5D vs ??5Dll

[Light Currents]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

YOU see no correlation between image quality and features if it's an either/or decision for you. Personally, I think they're tied together and should be considered as part of a package.

As I stated, I shoot fully manual and in RAW 100% of the time.

Question: considering that methodology name a "feature" that improves image quality.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Light Currents

name a "feature" that improves image quality.

From the top of my head:
- Spot metering
- 14 bit a/d conversion (or whatever it's called)
- More focusing points or more precise ones
- Higher frame rate (not to me though)

And many others

Let's not forget that digital is relatively new, so the advances are usually quite substantial, in some cases anyway. The 300/400 series is a good example of that.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Light Currents

As I stated, I shoot fully manual and in RAW 100% of the time.

Question: considering that methodology name a "feature" that improves image quality.

Adding on to what aam1234 said:

- Improved dynamic range to reduce post processing for pulling each end of the exposure closer to the center
- Better metering
- Increased ISO range
- Improved battery life
- Improved sensor cleaning technology (the 40D's isn't as great as it sounds)
- Faster AF lock

All of those things are oblivious to what mode you choose or JPG vs RAW.

[Light Currents]

Well, that's what I predicted would happen and I was going to put a qualifier in my post, but decided not to for the sake of length.

I think what we here here is just a different point of view of the definition of "feature." A new feature to me would be something like a windshield wiper on the sensor to clean, styles, 5 EC frames as opposed to 3, etc.

To me, an increase in ISO or a battery that never dies is not a new "feature", rather an improvement in the performance, specs or quality of an existing component.

That's why I specifically asked how a new "feature" would improve image quality.

Case in point using items mentioned that I would consider a "feature:"
- how does longer battery life improve image quality?
- how does a faster frame rate improve image quality?
- or even the increase in focus points - assuming you know how to focus exactly where you want it to be focused correctly using one focus point, how does that improve image quality?

The later point is important in illustrating why I mentioned fully manual shooting. The increased number (and efficiency) of focal points would only improve image quality if the shooter using the camera allows the camera to assist in the picture taking process. I don't. I prefer to maintain full control over the camera, telling the camera what I want it to do as opposed to allowing the camera to determine and control what it wants to do.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Light Currents

The later point is important in illustrating why I mentioned fully manual shooting. The increased number (and efficiency) of focal points would only improve image quality if the shooter using the camera allows the camera to assist in the picture taking process. I don't.

I do. And it's a major point.

Please allow me some time to post some examples. Need to upload them first.

[aam1234]

This may not seem like a good example of focusing speed/accuracy, but to capture those eyes in focus @ f2.8, in close distance is not easy, especially for a child in distress (she is more than fine now).
I'll post more/better examples when I find them.

[Light Currents]

I still think we are not communicating here. A nice image, indeed. However, the original statement I made was how a new "feature" improved image quality, not the process (or ease) of taking the image.

Case in point: if the photographer of the above image was proficient and able to accurately focus with a single focus point, how would 19 thousand focus points "improve image quality?"

Edit: what you have illustrated here is how features can assist the photographer with the image taking process, but not how two equally captured images utilizing one feature or another improved the quality of the image; i.e., same sensor, same lens, same body, same focal point, etc, same image disregarding "features."

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Light Currents

the original statement I made was how a new "feature" improved image quality, not the process (or ease) of taking the image.

Have you tried taking a fast sporting action before.

Regardless, image quality and the "ease" of taking pictures are related. Try to capture a kid running around, in low light.

[aam1234]

Or capturing this split second in manual focus

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Light Currents

As I stated, I shoot fully manual and in RAW 100% of the time.

Question: do you use/rely on the on-board meter when you do, or do you meter your shots with a handheld lightmeter/Sunny 16 rule ?

Question: considering that methodology name a "feature" that improves image quality.

...considering you focus and meter manually and shoot RAW, from all the many new features 'only' the increased DynamicRange, lower noise levels, 14bit color depth and the HighlightTonePriority could be regarded as improvement in Image Quality.

All the rest is, as you stated, only helpful if you allow the camera to take some sort of control over some aspects: AF, metering, etc...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[aam1234]

Or this with MF too

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Light Currents

Edit: what you have illustrated here is how features can assist the photographer with the image taking process, but not how two equally captured images utilizing one feature or another improved the quality of the image; i.e., same sensor, same lens, same body, same focal point, etc, same image disregarding "features."

Increased ISO range and DR doesn't affect image quality? You really like to pick your points and ignore the rest, don't you?

If you're happy with your camera, great. But saying that the improvements or new features in an upgraded model are irrelevant (especially when we haven't even SEEN the specs or upgraded model) is a bit of a condescending attitude.

[00silvergt]

I think I see where Light Currents is coming from. I think LC means, for discussions, sake, 19 AF points, etc. doesn't directly affect IQ per se. But I agree with what everyone is saying that indirectly, these do help the photographer in making good photos. Especially, one like me, you doesn't always Manual focus, or use a handheld meter for every shot, or can "eyeball" the exposure.

However, I would submit that the 14-bit d/a conversion (allows more data to be captured) and the improved dynamic range improves IQ directly, it may be a subtle improvement, but it is an improvement nonetheless.

[toddbee]

Hopefully we all know soon what the 5d mk2 is all about

[00silvergt]

September, let's keep our wallets crossed. If the "wishlist" is accurate, this may be the "perfect" camera I was waiting for.

[toddbee]

Is that the date everyone is hearing so far?