Donnie G: Seems to me that these 2 new Canons have the potential to further disrupt the medium format market and possibly in a major way. It just seems like a good bet that up and coming architectural and fashion photographers would find a lot of uses for these cameras and their L-lenses that were not possible or even affordable to do with traditional medium format gear. Don't be surprised if Canon winds up taking some serious marketshare away from the medium format makers without having to invest in designing a MF sized body or MF lenses and lens mount. :)
1. The D800 was and still is a viable option for many professionals who were renting MF (medium format) solutions. Some of you forget that the MF backs out there still being used today range from 16mp to 80mp, with various sensor sizes in 645 digital backs. Even the Canon 1Ds3 replaced a lot of MF backs for both fashion and catalog work.... because most people using MF aren't shooting multi-million dollar campaigns of any kind, nor has that ever been the bulk of the demographic shooting MF.
2. The 5DS will convert many others still clinging to their MF backs. **If the practical difference between the 5DS and a CCD MF back is the same or better than a D810 and a CCD MF back (which in general practice is not a whole lot); then you can bet that there will be converts.
3. The manufacturers of MF bodies-n-backs need to ruck up on dependability, focus speed, weather sealing, susceptibility to shock (being bumped), etc.. and take a hint from Pentax.
OortCloud: This is ridiculous. Why would anyone but billboard photogs need this resolution?I'm not about to start shooting my weddings with a tripod or print wall murals for my brides. Where's the 5D Mark IV?
I think it makes an excellent 2nd shooter for event photography (I'd prefer a 1Dx over it though); but if I could only choose 1 camera, I'd go with the higher resolution body or most of my work.
Just because it offers 50mp, doesn't mean you have to use it. you could shoot 20mp weddings, and 50mp for some of the formal bridal work, and formal family photos. I think it could work as a wedding camera just fine... especially for ceremonies in well lit, tons of ambient light sanctuaries as opposed to old churches with a few windows here and there and hideous lighting- the hideous locations usually aren't paying you much anyway. ;)
I'm really wanting to see that lens performance (Canon 11-24mm f/4).
stratplaya: Looks like after 8 years Canon was finally able to make a copy of the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. Congrats, Canon!
11mm is notably wider than 15mm that's for sure. For me, if the new Canon lens is as good as the Nikon, then I'd seriously consider it. The bottom line for me is not whether I can tell a difference peeking at pixels, but whether or not those paying me can tell, or even care about any slight differences in performance.
As far as the Tamron goes, I'd have to see it with my eyes- sometimes what's important to another photographer might not be as important to me or my photography. We'll see though; I'm very interested to see how the new Canon lens fairs when put through its paces! :)
ecube: The New pricing for the Canon EOS-1D C announced here in DPR a few days ago now make sense. They want to clear their inventory to make room for their new line-up.
I have a feeling REAL Pro shooting Canon will buy the EOS-1D C instead of the new 50 meg models.
I don't care one way or the other, Canon is not my preferred camera, Nikon is. But I hope Nikon concentrate of refining their D800/810 and D750 with the addition of built-in GPS rather than get into the megapixel escalation.
Which of the two brand is better is not my concern, both are excellent camera in the hands of an accomplish photographer. Just a matter of preference.
Why on earth would a portrait photographer pay for a 1Dc to get poorer results in comparison to the cheaper (but far better suited to the job) solution? That's worse than a dedicated portrait shooter buying a 1Dx over a 5D3.
You get the right tool for the job. That's the bottom line. The sooner people get it through their heads that 50mp isn't "huge" the better. People are just too used to using sad, little, puny sensors to the point where they generally think 50, 60, or even 80mp is huge- it isn't... it's just the fact that digital is finally catching up to what is normal in the larger formats which for decades has been the go to formats for many facets (portrait, fine art, landscape, etc..) of photography.
People just aren't familiar with that side of "normal".
OortCloud, stop with the whole "most people don't need..." argument. Most people aren't in the market for a camera, lighting solutions and lenses costing over $3,000 either, but for many who are, and who are sick of renting/borrowing larger format cameras in their professional work, 50mp is a great thing. You act as if 50mp is huge. It's only about 29" x 19in 'ish... at 300dpi which *finally* gives a portrait or fine art photographer a decent jump off point before cropping or upsizing the file. Pull back the ink on your large prints and you can eek out larger sizes depending on substrate and how much you can stand dropping below 300... 270? 240? That's not a huge print after you've cropped and processed the file, and throttled back your ink to levels that save ink but yield just south of the highest quality possible.
But that's real life stuff as opposed to internet fodder.
If I wanted to print a billboard, I'd just whip out my old 4mp camera and call it a day. What on earth does 50mp have to do with printing billboards as opposed to wanting as close as you can get to a 20x30 straight out of the camera to give you great image quality and cropping latitude when printing 20x30 or larger family portraits, etc.?
But surely as a wedding shooter you know why photographers through the decades have used large and medium format for the family shots back when utmost quality was on the mind.
You *can* shoot the bride, groom, their respective families, friends, and everyone in the wedding party in the big formal shot using a 20+mp 5D3, but the resulting print will not look the same as using an 80mp back. 50mp Canon= cost-compromise.
You *can* shoot the entire high school band using a D810. But the resulting print still has small faces compared to larger resolution solutions that offer slightly more detail and cropping room.
50mp isn't outrageous people.
If you have to ask...The same reason why many photographers (in their actual work): Require 1/500 *or faster* sync speed; ISO over 3200; strobes that provide a fast flash of around 1/10,000 to stop water spray in studio work; power packs of 3200ws daisy chained together for "fast action" location work at dusk, 50mp or more for reproduction work, macro photography, medical macro (capillaries, nerves, anatomy of the eye, muscle striations, skin cell design (for students) etc..
Take a portrait of 12 people, 2 cats and a dog; 3 rows deep, using a Nikon D3. Print that portrait at 20x30'ish, then 30x40'ish. Now do the same with a 5D3 and D810. Differences? Cropping latitude of at least 5.-1.5 inch all around? What about with 50mp or 80mp (digital back)?
The bottom line is that 80mp isn't huge (let alone 50) and until you start seeing digital solutions that dwarf the 4x5 format, the MP's haven't even begun to offer HUGE resolution solutions. We're just getting started basically.
If the new 11-24mm is as good as the Nikon 14-24, I might have to open my purse ;) ... though I would rather a faster aperture.
En Trance: Step carefully all of you Canon Lens Fanboys. I know about caution on Sony Alpha. 50MP at an a99 price? Can Canon live at that level?
Canon could probably "live" if they sold them for $2500 each. I'm very interested/curious over this new camera (I've been waiting for this type of dslr for over a decade); but I'm even more interested in Canon getting on the ball and adding faster tech to their professional line of scanners or making their large format printers even better.
nerd2: Two facts:
1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.
2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)
10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....
@Klarno (meant 645 my mistake)
Yes, one *can* technically use a 12mm lens to achieve the same AOV, however the result IMO isn't on par with the 28mm lens on the larger format; the smaller sensor often having a "puny" look in comparison to the larger sensor... throw in the DOF difference and in practice the "look" is noticeably different... even though an academic equivalency in AOV has been met.
In general super wides on FF aren't "working" solutions; often slow & sub par. I'm cognizant of MF conversions from having used all three formats (crop, FF, MF) ; Using a large Phase back vs. cheaper Hasselblad or Pentax 645Z sensor, can also be night and day due to sensor size (MF crop vs. FF so to speak) irrespective of lens used.
6x7 would be my digital choice to include a really wide relatively "flat" field of view lens if they ever fashion such.
Best in photography to you.
1. A 28mm lens on a 6x6 medium format camera, gives the same angle of view as what on a FF Nikon/Canon?
2. You shoot wide open the equiv. lens, and I shoot wide open, will the resulting photographs (and backgrounds) look the same?
DotCom Editor: What's most informative here is the vast amount of mirror bounce and shutter-curtain bounce. If you ever needed a demonstration of why mirror lock-up is essential when shooting on a tripod and you want to achieve the best-possible results, this is your proof.
.. and it's a really small mirror. I wish they would've shown the mirror of a medium format camera (e.g. Hasselblad 500 series) bouncing.
Please be cognizant that one huge reason to shoot full frame, or various medium and large formats is because of the angle of view can make a HUGE difference in what you can fit into a single frame.
1. Go into your bathroom, have someone sit in the bathtub and while you're facing the tub, from a tripod, take a photo with an DX Nikon (1.5x) or a 1.6x crop Canon; getting as much into the frame as possible.
2. Take the same photograph from the same spot using a FF camera; getting as much into the frame as possible.
3. Using a medium format 6x7 or 6x9 camera (film) take a photograph from the same place; getting as much into the frame as possible.
The difference between the formats alone can be huge! The smaller the format, the harder to get everything in the frame. Even if you have a 1,500 square foot bathroom, you get the point :)
The benefit goes FAR beyond just resolution, high iso, and image quality attributes.
Paul Gordon: The whole article is virtually irrelevant to serious photographers who migrated to a DSLR from FF and medium format film cameras. For us migrating to digital via an APS-C DSLR was a downgrade forced on us because at the time manufactures could not economically produce a FF sensor. So now moving back to affordable FF DSLR's is merely a welcome restorative step.
Digital APS-C came about because of a technical necessity not due to some preferred development path. The APS specification as a film size was struggling to make any serious market impact even with the larger APS-H format.
I have never owned anything other than FF lenses as I always considered APS-C a temporary necessity. My lens selection was totally compatible with all the photography I wished to do with an APS-C body but the path back to FF was maintained. That path is not a myth.
The myth for many is the belief that migrating from APS-C to FF is always an upgrade but that is a completely different topic.
A lot of truth in your post. I consider digital APS-C as an "upgrade" from film for the most part. Even today if *I* could only chose one, and had a choice between my old D2hs and my film cameras, I'd choose digital hands down.
I too have only owned FF lenses; I recommend not buying DX lenses as they don't work across the board (film, all digital, and even other brands w/adapters.)
Whether something is an upgrade (as you point out) depends on the individual. I'd rather use a 50mp, FF digital camera over MF (medium format) film any day of the week for *general* needs, however there's nothing digital on the market that can replicate a 6x7 range finder... which for me, offers a preferred angle of view, so there are many situations where film is the only way to get everything you want captured easily into a single frame.
You nailed it. For many the belief is that APS-C to FF is an "upgrade" by default, when what "is" or "isn't" (upgrade) depends on the photographer.
SirSeth: I think the article is well articulated. What I picked up is that many people think that buying FF lenses for a crop sensor will future proof them, but in reality as soon as those lenses are mounted on a FF, you're using "new" lenses that don't behave as they did and may be less useful (or more useful) on the new format. Meaning if you enjoyed the reach, now you need to add reach on the top end...
That is true. Many people opt to stitch. I have never fancied stitching, but it for many as an alternative solution to larger formats. Good point.
@SirSeth I don't think FF is everyone's goal, that is why I specifically mentioned certain types of photographers and needs. My mindset doesn't have anything to do with f-a-c-t.
The fact is that if you shoot broad vista-like landscapes, using a 35mm camera is like using a $20 cheap socket wrench set if you plan on regularly fixing cars on the side whether you're getting paid or not; It's simply a poor tool for the intended job. If a person wants great quality, then 35mm is not generally an option if your "thing" is landscape photography. Always exceptions of course.
The *reality* is the fact that many budding photographers haven't a clue about the other formats and their benefit and the vast difference in quality, light latitude, and angle of view.So many people just wanting to shoot family gatherings would benefit from FF but don't know it.
For the serious photographers not wanting to compromise (or the pro) every one of my previous made statements are true.
@SirSeth, Please don't lecture me about "privilege". While cohorts were spending money partying, *eating out*, cruising the beach, clubbing, buying beer, taking road trips & enjoying spring break; I was busting a-- mowing lawns/baby sitting/slaving at minimum wage, while creating my own business designs and spending nearly every penny I had on pilot's license/ratings.
I chose to ride the bus to school instead of paying gas, car payment, insurance & maintenance. Later I was driving German sports car... then Italian. I sold utility programs written in BASIC, digitized photos using an Amiga computer and busting my hump hawking glamour shots sold via magazine and newspaper ads, taken with an old Pentax during college years.. I am also a Veteran.
Today I shun SEO, & google ad craap, and focus on putting money where it really counts, getting far away from antiquated photography business models; reinventing how I get paid. I know privileged when I see it and I'm not it.
Teila Day: Darn right no DX lenses! I still think it's foolish for most people who ultimately want to use their photography to make regular income (enough to pay the mortgage + bills) to invest in DX lenses. I STILL maintain that the 14-24 (or 17-35) f2.8; 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200VR or IS f2.8 are the 3 working lenses that will cover nearly every job that a working photographer will be hired for and I would highly recommend budding photographers looking to earn money or a living with their Nikon/Canon to spend money on those lenses first and skip the dx lenses and 3rd party stuff unless it came with your kit.
24mm yields an effective 36mm on a crop sensor? So, step back. The reach the 17-55dx has over the 17-35 is the equiv. of 1 step forward. I chose the 17-35 because it made business sense; it offered max versatility; film and digital bodies (including my Canon w/adapter). Spending near $2k for a dx lens is ludicrous w/few exceptions.
The author is setting people up for failure.
Smart to spend $2000 for a 300mm DX lens that you can't fully use on film/FF digital, over an arguably more versatile $2300 70-200vrII f2.8 better lens that you can use on most Nikon film cameras, all Nikon digital bodies (and canon w/adapter)... then be my guest.I think the smarter people will opt for the former and add a 1.4 tc for reach. If you're THAT into birding, buy proper gear and get at least a 500 f4.
You might think it's smart to spend $1400 for a 17-55 f2.8 DX... I think it's nuts, poor accounting, and stunted common sense, instead I recommend the FF 17-35 f2.8 (same prince for the import) that you can use on film/digital cameras across the board.
People like me are tight wads; believe in spending, not *wasting* cash, and buy the good stuff from the start; don't worry about selling lenses because we bought for our future *needs* as opposed to letting money burn a hold in our purse. Want "reach"? Save money for a long lens and don't buy into the BS nikon is shoveling.
Joed700: Major differences that really matter when it comes to choosing between APS-C or FF is the DOF. If shallow DOF is a must for you, FF is the only way to go. For example, my Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 can produce shallow DOF that's equivalent to an 85mm F1.8 only. Most people don't realize that 56mm f1.2 (85mm equiv) is somewhat misleading. It should be read as 56mm f1.2 (84mm f1.8 DOF in FF). A typical DX lens with an aperture starting at f3.5 at 16mm can give you max shallow DOF of a 24mm @ f/5 in FF. By the time you get to f5.6 at 55mm, you would have the same DOF as a FF 85mm @ f/9. Camera manufacturers should label their product as such: 16-55mm f/3.5 -5.6 (24-85mm f/5 - f/9 DOF in FF). Anyone who's serious about isolating their subjects will think twice when they see the DOF equivalent--f/5 - f/9....
Forget DOF, even though that is a noticeable difference between crop and FF... but a benefit that is often overlooked is the sheer increase in width that is afforded by shooting film or FF digital. Even a camera like the Pentax 654 is the equiv. of shooting a small sensor medium format body... the larger Phase sensor is noticeably different with respect to how much of a scene you can fit into the frame.
McFern: This same conversation was happening 35 years ago when the upgrade path went from the amateur full frame (35mm) format up through the various medium formats to arrive eventually at the 'truly' professional sheet film formats. In 1985, an RB67 kit would cost you 10 grand or more (in todays dollars) whereas a "pro" 35 kit was less than 1 grand. So here is the point; I have some great shots from 4x5 down to 110 (read smart phone) but what I noticed was it was hard to see a difference between the different formats unless they were enlarged to the same size and then side by side. (Unless you compare 110 to 4x5) Digital between FF and 4/3 is even closer. So it is choice alone. None of these formats will make a bad photo a good one. Galen Rowell took his 35mm into the mountains during the days that 8x10 reigned and took some wonderful photos. If he were alive today he could do the same with point and shoot. A photographer is still the same skill level with a better camera.
Actually the difference between the formats can be as different as night and day in some of the most common situations. Stand 2-4 ft. in front of your bath tub with a model (or client) in the tub.
1. Use a 35mm film camera or FF digital camera and take a shot at waist level in attempt to get the entire tub and model in the frame at 17mm or so.
2. Do the same with a 6x7 medium format film body and wide lens.
3. Do the same with 8x10 film, wide lens.
That pretty much wraps the whole point up right there... and we haven't even talked about the depth of field differences and creative latitude afforded by the larger formats in such a real world scenario. I shoot a lot of clients in bathrooms... having to deal with Nikon's 1.5x sensors back in the D100/D2hs days was a... well, you know ;)