/5 (the original NEX cameras), and those were 14MP, so in only 4 years they are able to improve on that... I guess Nikon was behind all that too
Right, better noise control and image quality in low light settings is absolutely something that newer cameras and sensors have.
Let me ask you this though, if the D750 came with all the same tech in a 12MP sensor what do you think the image quality would be? Would you be able to tell any difference at all in even a 16x20 print?
yeah, I would have to agree with that... my a6000 produces better IQ and better noise control at 24MP vs the 2010 NEX 3/5 (the original NEX cameras), and those were 14MP, so in only 4 years they are able to improve on that... I guess Nikon was behind all that too
Again bite ass hardon for anybody saying the truth about Sony products. Until Nikon had them build the sensor for the D800/e, Sony didn't know what to do with dynamic range. And even when they were finally to start putting that sensor in their bodies, they still couldn't fully do what Nikon did with it.
Think about it a different way. If you have the *capability* to shoot at 50mp, guess what, you can start pushing yourself and your work into markets that need that high of a resolution.
Again bite ass hardon for anybody saying the truth about Sony products. Until Nikon had them build the sensor for the D800/e, Sony didn't know what to do with dynamic range. And even when they were finally to start putting that sensor in their bodies, they still couldn't fully do what Nikon did with it.
you got any links to prove that Nikon "taught" Sony how to make sensors? Or this is just based on your observations or stuff you read in Nikon fanboy forums?
it's weird to think that a Nikon-designed sensor could be going into Canon camera... I mean seriously! I would have never thought that would happen.
remember when I had been contemplating going D800 but didn't do it because I'd have to buy new lenses - well now I can have my cake and eat it too
I hope this really goes through. That's when I'm going to pick up a new body. I wanted to get the 6D but looking at D750 RAW files makes me drool. I'll be waiting until Canon comes out with something that can compete.
Originally Posted by Sarlacc
For shooters like us...yes.
But for commercial print a camera such as this has many applications. MF aren't always practical, a 50mp in a DSLR body has much more versatility.
The market for that is (in theory) very small though...
I know tons of people will buy this though because 50MP.
Originally Posted by srika
Think about it a different way. If you have the *capability* to shoot at 50mp, guess what, you can start pushing yourself and your work into markets that need that high of a resolution.
I get it but I (again IMO) don't feel like there's a real need for this in the current market based on what I know. Which is obviously not all that much.
I get it but I (again IMO) don't feel like there's a real need for this in the current market based on what I know. Which is obviously not all that much.
nah I hear you. I'm just trying to rationalize it heh.
I received the EU prices for the upcoming Canon EOS 5DS full frame DSLR camera and EF 11-24mm f/4L USM lens: Canon EOS 5Ds: €3,499 (around $4,000) Canon EOS 5Ds R (no low-pass filter): €3,699 (around $4,200) Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM: €2,999 (around $3,400) Expect the US prices to be lower.
Didn't Canon just release the 16-35 f4 for $1200???
well it's supposed to have some new technologies allowing it to have low distortion etc. And being a L it's gonna have great IQ. Also maybe they are trying to limit the audience, who knows.
well it's supposed to have some new technologies allowing it to have low distortion etc. And being a L it's gonna have great IQ. Also maybe they are trying to limit the audience, who knows.
The 16-35 is getting RAVES. Guys are selling their 2.8 lenses and replacing them with this f4.
IDK what this 11-24 f4 has in store, but it better be a magic lens for that kind of cash.
5mm is quite a difference in focal length. But, I'm not understanding the $1800 price increase over a lens that was just released and is also an f4 lens.
11-24 is an unprecedented focal range for a non-fisheye L series lens and I think Canon is pricing it up based on that. Also the lens has new technology suited to maximize and showcase the 5Ds resolution and I think that's another factor for the markup. Is it a high price, well sure lol.
Its sharper corner to corner and has less distortion. It also has IS.
Ah ok. But you still lack the 2.8 that's helpful in astrophotography... Guessing that the newer bodies are so good with higher ISO that it probably doesn't even matter anymore.
Ah ok. But you still lack the 2.8 that's helpful in astrophotography... Guessing that the newer bodies are so good with higher ISO that it probably doesn't even matter anymore.
Its a line they try and sell...and with still photography you can get away with it a little...but I still find that the extra stop of a 2.8 to be a big deal.
But it would probably require bigger elements, more glass and way more money.
Ah ok. But you still lack the 2.8 that's helpful in astrophotography... Guessing that the newer bodies are so good with higher ISO that it probably doesn't even matter anymore.
There are other options for astro-photography if that's what you're after.
01-30-2015, 11:49 AM
?
$3000 for an 11-24 f4 lens? 
I sold my Zeiss 16-35mm F2.8 and later picked up the Sigma 12-24mm DG HSM II and don't regret it a single bit
