Besides that the D200 does have a 4-channel readout 10 MP DX CCD sensor, the D80 does have only 2-channel, and 3fps compared to 5fps of the D200, the IQ from both is the same - and i do love the color rendering of my D80...more then my D90 & D7000.
No we don't have, if so then i will send it, but i think i don't want to take this risk to send and they ask for recharge to repair it or even to pay for just checking it out to quote about it.
That's sad. But Canon made a statement about that, and 'til the end of september, next month, they'll fix the mirror issue onto the 5Dc for free.
The mushy look at pixel level is something that i experienced with a lot of new camera's. The 7dII for example, or the 5ds/r for that matter. They look somehow digitally upprezzed leaving an unpleasant mush of details. Like if i used an enlargement plugin in PS and added some gaussian noise to it. There are a few bodies that don't have this. I think this has to do with pixel size and distance in between.
Exactly, but with the A900/A850 i wouldn't go >800 max. I'd guess the A900 does have had the biggest OVF into DSLR History, have seen through it into a Camera Store years ago, when the A900 was new - just wow!If you'll ever need more megapixels, but with good or even better colour and feel to the files try the great Sony a900/850
Just right, mine went for about 280 bucks only, and 95% mint condition, besides the shutter count. Only at the bottom you can see that the Body isn't new.
Greetings Marcio,Hi,
Not that my opinion really matters, just thought I'd share my 5d 1 experience.
I'm a fashion shooter (currently retired). Been shooting Nikon (mostly D700, a bit D800), and have shot with 4 different digital backs, ranging from the 22mp generation to the higher end 39 and 40mp backs, P40+ and P45+.
I've always believed some cameras have earned the reputation of "magical" for a reason.
I mean, it can't be some sort of collective illusion.
If a giant number of people are seeing something special, to the point of labeling it as "magic", there must be something special going on.
My D200 and my 22mp Leaf Aptus are solid examples of this. Both are referenced as "magic", and yes, both have a very special rendering.
Recently, a friend of mine has bought the original 5d. Needless to say, it's regarded as magic for many years at Canon land.
I borrowed it and ran some tests.
Bottom line:
It was obvious from the start why it has such a high reputation.
Colors are AMAZING without any pp.
I shot it with a cheapo 50mm 1.8 at f8 - 11, and I'll make a bold statement now:
Having extensively shot with 4 different digital backs, I can safely say: it has a digital back IQ, specially at the pixel level sharpness and micro contrast.
With good technique, optimal lens aperture and ISO 50 or 100, it has exactly the same sharpness I get from my Leaf Aptus back.
It just made me envy.
My far superior D700 with far superior lens, both at 12mp resolution, is absolutely mushy in comparison.
As soon as I saw the 5d results, it was like seeing a 12mp digital back file.
Of course, it doesn't stand a change on shadow lifting or High ISO compared to modern cameras, but at sheer sharpness alone, I'd rank it far, far above any of my Nikon gear (including D800), and right there with digital backs.
There you go.
I does have flaws, like terrible banding on deep shadows, and lots of shadow noise by today's standards.
But if you're shooting on controlled lighting like me, that's not really a problem.
I wish I've shot with the 5d for the past 7 years, instead of my D700 (or even my D800).
Kudos for Canon
Regards,
Marcio Napoli
If the trend to higher MP density counts continues - we'd have someday 80-120 onto a FF sensor - and pixel pitch equal (and even beyond that, much smaller) like 24 MP onto a APS-C sensor...for sure, this trend will go on...better Picture DSPs, better, newly developed algorithyms, for instance check out the DxO One iPhone "AddOn" camera - especially for this temporal noise reduction feature, that's how it'll go...more processing power to the DSP, and so on...but the question is, do we really need that high resolution?! 50 MP are already a reality since the Canon Press Event earlier this year - but the lenses also have to keep up with this high MP count...and therefore lenses are getting bigger, heavier, and of course more expensive. Into the end, nobody perhaps except Advertising photography, very huge, large posters onto the street or high-riser really need that resolution, one would say.
Just right. that's it. On the other hand - lenses are like the 28-70/2.8 L are more expensive 2nd hand as the 24-70/2.8 L Mk. I - and can't be serviced anymore, because Canon doesn't have or produce anymore spare parts, especially the USM AF motor...if it breaks..then you'd just have an expensive L manual focus zoom lens.
Completely agree.
I don't have an M9, but a few years ago I found a bunch of RAWs on the internet (can't remember where).
I do have 2 bodies, the last one <280 Bucks. And one got already the Mirrorfix, whileas my other still need it, i know it since 2009, but at that time i have had only one 5D...will go tomorrow to a Canon Service Point for the Fix.
I know that the Service is off on 30.9. because Canon doesn't have anymore Service Parts, sad but true.Would love to see some D1X files.Hi fPrime,
The D1X has beautiful color rendering, but I wouldn't really recommend it, fPrime.
Unfortunately, the negatives far outweighs the positives.
In 2015, it's amazing to think the very best part of this camera remais the sensor! The body itself mercilessly shows its age.
But in case you're interested, I have a bunch of D1X NEFs here to share
Completely agree.
Sony have balls, they deserve a lot of praise for that.
Unfortunately, the trend is for truck loads of megapixels, that most (I really mean most) people will never need, and we'll keep downsampling files in post.
There's a thread right now about 250 mp.
You don't need to search too much, and there's already a suggestion of downsampling for optimum image quality.
So that's it folks.
The trend is for color blind cameras, and you buy megapixels that you don't need, just to have the pleasure of downsampling it in post.
The future seems amazing!
I don't have an M9, but a few years ago I found a bunch of RAWs on the internet (can't remember where).
Those were among the most deep and vibrant files I've ever seen.
Breathtaking color quality, clarity, and that signature CCD rendering.
Sometimes, you'll hear folks complaining about the M9's skin tones, but that's expected.
That was a Kodak sensor, and Kodak sensors are well known for rich colors, but not for everyone's taste (a matter of color profiles more than anything else).
Simply put:
I can see why the M9 became a cult classic, and is often times more praised than the M240 itself.
Cheers!
Marcio Napoli
Yeah, I do love the build quality of cams of that era. I got a minty olympus e-1 for sub-$40 and it is fun to shoot from time to time.
Just got finished looking at your RAW set. Those are beautiful! Who the hell needs new cameras?
