Canon 5D Mark III Rumors

jdizzle wrote in post #13904453
If you want to get the best of the M9 camera, the wallet breaker is the fast lenses.

What I meant was if Leica produces the sharpest images is it because of the no AA filter/great sensor combo or is it because of the lenses. I'm sure it's a combination but what does that mean for something like the D800E? I guess we will find out.

jwcdds wrote in post #13904074
That doesn't change the fact that most people don't even print 24x16. You two more than likely would and do. But most still don't.

I went to a art gallery that features everything from artists to the general public. This particular exhibit was just all the pics from the floods we had here 3 months ago. There were shots from amateur photographers as well as professionals, but mostly amateurs. Every single one was much larger than 24x16. There were a few that were as large as the wall, say 10ft x 6ft. (some laminate style pic glued to the wall)

Does the average photographer plan on printing like that daily? Nope. But more than 50% of the people with the shots were amateurs just like us. I guess my point is that just because we don't do something daily, it doesn't mean we might not have a need for it at some point.

RTPVid wrote in post #13904437
I love how people are jumping from the skyscrapers...

Well, you tell me - have they announced any replacement high-resolution body yet?

Hey can anyone please tell me. Which date 7D available on market ?

Onlinecoach wrote in post #13907179
Hey can anyone please tell me. Which date 7D available on market ?

3 years ago...

7D = November 2009

I believe it was announced two months before that.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13907060
What I meant was if Leica produces the sharpest images is it because of the no AA filter/great sensor combo or is it because of the lenses. I'm sure it's a combination but what does that mean for something like the D800E? I guess we will find out.

It definitely is both. I've shot Zeiss on the M9 and it's great but, it doesn't compare to the Leica glass. Leica strives for perfection and the quality shines even with their Summicron lenses.

Check this review on the M9. Kai brings up the issue about moire. It's not an issue even with this camera.

http://www.youtube.com …ture=youtube_gd​ata_player

jdizzle wrote in post #13907447
It definitely is both. I've shot Zeiss on the M9 and it's great but, it doesn't compare to the Leica glass. Leica strives for perfection and the quality shines even with their Summicron lenses.

Check this review on the M9. Kai brings up the issue about moire. It's not an issue even with this camera.

http://www.youtube.com …ture=youtube_gd​ata_player

I actually watched that one in the past. I owned a M8 for a short period of time but that sensor was really unimpressive.

jdizzle wrote in post #13907447
It definitely is both. I've shot Zeiss on the M9 and it's great but, it doesn't compare to the Leica glass. Leica strives for perfection and the quality shines even with their Summicron lenses.

Check this review on the M9. Kai brings up the issue about moire. It's not an issue even with this camera.

http://www.youtube.com …ture=youtube_gd​ata_player

I thought the only difference between the Summicron and Summilux was speed, not IQ.

In fact, some of the Summicrons are sharper than the equivalent Summilux.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13907488
I actually watched that one in the past. I owned a M8 for a short period of time but that sensor was really unimpressive.

I'm aware if the problems with the M8 but, that all changed with the M9.

Shadowblade wrote in post #13907496
I thought the only difference between the Summicron and Summilux was speed, not IQ.

In fact, some of the Summicrons are sharper than the equivalent Summilux.

Yes, speed is the difference but, the newer ASPH lenses were improved. Leica wasn't prepared for the demand when the M9 hit the streets.

The 50mm Summilux ASPH stopped down is better than the 50mm Summicron.

Onlinecoach wrote in post #13907179
Hey can anyone please tell me. Which date 7D available on market ?

7D announcement was Sept 1, 2009.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #13907067
I went to a art gallery that features everything from artists to the general public. This particular exhibit was just all the pics from the floods we had here 3 months ago. There were shots from amateur photographers as well as professionals, but mostly amateurs. Every single one was much larger than 24x16. There were a few that were as large as the wall, say 10ft x 6ft. (some laminate style pic glued to the wall)

Does the average photographer plan on printing like that daily? Nope. But more than 50% of the people with the shots were amateurs just like us. I guess my point is that just because we don't do something daily, it doesn't mean we might not have a need for it at some point.

If you are going to use that argument, then you better drive a Ferrari. Cuz while you will rarely drive 200km/h, you never know when you can and you better be prepared to do so.

I have printed quite a few 20x30 photos from my 18mp and I have yet to hear someone tell me I should have taken them with 21mp or 36mp. Also, at the gallery you were recently at, how many of those photos did you see and say to yourself, "This picture would be so much better if it was taken with 36mp. I can see pixelation in these pictures I can't believe they would even hang these up for display."

Or did you look at most of these photos like normal people? As in for its subject matter, composition, and the "feeling" the image conveys? I'm pretty sure most weren't shot with more than 21mp and sounds like most were worthy of being enlarged and displayed.

jwcdds wrote in post #13908145
I have printed quite a few 20x30 photos from my 18mp and I have yet to hear someone tell me I should have taken them with 21mp or 36mp. Also, at the gallery you were recently at, how many of those photos did you see and say to yourself, "This picture would be so much better if it was taken with 36mp. I can see pixelation in these pictures I can't believe they would even hang these up for display."

Or did you look at most of these photos like normal people? As in for its subject matter, composition, and the "feeling" the image conveys? I'm pretty sure most weren't shot with more than 21mp and sounds like most were worthy of being enlarged and displayed.

I don't think it's so abnormal to appreciate small detail in a large photo, which higher resolution can deliver better than lower resolution. So while not a high-res shooter myself--and, tech willing, never will be--I wouldn't characterize the desire to closely examine large prints as something that makes one an abnormal person. There are many levels of enjoyment of photos, so even though the picture as a whole is certainly crucial why not also look more closely and pick out interesting small details as well? It doesn't have to be either or.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #13908532
I don't think it's so abnormal to appreciate small detail in a large photo, which higher resolution can deliver better than lower resolution. So while not a high-res shooter myself--and, tech willing, never will be--I wouldn't characterize the desire to closely examine large prints as something that makes one an abnormal person. There are many levels of enjoyment of photos, so even though the picture as a whole is certainly crucial why not also look more closely and pick out interesting small details as well? It doesn't have to be either or.

Let me use another term then. Instead of using "normal"... replace it with "majority".

Majority of people who look at photos don't look for the fine details. (Is it wrong to want to do so? No. Do most people do it? No.) So in that sense, people "normally" look at the entire image/photo and not fuss with the fine details.

I am also certain that people are more willing to stand and stare at a good photo and then possibly look for fine details. Whereas if there's a large, but lousy/mundane photo hanging up on a wall, most people won't even bother taking a 2nd look and certainly won't look for whatever fine detail that may or may not be captured.

In any case, yes, more megapickles (misspelled intentionally) is great. But majority of the photographers won't need it for the majority of the photos they take. That's all I'm trying to say.