[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

PP = post-processing? Why would post-processing high-ISO pictures be significantly different from non-high-ISO pictures?

Yeah for PP.

Dunno, like I said I'm learning. Isn't there some noise reduction incantation to utter when you start up Photoshop or something? I'm slowly playing around with Aperture and haven't even seen what Photoshop looks like yet, so forgive the noob assumptions.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Uh, I was quoting someones reply to a comment. I found the line about God rolling back ambient lighting quite funny.

Ah, I see.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

My (very humble) experience of high ISO has not been a good one. I have not yet had the opportunity to use cameras that can take good pictures at high ISO settings. I also don't know how to handle the PP yet of high ISO photos. But I'm learning.

Well, if it's the difference of making the shot or not making the shot, I'd always err on the side of making the shot.

[OreoCookie]

@Eug
For paparazzi shots like the one you've posted, 70-200 mm lenses are ideal. However, when I'm indoors, I find myself lusting for focal lengths of 50-80 mm on crop. I could use the 18-70 mm Nikkor, but then I have an initial aperture of 5.6 -- which is enough to destroy all hopes of separating foreground from background. On the other hand, if I want to go beyond 70 mm, I have to change lenses -- also not good, especially if one of the lenses weights 1.5 kg

So I end up with shots that are cropped a tad too much:

(I also should have used a smaller aperture, the depth of field is too small.) For a similar portrait taken outside, I've missed the focus (the focal plane is on the hair and not on the eyes, ugh!).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Eug
For paparazzi shots like the one you've posted, 70-200 mm lenses are ideal. However, when I'm indoors, I find myself lusting for focal lengths of 50-80 mm on crop. I could use the 18-70 mm Nikkor, but then I have an initial aperture of 5.6 -- which is enough to destroy all hopes of separating foreground from background. On the other hand, if I want to go beyond 70 mm, I have to change lenses -- also not good, especially if one of the lenses weights 1.5 kg

Well, the 70 mm on the 70-200 f/4 IS is decent.

But yeah, the 24-105 is pretty good for these types of shots on crop. (Not that I take a huge number of portraits though.) I'm not hugely impressed with the 24-105L at 24 mm esp. wide open, but in this context it's not a big deal. Furthermore the bokeh on this lens is good.

You brought up a reason I hesitated with the 17-55 IS. It's really lacking on the long end. I'd be much more comfortable with it if it were 17-70. The other problem with the 17-55 is the sometimes mediocre bokeh. Canon is coming out with a 15-85 IS, but my guess is that it is going to be mediocre at best all around. It's a direct replacement for my old 17-85 IS but I was rather unimpressed with that lens and replaced it with the 24-105 when it came out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one big reason Canon came out with the 15-85 to replace the 17-85, was because Nikon came out with the 16-85.

So I end up with shots that are cropped a tad too much:

(I also should have used a smaller aperture, the depth of field is too small.)

It says your focal length was 135 mm (200 mm equiv.). Is that correct? If so, yeah, that'd be tough.

As for f/2.8, at least you have that option. Not an option on my 24-105L.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You brought up a reason I hesitated with the 17-55 IS. It's really lacking on the long end. I'd be much more comfortable with it if it were 17-70. The other problem with the 17-55 is the sometimes mediocre bokeh.

Depends on what you want to do and what your alternatives are: except for a not-so-great Sigma and a Tokina, there are no other lenses for you. Sigma makes a 17-70 mm f/2.8-4, but I'm not sure whether it really is an improvement. I'd try to rent or borrow the lens and see how you like it. If you don't, stick to your nice primes.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Canon is coming out with a 15-85 IS, but my guess is that it is going to be mediocre at best all around. It's a direct replacement for my old 17-85 IS but I was rather unimpressed with that lens and replaced it with the 24-105 when it came out.

Ditto. The 18-70 mm I have is `good for a kit lens.' And I guess that much is true, but f/5.6 on the long end doesn't cut it for me. I can really tell from my photos that my best shots are taken with other lenses. And it's not that I mind the focal length range … 

Originally Posted by Eug 

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one big reason Canon came out with the 15-85 to replace the 17-85, was because Nikon came out with the 16-85.

Yes, so that nitpickers can say Canon is better, because they're 1 mm shorter
(Oh, when was the last time something was better when it's shorter? )

Originally Posted by Eug 

It says your focal length was 135 mm (200 mm equiv.). Is that correct? If so, yeah, that'd be tough.

Yes, that's accurate. I was (and still am) practicing. The thing is: humans are like animals: if you pick up a big gun and aim at them, most of them will look up in fear and run!

Originally Posted by Eug 

As for f/2.8, at least you have that option. Not an option on my 24-105L.

That's true, I will still need some practice until I truly master this lens. Also, it's pretty much impossible to use manual focus: even though the D80 has a decent viewfinder, it's nowhere nearly as good as a good full frame viewfinder. You can tell that in the first pic, the focus is not on the pupil, but the front of the eye. The pupils are already a bit out of focus, that's how razor thin the depth of field is.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'd try to rent or borrow the lens and see how you like it. If you don't, stick to your nice primes.

Well, my primes are good but not great. Sharp enough for me, but I have to be careful because the bokeh isn't great. The ones with great bokeh cost several fold more.

That's true, I will still need some practice until I truly master this lens. Also, it's pretty much impossible to use manual focus: even though the D80 has a decent viewfinder, it's nowhere nearly as good as a good full frame viewfinder.

I'm really looking forward to the 7D's 100% viewfinder, as well as its LiveView feature with a 0.9 Megapixel 3" LCD screen.

[Jawbone54]

I'm a bit late on all this, but I have to say that shooting at ISO 6,400 with a fast lens in ultra-low lighting, but still turning out a fantastic shot makes every penny spent on the full-frame camera with the high ISO capabilities worth it.

High ISO production is overblown, and people make too much of it, but it is definitely nice to have.

[Eug]

Pro photographer impressions of 7D

"I can say I shot some pictures of the model above at 800-3200iso and can easily consider them totally usable for print with virtually no objectionable noise."

With regard to 7D vs 5D Mark II:

"different cameras, iso is not that far off, feel is about the same, focus is much faster, lots of new gadgets in this, more options, more in depth menu and the built in flash which can control a speedlite or groups of them is great! it means you can take the body and one 580, 430, 550 and have off camera lighting with no extra units or controller."

7D model shoot at different ISOs
7D ISO test photos
7D ISO comparisons vs 5D2, saved as TIFF
7D ISO 6400 cat pix

The photographer is Stephen Eastwood.

[pooka]

The built-in speedlight control just pisses me off. God damn this things sounds better and better with each reveal.

[Eug]

Canon 7D Field Review

[richwig83]

Not bad.... but you have to bear in mind that lens costs 7000GBP!!!

[Demonhood]

600mm is really the only safe way to take pix of toothy birds.

[Eug]

Yeah, I thought those pseudo-teeth were rather interesting...

BTW, I finally got the email today for pre-orders. Sent!
I wonder how many units my shop is gonna get, and how far down the list I am.

[richwig83]

Youve gotta be carful of greylag geese... they will bit your arm off! :-)

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

PP = post-processing? Why would post-processing high-ISO pictures be significantly different from non-high-ISO pictures?

Depending on your camera, good software on the computer may be able to reduce noise significantly more than the camera itself.

With my D70s, I've taken to shooting high-ISO images in RAW because Aperture's RAW converter results in hugely cleaner images than the camera's built-in processing. (Aperture also beats Lightroom and Photoshop in terms of color quality.) At low ISO, where there's not much noise to begin with, the difference isn't that big, so I'll shoot JPEG when lighting and exposure are ideal, and RAW when I think I might need to adjust later.

Newer cameras (in Nikon, the D300, D90, D700, D3, and later) have massively more advanced in-camera processing that obviates the need to convert on the desktop in most cases.

[QuadG5Man]

So how long does it take to start/stop in between video files? The files are regulated to 4GB in size and about 12 minutes of HD video, so I'd like to know how long the delay is into starting up the video capture again..

[Eug]

Originally Posted by QuadG5Man 

So how long does it take to start/stop in between video files? The files are regulated to 4GB in size and about 12 minutes of HD video, so I'd like to know how long the delay is into starting up the video capture again..

Dunno. I'd guess it would be quite fast (seconds).

P.S. I guess it depends on what you like to shoot, but does it matter a lot to you? It seems all the pros record audio to an external recorder anyway, because using the built-in mic gives lousy quality, and using an external mic with the camera's mic input is not great either because the camera has auto gain control. Using that on-camera mic input also forces the audio to be recorded together with the video which reduces flexibility. Using external audio recording solves all the above problems as well as the 12 minute limit problem. Well, it doesn't solve the problem for video, but none of them seem to care, because they always shoot short video clips. Audio without breaks seems more important to them. A good example of the benefits of external recording is the video I posted earlier:

Perya

That said, if I get into video more, I may consider buying a camera mounted shotgun mic, to use primarily with the camera's audio input.

----

That outdoor test blog post now has the official English translation.

Originally Posted by Eug 

It turns out this toothy grin is from a 100% crop. Impressive.

[mattyb]

They are nice photos but forgive me, when there's loads of nice bright sun, my mother takes some stunning photos.

Lets see low-light stuff. Concerts, or a cloudy car or bike race.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

They are nice photos but forgive me, when there's loads of nice bright sun, my mother takes some stunning photos.

Lets see low-light stuff. Concerts, or a cloudy car or bike race.

Test photos already posted.

Originally Posted by Eug 

7D model shoot at different ISOs
7D ISO test photos
7D ISO comparisons vs 5D2, saved as TIFF
7D ISO 6400 cat pix

However, there are various other examples around the net.

ISO 800:



ISO 800 (Click for 18 MP version):



ISO 3200:



ISO 1600 | ISO 3200 | ISO 6400 | ISO 12800

The consensus so far is that it's probably better than the 40D and 50D for high ISO performance, but not as good as the 5D Mark II. OTOH, it doesn't seem to have the banding issue for noise that the 5D Mark II has with some low light portions of photos:

[Eug]

I just came across this dynamic range table that some random guy created based on analyses of available pix. I don't know if this is accurate, but when normalized to the resolution of the 20D:

ISO 400
5D2: 11.8
7D: 11.5
50D: 11.2
40D: 11.1
20D: 10.4 <-- Reasonably good

ISO 800
5D2: 11.6
7D: 10.9
50D: 10.7
40D: 10.5
20D: 10 <-- Usable

ISO 1600
5D2: 11.1
7D: 10.2
50D: 9.9
40D: 9.7
20D: 9.5 <-- Marginal

ISO 3200
5D2: 10.1
7D: 9.4
50D: 8.9
40D: 8.7
20D: 8.5 <-- Unusable

So basically, I find ISO 400 on my 20D reasonably good, ISO 800 usable, and ISO 1600 marginal. If these numbers are any indication, on the 7D then ISO 1600 would be somewhere between "reasonably good" to "usable", and ISO 3200 would be marginal, which means a real improvement in ISO performance of about 1.5 stops.

This would be great, as having decent ISO 1600 would be a big upgrade over my 20D. Plus the 20D's autofocus kinda sucks. The 7D is supposed to have much improved autofocus. Oh and the 5D2 has about a 1 stop advantage over the 7D for ISO performance, although that advantage is diminished by the presence of banding.

[mattyb]

OK, OK very impressive high ISO shots - especially the concert. I *hope* that Nikon come out with something soon because even though I don't have tons invested in lenses, it would be nice to be able to use what I have got. A D90 replacement comes out that does 6.5/7 fps with all the high ISO capabilities and AF speed of the D300s?

I can dream can't I?

[richwig83]

What wrong with 'JUST' the D300s?? that does 8FPS, 51 point AF, video... etc etc etc

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

OK, OK very impressive high ISO shots - especially the concert. I *hope* that Nikon come out with something soon because even though I don't have tons invested in lenses, it would be nice to be able to use what I have got. A D90 replacement comes out that does 6.5/7 fps with all the high ISO capabilities and AF speed of the D300s?

I can dream can't I?

D90 replacement? The 7D plays in an entirely different league, the body is twice as expensive as that of the D90. The 7D's competitor is the D300s.

Nikon has already released the D300s at the end of July. It sports a lower resolution, but the same AF module than the D3(x), D700 and D300 have. Whereas the D300 was `limited' to 8 fps with grip (6 fps without grip), the D300s manages 7 fps without grip and 8 fps with grip (same as before). Since we have no hard numbers on the high-ISO behavior, we cannot say for sure how the D300s compares against the 7D. And besides, if you want excellent high-noise performance, you can always invest into the D700. Ditto for the performance of the AF module, although for sure we cannot conclude that 51 AF points (15 of which are cross-type) are better than 18 AF points (all of the cross-type). Or that 18 MP are better than 12 MP (especially if you don't really need the additional megapixels).

In any case, it looks like it's a dead heat. But I'm surprised you've missed the release of the D300s. Even the `old' D300 sports the features you've been asking for. Besides, rumor has it that Nikon is working on the D400 already … Competition is a good thing.

In any case, I think most people are too feature-centric. Of course, newer cameras and lenses often are better than their predecessors, but do you really need it? I have an old push-pull 80-200 mm Nikkor. The same optics is still used in the cheaper 80-200 mm two-ring Nikkor sold today. Is the AF a lot slower? Yes. Do I feel limited by it? Not really, I don't shoot basketball games and stuff, mostly portraits. Ditto for my body. No doubt newer bodies have better noise performance. But I know the limitations of my camera and no matter what generation, if you shoot around ISO 100~400, you don't see that much of a difference, noise is not an issue. While being able to shoot at ISO 6400 and higher (something that was basically unthinkable in the film days!) is a welcome addition, no photographer would use that setting if it were possible to shoot at lower ISO.

[Oisín]

Ditto for my body. No doubt newer bodies have better noise performance.

Ah, starting to need hearing aids in your old age, eh?

Joking aside, it might not be an issue for portraits, but I’m very thankful for the speedy and efficient AF on my tele (Canon 70–200L IS USM f/4). I tend to use it mostly for things like parties, concerts, or candid shots, where fast AF is essential almost by definition. My old tele (Tamron 55–200) had slow autofocus and was horrible to use in such settings.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Joking aside, it might not be an issue for portraits, but I’m very thankful for the speedy and efficient AF on my tele (Canon 70–200L IS USM f/4). I tend to use it mostly for things like parties, concerts, or candid shots, where fast AF is essential almost by definition. My old tele (Tamron 55–200) had slow autofocus and was horrible to use in such settings.

With my 20D, that lens focuses better than many of my other lenses, but for fast moving subjects I'd prefer even better autofocus. Unfortunately, the 20D is not capable of it. Part of it probably has to do with my technique, but a lot of it has to do with the 20D simply being too slow and inaccurate.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

D90 replacement? The 7D plays in an entirely different league, the body is twice as expensive as that of the D90. The 7D's competitor is the new D300s.

Nikon has already released the D300s at the end of July. It sports a lower resolution, but the same AF module than the D3(x), D700 and D300 have. Whereas the D300 was `limited' to 8 fps with grip (6 fps without grip), the D300s manages 7 fps without grip and 8 fps with grip (same as before). Since we have no hard numbers on the high-ISO behavior, we cannot say for sure how the D300s compares against the 7D. And besides, if you want excellent high-noise performance, you can always invest into the D700. Ditto for the performance of the AF module, although for sure we cannot conclude that 51 AF points (15 of which are cross-type) are better than 18 AF points (all of the cross-type). Or that 18 MP are better than 12 MP (especially if you don't really need the additional megapixels).

Yeah, the D90 is not in the same class. The 7D goes up against the D300s. In fact, they're almost the same price. (The 7D is $100 less.)

I'm biased but... Based on specs and based on (other people's) assessments of image quality, I think the 7D probably bests the D300s, but then again, the D300s came out earlier. The video options on the 7D are significantly better, and claims are that the 7D probably has a bit better high ISO performance, but the D300s has already been on the market for several months, and has probably captured a nice chunk of new buyers.

However, regardless of which one is slightly better, if I had Nikon glass, I'd probably be happy with the D300s. I don't think I'd be happy if I had bought the Nikon D90 just before the D300s came out though, just like I would be annoyed if I had bought a Canon 50D recently.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

What wrong with 'JUST' the D300s?? that does 8FPS, 51 point AF, video... etc etc etc

Nothing except the price. I'd love to be able to afford a D300s. Probably my ideal cropped sensor camera.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

D90 replacement? The 7D plays in an entirely different league, the body is twice as expensive as that of the D90. The 7D's competitor is the D300s.

I never compared the 7D to the D90. Since the D300s is out of my price range, and hypothetically I wouldn't want to change system for Canon, then I could possibly dream of a D90 replacement with performance near to the present D300.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nikon has already released the D300s at the end of July. It sports a lower resolution, but the same AF module than the D3(x), D700 and D300 have. Whereas the D300 was `limited' to 8 fps with grip (6 fps without grip), the D300s manages 7 fps without grip and 8 fps with grip (same as before). Since we have no hard numbers on the high-ISO behavior, we cannot say for sure how the D300s compares against the 7D. And besides, if you want excellent high-noise performance, you can always invest into the D700. Ditto for the performance of the AF module, although for sure we cannot conclude that 51 AF points (15 of which are cross-type) are better than 18 AF points (all of the cross-type). Or that 18 MP are better than 12 MP (especially if you don't really need the additional megapixels).

I follow dpreview even more than the MacNN lounge since I got my D40. I know all about the D300s and the fact that many D300 users who have the D300s talk (or write about) *EVEN* better AF. The D700 is out of my price range.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In any case, it looks like it's a dead heat. But I'm surprised you've missed the release of the D300s. Even the `old' D300 sports the features you've been asking for. Besides, rumor has it that Nikon is working on the D400 already … Competition is a good thing.

In any case, I think most people are too feature-centric. Of course, newer cameras and lenses often are better than their predecessors, but do you really need it? I have an old push-pull 80-200 mm Nikkor. The same optics is still used in the cheaper 80-200 mm two-ring Nikkor sold today. Is the AF a lot slower? Yes. Do I feel limited by it? Not really, I don't shoot basketball games and stuff, mostly portraits. Ditto for my body. No doubt newer bodies have better noise performance. But I know the limitations of my camera and no matter what generation, if you shoot around ISO 100~400, you don't see that much of a difference, noise is not an issue. While being able to shoot at ISO 6400 and higher (something that was basically unthinkable in the film days!) is a welcome addition, no photographer would use that setting if it were possible to shoot at lower ISO.

Like I said previously, since Nikon released the D300s (and the D5000 and D3000) in the past few months, all that is left to replace is the D90. Now will they do that, or will they bring out a D400? For me (the wannabe pro-level consumer cropped sensor dSLR type) a D90 replacement would be better. I shoot fast moving kids, sometimes in plays - low light perf important here. I'm not going to fork out for a 600mm f/4 so being able to crop when using the 300mm is important. I'm feeling some limits with the D40. I would also like to try some exposure bracketed landscapes. Low level HDR if you will - not possible with the D40 without lots of hassle. A project for next summer is to get into the water next to some surfers, and I would like some better fps to capture their action.

I do very much agree that competition is a good thing. In fact I would prefer an even stronger Pentax and Olympus as well. Sony can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned - nothing to do with cameras, just a bias that I have.

Originally Posted by Eug 

With my 20D, that lens focuses better than many of my other lenses, but for fast moving subjects I'd prefer even better autofocus. Unfortunately, the 20D is not capable of it. Part of it probably has to do with my technique, but a lot of it has to do with the 20D simply being too slow and inaccurate.

Yeah, the D90 is not in the same class. The 7D goes up against the D300s. In fact, they're almost the same price. (The 7D is $100 less.)

I'm biased but... Based on specs and based on (other people's) assessments of image quality, I think the 7D probably bests the D300s, but then again, the D300s came out earlier. The video options on the 7D are significantly better, and claims are that the 7D probably has a bit better high ISO performance, but the D300s has already been on the market for several months, and has probably captured a nice chunk of new buyers.

However, regardless of which one is slightly better, if I had Nikon glass, I'd probably be happy with the D300s. I don't think I'd be happy if I had bought the Nikon D90 just before the D300s came out though, just like I would be annoyed if I had bought a Canon 50D recently.

I have a feeling that the 7D will sell very well. As I posted before, I've made an investment in Nikon already and will more than likely stick to Nikon due to this. The movie side doesn't do anything for me, but fast AF and high fps makes me drool.

I'm biased as well, and jealous of that 7D. Now, as I was saying before ... where is that D90 replacement?

[Eug]

That D90 replacement sounds like a 50D replacement.

Remember though that both only came out just one year ago. I could see Nikon and Canon waiting until 2010 before they put out the D100 and 60D.

BTW, I wonder how much effort they'll put into video. The D90 has video but few in the video world seem to care. Even the D300s isn't generating much interest for video. Both have too much jello, and the resolution and or quality aren't there yet. The two that are taking the world by storm are the 5D Mark II and the 7D.

P.S. It seems my Canon PowerShot A75 is starting to die now. So it looks like I'm in the market for a P&S camera too.

[mattyb]

I hope that video isn't what Canon and Nikon are focusing on to "improve" their SLRs. Unfortunately it seems that this is becoming more and more of a selling point.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I hope that video isn't what Canon and Nikon are focusing on to "improve" their SLRs. Unfortunately it seems that this is becoming more and more of a selling point.

I don't think they're primarily focusing on video at this point... much to RED's relief I'm sure.

However, I note that the new CPUs do include video compression acceleration, and not surprisingly most of the cameras using the new CPUs include video.

eg. Canon's DIGIC 3 does not include H.264 encode acceleration, and none of the DIGIC 3 cameras include HD video. However, DIGIC 4 does include H.264 encode acceleration, and three of the four DIGIC 4 cameras include HD video. The camera with the best video features is the Canon 7D, and that one has two DIGIC 4 CPUs.

I suspect from now on, almost all dSLRs will include video support.

P.S. ISO 2500 on the 7D:

[mattyb]

OK Eug, stop drooling !!!!

[Eug]

Hmmm... One thing I missed from the specs initially: While the RAW buffer is 15 shots, that's only with UDMA Compact Flash cards. So, it's actually smaller than 15 shots with slower cards. More importantly, if you shoot full RAW + JPEG, you only get 6 shots off before you've exhausted the buffer. Ouch.

Oh well, nothing's perfect. Plus, if need be I could stick with RAW only, or else consider using JPEG for that type of shooting. (Normally I like to shoot with RAW + JPEG, even though with OS X I rarely actually use the JPEGs.) I definitely will need to get those UDMA CF cards...

[Demonhood]

why do you shoot raw + jpeg? to save on post?
i already fill up my cards quickly, i can't imagine the pix taking up even more space. and i've grown to actually kind of like doing post in Aperture.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

why do you shoot raw + jpeg? to save on post?
i already fill up my cards quickly, i can't imagine the pix taking up even more space. and i've grown to actually kind of like doing post in Aperture.

Well, I'd probably do fine with just RAW, but having 100% RAW and no JPEG still makes me nervous, even though OS X reads CR2 natively (although not the 7D's yet).

That said, my skillz with photo manipulation apps are still pretty n00bish, so I'd probably be fine doing 100% JPEG. In the future though, I'd like to have the RAW files in case I need it. Storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper... although buffer is still at a premium.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, I'd probably do fine with just RAW, but having 100% RAW and no JPEG still makes me nervous, even though OS X reads CR2 natively (although not the 7D's yet).

That said, my skillz with photo manipulation apps are still pretty n00bish, so I'd probably be fine doing 100% JPEG. In the future though, I'd like to have the RAW files in case I need it. Storage space is getting cheaper and cheaper... although buffer is still at a premium.

Eug, if a noob like me can manipulate Aperture, then someone with lots more photo experience will find it a breeze. Check out the tutorials here and here for Aperture. It really is easy.

Figuring out what makes good post processing is the hardest bit for me, not actually doing the post processing - if you get my meaning.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

More importantly, if you shoot full RAW + JPEG, you only get 6 shots off before you've exhausted the buffer. Ouch.

Oh well, nothing's perfect. Plus, if need be I could stick with RAW only, or else consider using JPEG for that type of shooting. (Normally I like to shoot with RAW + JPEG, even though with OS X I rarely actually use the JPEGs.) I definitely will need to get those UDMA CF cards...

In most cases, RAW + jpg is a waste of space. There are some special circumstances that warrant RAW + jpg, but usually if amateurs do it, it's the `fear' of losing something that they don't use anyway. If you say yourself, you don't use the jpgs, then switch to RAW. On the other hand, don't feel obliged to use RAW, just because others do and all the theoretical potential. If you expose and compose properly (and the pictures you've shown here say that you can, very well so), you often do not need RAW at all.

There are just people who don't like to tinker with their photos on the computer. I certainly am not a fan of fotochopping.

BTW, Nikon's D300s has two memory slots and it can use them in parallel if you want to: one cards takes all the RAW files while the other one is used for storing jpgs.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Eug, if a noob like me can manipulate Aperture, then someone with lots more photo experience will find it a breeze. Check out the tutorials here and here for Aperture. It really is easy.

Figuring out what makes good post processing is the hardest bit for me, not actually doing the post processing - if you get my meaning.

Aperture is easy to use, but as you say the hard part it's hard knowing how exactly to get good post processing. To put it another way, I can tweak an OK shot to how I like it, but I have a lot of trouble saving a poorer lit shot, esp. when that calls for pulling out Photoshop.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In most cases, RAW + jpg is a waste of space. There are some special circumstances that warrant RAW + jpg, but usually if amateurs do it, it's the `fear' of losing something that they don't use anyway. If you say yourself, you don't use the jpgs, then switch to RAW. On the other hand, don't feel obliged to use RAW, just because others do and all the theoretical potential. If you expose and compose properly (and the pictures you've shown here say that you can, very well so), you often do not need RAW at all.

The thing though is that while Aperture "hides" the JPEG part of RAW+JPEG well and only shows the JPEG if you ask for it, and while RAW is natively supported in OS X so you don't need the JPEG to view the image, RAW alone is still a big problem outside of OS X. My reason for having the extra JPEG is simply to view the image when needed outside of OS X, not to tweak it.

For those who care, this is what I often do:

Take my shots as RAW+JPEG. Import into Aperture, which only shows me one shot per picture, and hides the JPEG from view. I delete the pictures I don't want, and then tweak the pictures I do want. I then export to JPEG the better ones, but place them in a different directory.

However, sometimes when time is an issue, I don't use Aperture at all, and just transfer over original JPEGs with no tweaking at all... and then will go back and tweak a few RAW images at a later date in Aperture as necessary.

This method wastes space, but if I were to choose one or the other, I'd probably choose RAW for most shooting, and RAW+JPEG is only about 20% more space, and space is cheap. That said, I'm running out of space on my iMac.

P.S. For some of my pix, my primary database is Aperture. This worries me, as I'm not convinced I'll always be using Aperture. Lightroom is improving fast for example, and seems to get some features (such as CA correction) faster than Aperture. I think what I'm going to do from now on for the more important stuff is keep a separate directory of the original pix alongside the Aperture directory. This allows me to quickly skim the pix without ever having to open Aperture.

I know the images can still be accessed in Aperture should the app die, but the package contents are very difficult to navigate.

[OreoCookie]

@Eug
I still don't think it's necessary to shoot RAW + jpg. The drawback of RAW + jpg is not space (well, that's not a significant drawback considering the capacities available today), but rather buffer size, for instance.

Regarding Aperture and its database: every OS X open/close dialog now comes with a (finally usable!) browser of your Aperture library. The one in 10.5 was completely useless, but now, it's working exactly as it should have before. I also wouldn't give in to attempts to sort pictures manually, some people claim it will give you an edge when you migrate or your Aperture library fails. This is wrong, most of the input you give Aperture (e. g. settings on how to develop RAWs, albums, books, etc.) are lost.

What you should do in any case is export projects properly when you migrate. And there you have no advantage whatsoever when you manage files by hand.

[richwig83]

For me also shooting RAW+JPEG is just a nonsense!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Eug
I still don't think it's necessary to shoot RAW + jpg. The drawback of RAW + jpg is not space (well, that's not a significant drawback considering the capacities available today), but rather buffer size, for instance.

Well, that's why I was saying for sequential shots for sports, I won't be shooting RAW+JPEG.

Regarding Aperture and its database: every OS X open/close dialog now comes with a (finally usable!) browser of your Aperture library. The one in 10.5 was completely useless, but now, it's working exactly as it should have before.

Interesting. What about the Finder?

I am still on 10.5 on my iMac (where Aperture is installed).

[OreoCookie]

No, not yet. A big omission in my opinion. But every standard open dialog gives you direct access to the Aperture library. You should definitely upgrade to 10.6

Edit: I erroneously wrote open/save dialog. As a matter of fact, only open dialogs give you access. Would be nice if also save dialogs could give you access to the Aperture library. By the way, the iPhoto library is only shown if the app can handle image files.

[Eug]

Wedding video shot entirely on Canon 7D

Lots of shots at ISO 1600. Very, very good performance at that high ISO.

-------

High ISO comparisons between Nikon D5000, Canon 5D II, Canon 50D, Canon 7D

ISO 400-6400
ISO 12800

Summary: 5D II wins easily, the 7D comes in second, and the 50D and D5000 are far behind.

[Demonhood]

Eug, at this point, you're just making yourself drool with anticipation.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

OK Eug, stop drooling !!!!

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

Eug, at this point, you're just making yourself drool with anticipation.

And it's gonna be a lot of drooling it seems, because my store says that based on their pre-order queue, I'll "probably get the 7D within the first three shipments". Three shipments?!? That's depending on the size and timing of the shipments of course, but if that's accurate I could be waiting for months. When I ordered the 20D, I got it 1 day before my vacation. Perfect timing. Probably won't happen this time since my vacation is in 2 weeks but them's the breaks. It's not as if I'll actually be able to edit the pix until Apple updates the RAW support anyway.

P.S. It seems the 7D fixes another big issue the video types have been complaining endlessly about with the 5D Mark II. With the HDMI output on the 5D2, when you start recording video, it outputs at 640x480 with a distorted aspect ratio. With the 7D, the aspect ratio is maintained, and the resolution is higher. See here.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Summary: 5D II wins easily, the 7D comes in second, and the 50D and D5000 are far behind.

I must have been looking at a different picture. The 5D II definitely won at high ISO, but the rest were very close.

At 400 though, I liked the D5000 and the 5D II.

[Oisín]

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I’m becoming that my next purchase will be a 5D Mark II with the 24–105L (my bank account will writhe in pain) for the wide angles, and continue using the 40D with the 70–200L f/4. First, however, I need to inherit a bunch of money or win the lottery, whichever comes first.

(Would that I were going to the States soonish—I’d be getting the lens for free if I bought the combo in the States, basically. $3,500 for camera + lens; that’s what the body costs on its own here!)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

I must have been looking at a different picture. The 5D II definitely won at high ISO, but the rest were very close.

Not at 3200 and above. At that ISO, the 7D starts to pull away from the 50D and the D5000. At 1600 they were closer but I think the edge still goes to the 7D. (At 1600 the 5D was still noticeably better than the 7D though.) At 400 they're all excellent IMO, so I'd have no problem using ISO 400 on any of those cameras.

[Demonhood]

pre-ordinated.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

pre-ordinated.

Sweet! Any ship date yet for you? None for me yet.

BTW, I was listening to this lecture by Tim Smith who is Product Manager for Canon Digital Imaging. This was back in July and he was talking about the 5D Mark II. He said that video was put on it for web delivery, and was included to answer the requests of Associated Press and Reuters, so that still photojournalists could take quick videos.

He claims they didn't intend for it to be used as a machine for indie films, and were surprised by all the interest. That's why it was 1080p30 and not 1080p29.97 or 1080p24. Somebody then asks the question if the 5D II will get 1080p24 and he says don't count on it, because they'd probably reserve those new features for a new body... and then the 7D came out weeks later.

So, it seems the 5D was the experiment, and the 7D is the "real" 1080p video machine from Canon's dSLR line. Well, maybe not. The 5D was the experiment, the 7D is the indie machine, but I'd guess they'll release a pro body with even better video support, and I'd bet it's gonna be this year (and maybe even on the 29th of this month).

[QuadG5Man]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Wedding video shot entirely on Canon 7D

Wow. Loved the photography, audio, and editing. Anyone want to buy my HDR-FX1? I'm 7D-bound.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by QuadG5Man 

Wow. Loved the photography, audio, and editing. Anyone want to buy my HDR-FX1? I'm 7D-bound.

A 7D alone wouldn’t get you anywhere near that, of course. Did you notice this part? :

four lenses; 50 f1.2, 24 f1.4, 100 macro f2.8, 70-200 f4 non-IS

That’s a lot of drool, right there.