Battered and Bruised. A tale of some D's - 50/60/7D Comparison in 2018

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18636460
.
Congrats on getting back into photography.

.

.
What does "Battered and Brusied" have to do with this thread?

Based on the quoted content from your original post, it seems like you are looking for the opposite of battered and bruised.

Also, you never mention anything about battered cameras in your original post.

So if you don't have any tales to tell about beat up cameras, and if you are not looking for a beat up camera, that leaves me wondering what the thread title has to do with the actual content of the thread.

.

As an idiom, one of the definitions of battered and bruised is "thoroughly worn down", referring to a person rather than to an object. If the OP put in a significant amount of time and effort and was becoming very frustrated and confused with the decision regarding the selection of a new camera, it might be an apropos term to use. That's the way I read it.

amfoto1 wrote in post #18633880
Canon also published a white paper about the time the 7D was introduced with it's 18MP sensor, that suggested the higher density sensors like it uses were a bit more sensitive to camera shake. They recommended using slightly higher shutter speeds, but that's no problem since it has higher usable ISO. I've made a practice of using ISO 200 at a minimum, both with 7D and with other models since. I use a lot of image stabilized lenses, which probably help, too.

Alan I think this is actually simply a reaction to the fact that with the move from analogue to digital photography a move was made that meant that instead of judging image quality at a fixed output size/viewing distance, it moved to using a more or less fixed output resolution. My first DSLR in 2005 was the 6MP 300D, and now we have sensors of the same size with double the linear resolution with the current crop of 24MP APS-C sensors. In that same 13 years the average monitors resolution has increased by pretty much zero, with displays running from around 95ppi to about 115ppi. So if we are to asses images by viewing them at 100%/1:1 on screen my 300D images are being viewed at 30" on the long edge (based on 100ppi) while the latest cameras are being viewed at 60" long edge.

If you are going to double the size of the image, which is four times the area, you are going to have to seriously upgrade your abilities to get sharp looking images. I remember a few years ago talking to a Canon rep in store at WEX, and having a similar conversation about the 5Ds. He was surprised that I was considering one for shooting airshows, especially as while doing so I spend a lot of time shooting at 600mm and 1/160s. He thought I would be better off with a 7D, since the 5Ds had such high pixel density and would need higher shutter speeds. He really struggled to see that if I cropped the 5Ds to match the FoV of the 7D I would end up with pretty much the same number of pixels. A 5Ds would actually be good, as when necessary I could crop and get what I would get from an APS-C sensor, but I would be able to leave the lens at 600mm for much longer before zooming out, giving a benefit in added sensor size and far more pixels on target. Finally when comparing the images between each of the cameras I own I'd do it properly, and print them at 16×12.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18637621
Alan I think this is actually simply a reaction to the fact that with the move from analogue to digital photography a move was made that meant that instead of judging image quality at a fixed output size/viewing distance, it moved to using a more or less fixed output resolution. My first DSLR in 2005 was the 6MP 300D, and now we have sensors of the same size with double the linear resolution with the current crop of 24MP APS-C sensors. In that same 13 years the average monitors resolution has increased by pretty much zero, with displays running from around 95ppi to about 115ppi. So if we are to asses images by viewing them at 100%/1:1 on screen my 300D images are being viewed at 30" on the long edge (based on 100ppi) while the latest cameras are being viewed at 60" long edge....

Actually monitors have come a long was since 2005. Back then, 1024x768 or 1280×1024 was pretty normal. Then the 1920×1080 or 1920×1200 monitors, but over the last couple years, we went right past 2560×1440 and now 3840×2160 and 5120 × 2880 is pretty much the norm with 7,680 x 4,320 already available through still costly. So since 2005 we went from 786,432 screen pixels to 33,177,600. That's quite a jump, no?

gjl711 wrote in post #18637713
Actually monitors have come a long was since 2005. Back then, 1024x768 or 1280×1024 was pretty normal. Then the 1920×1080 or 1920×1200 monitors, but over the last couple years, we went right past 2560×1440 and now 3840×2160 and 5120 × 2880 is pretty much the norm with 7,680 x 4,320 already available through still costly. So since 2005 we went from 786,432 screen pixels to 33,177,600. That's quite a jump, no?

Yes there are monitors that break the old resolution barriers, I'm using the Dell 2715K myself and think the 5120×2880 is great. The new Dell 8K monitor would be great, getting close to the magic 300 ppi, but at around £5K with an additional approx £5K for a graphics card that will actually drive it it's quite a proposition, and I would have prefered to see 8192×4608 pixels. I guess we got stuck with 720 and then 1080 instead of a full 2048×1152px thanks to the constraints of broadcasting bandwidth. Still when you look at the monitors on the majority of desks they are more likely to be of a resolution that is in the 95-110ppi range than to be higher than that, a 27" 2560×1440 monitor is only 109ppi. Even a lot of photographers seem to shy away from "4K" monitors as being more resolution than is needed. You only need to look at the fact that Dell has stopped selling the 5K monitor to see that high resolution output devices are not yet that popular with buyers. The only 5K display you can now get is IIRC only truly compatible with Apple systems for some reason.

So yes resolution is improving slowly, what seems to be improving at a faster rate is the screen size. So although the total pixel numbers are increasing, that is being translated into larger screen size, not higher image output resolution. I remember seeing a question in the Computing sub forum asking about a monitor, and if it would be suitable for image editing. It was IIRC a 34" monitor, with a max resolution of only 1920×1080, I worked out the resolution of that one and it was I think just sub 70ppi! Ok for gamers I suppose, but not really useful for photography work.

Oh and yes with my high res monitor I do often just give my images a quick look over at 200% before uploading them. That way I get to see them at the size may others will view them.

Alan

I migrated to 4k a few months ago. Here are some notes about the experience:

1) Operating system. I have both Windows 7 and Ubuntu 16.04 Linux installed on my desktop. Both have had some problems with scaling. The Linux version I use came with different GUIs (Ubuntu Unity, GNOME 3, GNOME 2 Fallback and others), I tested Unity, GNOME 3 and the Fallback which is the one I use. W8 and Unity worked reasonably well, once I took care of the scaling. Fallback was a bit of an adventure, but it is the one I use. Main complaint, some rather old programs use absolute values with no scaling, so a drop down menu gets scaled, the variable names get scaled, the window where you input values does not scale and all you see is the first digit (often a 0.). I am waiting for the new Long Term Support version of Ubuntu (18.04) to mature a bit before I migrate there.

2) Screen. I migrated fron a 27" HD to a 27" 4k. Both Dell. The new screen (properly calibrated) is stunning! The higher resolution (as in DPI) is there for all to see. A collateral effect is that I crop a bit all of my photos for proper framing, so often I am pretty close to 3840 pixels on the long side, so a lot of the photos are shown at 100% magnification. And they look magnificent!

I was motivated to write this post by Alan's comment above 'take a quick look at 200%'. At 200% whatever software you use to take that quick look, it interpolates, making in effect its own picture. However, on a 4k screen, you can have a 100% magnification look, seeing the exact photo, possibly a bit cropped.

3) Graphics card. While some older cards can still provide the resolution, it is likely that the video may be a bit choppy, scrolling may be jagged. You might need a new card (better yet a new Desktop )

In closing, I love my new 4k screen. Sometimes I get into my study while the screensaver is working showing photos from my photo database. I see some old photos, from my old ('06) Canon Ixus 960 and am absolutely stunned by the quality of presentation!

Late in the game here. Good body for that price. My 3rd outing in 2009 with it.

That was spot on, good sir.

Entering the photo camera market after a few years absence can be daunting, as the many advances and slight changes in naming conventions, feature sets, etc. can be a little disorienting.

Add to that the inability to do like in olden days, where I could buy any rig I wanted. DPReview would provide expert advise, and BHPhoto would overnight any camera of my choosing from NY to CA in less than 24hs. This time I had a super tight -if not impossible- budget, one that for a year now, I thought could not get me back into the DSLR world.

It was actually by happenstance, that one of my colleagues had bought a fancy mirrorless camera, and having seen one of my portfolios online, started bugging me about learning photography. When I told him serious cameras were out of reach, he simply asked "What was the last camera you owned?" and a minute later said "Hey, a 40D is selling in Amazon for less than $100". To me it was a mini-epiphany. Immediately started figuring out how much money I could put together without breaking the bank (heavily renovating the house, etc) and the prospect of owning a DSLR -even if "outdated"- became a possibility again.

Losing my photography business to a nasty divorce and being without a DSLR for years was tough, and hence the "Battered and bruised" license, though the struggle to figure out which camera to get with such little but precious money was all too real.

In summary, this forum and the POTN family have had more to do with my journey as a Digital Photographer than I could ever credit myself or anyone else with. When Pekka comes up with a fancy logo for POTN, I will tattoo it in my arm as a testament.

Cheers

PS: Been playing with the camera's custom functions, and now running microfocus adjustment for this lens. Couldn't be happier.

MakisM1 wrote in post #18638960
I migrated to 4k a few months ago. Here are some notes about the experience:

...
2) Screen. I migrated from a 27" HD to a 27" 4k. Both Dell. The new screen (properly calibrated) is stunning! The higher resolution (as in DPI) is there for all to see. A collateral effect is that I crop a bit all of my photos for proper framing, so often I am pretty close to 3840 pixels on the long side, so a lot of the photos are shown at 100% magnification. And they look magnificent!

Which Dell did you have and which one did you go to? I am trying to choose a 24" or 27" 4K screen and has been reading numerous reviews.

PhotoJourno wrote in post #18639731
When Pekka comes up with a fancy logo for POTN, I will tattoo it in my arm as a testament.

.
This is one of the funniest and coolest things I've read here in a long long time!

If that isn't big-time motivation for Pekka to develop a logo, I don't what is.


.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18640305
Which Dell did you have and which one did you go to? I am trying to choose a 24" or 27" 4K screen and has been reading numerous reviews.

It took me a while, as I can't find the invoice.

The 4k monitor is a Dell 2715Q

I don't have the one it replaced so no info on the old monitor...

Hint: If you need reading glasses, get the 27"