Canon 30D Announced
Discussion
matt gravy said:Praps I should have said... whats boring to you is interesting to others. I enjoy the patient helpful attitude everyone here has and learn from every comment. Ive learned shedloads in the last week alone
as you have quoted, its your decision. No big deal. I was just pointing out that there is very little need for anybody else to take the time to contribute their opinion for it to fall by the wayside.
And I do read back into the archives, answering a lot of my own questions by searching/reading both here and elsewhere. matt gravy said:That goes for everything in life. But all SLR's come with a fully auto mode dont they, which people can use whilst learning all the manual features.
you are likely to get very high res crap photos for a long time before you get to grips with it
I dont think a 30d VS 5D will be that much of a sink or swim purchase. Its just a matter of time, and how much free time I have to play.
most DSLR's behave like point and shoots anyway... you have to work at them to get the best out of them.
watch the CA on the 5D.. if you don't spend the money on the glass and even then shoot outside of the middle you will become an expert in removing fringing... see CS2 tutorials..
>> Edited by bacchus180 on Wednesday 22 February 16:26
watch the CA on the 5D.. if you don't spend the money on the glass and even then shoot outside of the middle you will become an expert in removing fringing... see CS2 tutorials..
>> Edited by bacchus180 on Wednesday 22 February 16:26
UKBob said:
Chromatic abberation? With good glass, you should be ok though, right?
Good glass will have less but I think there's always a little if you look hard enough. It can be corrected in processing if you shoot RAW.
I expect the 5D is showing it because the sensor is wider, meaning that the light rays are refracted more and hit the sensor at a flatter angle. Also, the lens is having to work right up to the edges.
UKBob said:
Chromatic abberation?
With good glass, you should be ok though, right?
You shouldn't get any noticeable CA with longer L lenses (like the 70-200 2.8) but on cheaper wide angles, and ultra wide angles you will. I really think the issue is somewhat overblown however.
Btw, if you are dead set on a 5D, I'd highly recommend the 24-105 f4 L as your first lens.
V6GTO said:
Btw, if you are dead set on a 5D, I'd highly recommend the 24-105 f4 L as your first lens.
Stuart...have you got one? My 28-135 is broken so was thinking this lens would be the natural replacement...how do you find it?
Martin.
I do indeed. It's excellent. Sharp, fast focusing, latest IS, like a massively improved 28-135 in fact!
srider said:
Btw, if you are dead set on a 5D, I'd highly recommend the 24-105 f4 L as your first lens.
Stuart...have you got one? My 28-135 is broken so was thinking this lens would be the natural replacement...how do you find it?
Martin.
I do indeed. It's excellent. Sharp, fast focusing, latest IS, like a massively improved 28-135 in fact!
I replaced my 28-135 with a 24-105 on my 5D. It's sharp and smooth but I've noticed corner darkening at 24mm to the extent that I swapped it for another one - which doesn't seem to be any better...
I'll be taking this up with Canon when I get time.
Captain Beaky said:
[but I've noticed corner darkening at 24mm to the extent that I swapped it for another one - which doesn't seem to be any better...
I'll be taking this up with Canon when I get time.
Stuart?
Just for info on megapixels and resolution heres an intresting graph pinched of dpreview:
And text:
[quote]"dpreview"]
Megapixels, some perspective
One thing you must never lose perspective of is that (for the same aspect ratio) you must quadruple megapixel count to double resolution. This means that a twelve megapixel sensor of today has approximately twice the resolution (horizontally or vertically) of the three megapixel sensor of yesterday. Hence as megapixel counts climb it becomes harder and harder demonstrate a significant resolution advantage, the 'jumps' in megapixel count have to become much bigger. The diagram below is a comparison of output image size from five different 8 megapixel-and-up digital SLR's.
[/quote]
And text:
[quote]"dpreview"]
Megapixels, some perspective
One thing you must never lose perspective of is that (for the same aspect ratio) you must quadruple megapixel count to double resolution. This means that a twelve megapixel sensor of today has approximately twice the resolution (horizontally or vertically) of the three megapixel sensor of yesterday. Hence as megapixel counts climb it becomes harder and harder demonstrate a significant resolution advantage, the 'jumps' in megapixel count have to become much bigger. The diagram below is a comparison of output image size from five different 8 megapixel-and-up digital SLR's.
[/quote]
Now I might be stupid but...
The megapixel count IS the resolution, so if you double it, you double the resolution. If you quadruple it, you quadruple the resolution.
If they are talking about along one edge of the image that sort of makes sense. But for overall resolution, that comment make absolutely zero sense to me.
dpreview said:
you must quadruple megapixel count to double resolution
The megapixel count IS the resolution, so if you double it, you double the resolution. If you quadruple it, you quadruple the resolution.
If they are talking about along one edge of the image that sort of makes sense. But for overall resolution, that comment make absolutely zero sense to me.
_dobbo_ said:That is what they're talking about
If they are talking about along one edge of the image that sort of makes sense. But for overall resolution, that comment make absolutely zero sense to me.
"This means that a twelve megapixel sensor of today has approximately twice the resolution (horizontally or vertically)"
I thought so, in which case they are using misleading terminology.
For a given aspect ratio you don't need to quadruple the megapixel count to double the resolution, that's incorrect. Even allowing for the fact they are talking about a single edge of an image, they are still wrong, because the dimensions of a single side of an image aren't measured in megapixels in the first place - it's not like anyone says "my camera takes images that are 0.003 megapixels wide."
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 24th February 10:19
For a given aspect ratio you don't need to quadruple the megapixel count to double the resolution, that's incorrect. Even allowing for the fact they are talking about a single edge of an image, they are still wrong, because the dimensions of a single side of an image aren't measured in megapixels in the first place - it's not like anyone says "my camera takes images that are 0.003 megapixels wide."
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 24th February 10:19
It is correct. Resolution is measured linearly (i.e. dpi).
Take an 800x600 image. This has 480,000 pixels
Double the resolution, takes it to 1600x1200 (for the same print size). 1,920,000 pixels
1,920,000 / 480,000 = 4
Therefore, to double the resolution, you have to quadruple the pixel count!
Take an 800x600 image. This has 480,000 pixels
Double the resolution, takes it to 1600x1200 (for the same print size). 1,920,000 pixels
1,920,000 / 480,000 = 4
Therefore, to double the resolution, you have to quadruple the pixel count! daydreamer said:
It is correct. Resolution is measured linearly (i.e. dpi).
Take an 800x600 image. This has 480,000 pixels
Double the resolution, takes it to 1600x1200 (for the same print size). 1,920,000 pixels
1,920,000 / 480,000 = 4
Are you sure? Typically resolution is defined as the product of the two numbers, so by your example it's quadrupled. What's your source which says resolution is measured linearly?
In any case even if that's correct, the article still misleads. Who measures linear resolution in megapixels? A sensor doesn't even exist which can record at that resolution, so why confuse the issue by using terminology that doesn't apply?
_dobbo_ said:I agree with Rich - resolution is measured in one direction (e.g., scanners, printers, dpi, lpi, ppi etc...)
Are you sure? Typically resolution is defined as the product of the two numbers, so by your example it's quadrupled. What's your source which says resolution is measured linearly?
_dobbo_ said:I didn't see the article referring to the linear resolution in megapixels, however a megapixel is simply 1 million of the little fellas, so it wouldn't actually be incorrect to do so.
In any case even if that's correct, the article still misleads. Who measures linear resolution in megapixels? A sensor doesn't even exist which can record at that resolution, so why confuse the issue by using terminology that doesn't apply?
_dobbo_ said:Oh, just ignore whatever it was I said. I dont mind being further down the photographic food chain of knowlege so long as I can take part
This has become a semantic argument as to the meaning of "resolution"! Print resolution and display resolution appear to be referred to entirely differently. Since digital cameras deal in both print and display resolution, it seems we could arguably both be correct. 
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff