20D; Camera equivalent of God?

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Imagine if the camera designers says to Joe Public,
"Were going to keep the pixel count at 6 million, but improve dynamic
range."
"Huh, what?"

They painted themselves into that corner by making the pixel count
the first piece of marketing data. They would have gotten away with
subjective measures, "your pictures will be prettier".

But they already implanted the idea that "more megapixels is better",
and they made their bed.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:


RichA wrote:


Imagine if the camera designers says to Joe Public,
"Were going to keep the pixel count at 6 million, but improve dynamic
range."

Not so bad, really. Audio equipment went through a whole phase of
****ing over D/A bits as there was little else to fight over.

Converters are still kind of iffy. And between 16bit and 24bit, we have
bracketed the range between "deltas in dynamic range do matter" on the
low end, and "don't matter" on the high end. There was a reason to go
from 16 to 24 (I know it's arguable, but the argument is different on
the producing side than on the consuming side). Likewise there was a
reason to go from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling rate. Now whether there's a
valid reason to go above 24bits of dynamic range, or above 96kHz
sampling, is purely an academic matter (or a practial one, if you're
doing bat research).

snip

The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
linked to the focus point, and changeable.
My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full length
portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about the
eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the
20D,
I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the
center
focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


At the risk of sounding too defensive of the 20D, my shooting is typically
manual mode (will Av from time to time), so in this mode, I can point the
middle-AF-point to the metering area of interest, then set my
shutter/aperture and then recompose (for example metering of the sky) - this
is fairly easy to do. I am just a hobby shooter, so I probably havent come
across the case where I need one of my 9 AF points to be the meter (I can
just as easily move the center point is what I am saying) - to say that the
20D cannot be improved would be naive, but for $1500 it is a damn fine
camera.

In article 3Vtbe.90277$A31.40881@fed1read03,
james wrote:
However, I have a measurement that I like to take in terms of human
proportions. The approach to this convergence appears to take a
logarithmic curve. Another example I can think of is in the audio
domain. When the industry gave us 24-bit 96kHz recording capabilities
in consumer devices, we had reached a plateau in reference to the human
proportions. Distortion, dynamic range, and frequency precision can be
improved, but the improvements are only meaningful to equipment freaks
and bat researchers.

These DSLRs coming out, represent the first generation of cameras that
converge on the human proportions, considering ergonomics as well as
objective measures of image quality.

The equivalent of 24-bit/96 kHz would be dynamic range and the numer of
primary colors (3). I guess 16 bits is sort of the limit.

The size of a picture is like the size of a recording. You make pictures
as large as you like (well, wall space is probably a limiting factor,
but in 3D virutal reality, there is more than enough space).

The size of and resolution of a sensor is determined by technical aspects,
not by the limits of human vision. Unless you insist on always seeing the
entire image. But that sounds like a rather artificial limitation.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
Albert Nurick wrote:
There's no
reason a DSLR can't offer both features; mirror lockup and some firmware
should do the trick.

No, it requires a different sensor design as well. Current designs (in DLSRs)
are optimized for image quality as the expense of being incapable of
producing video.

But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors and
interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR market is
saturated.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:
[]
But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors and
interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR market is
saturated.

Isn't that the 4/3 system you are describing?

David

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
[]
But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors and
interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR market is
saturated.

Isn't that the 4/3 system you are describing?

I don't know whether the 4/3 system specifies anything about the viewfinder
or not. But the current 4/3 cameras are DLSRs and not P&S.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
David J Taylor
wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
[]
But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors
and interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR
market is saturated.

Isn't that the 4/3 system you are describing?

I don't know whether the 4/3 system specifies anything about the
viewfinder
or not. But the current 4/3 cameras are DLSRs and not P&S.

Agreed, I don't know if the viewfinder is specified, either. But at least
the presence of the 4/3 system might encourage someone, given the right
sensor with live preview capability, form making a "large sensor" P&S.

David

"Musty" wrote in message
...
snip

The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
linked to the focus point, and changeable.
My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full length
portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about the
eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the
20D,
I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the
center
focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


At the risk of sounding too defensive of the 20D, my shooting is typically
manual mode (will Av from time to time), so in this mode, I can point the
middle-AF-point to the metering area of interest, then set my
shutter/aperture and then recompose (for example metering of the sky) -
this
is fairly easy to do. I am just a hobby shooter, so I probably havent come
across the case where I need one of my 9 AF points to be the meter (I can
just as easily move the center point is what I am saying) - to say that
the
20D cannot be improved would be naive, but for $1500 it is a damn fine
camera.


Oh, trust me, I like the camera, too. My wife and I both have one. But I
got used to using the spot meter with my earlier film cameras.
Focus and recompose can lead to focusing errors, though, if you're dealing
with small depth of field, or subjects with varying planes.
It's just an irritation, that a camera aimed at high level amateurs and low
level pros doesn't have a spot meter, but a camera like the D70, aimed
squarely at the amateur, has one.
BTW, I find 9 focusing points to be overkill. The five, in a row, that my
1n and A2 have I found to be perfectly sufficient. The top and bottom ones
(side ones on portrait orientation) I find to be superfluous.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip,

I totally agree with your two points. If the 20D had spot metering and
a metering system that got flash exposure right I would be in love with
my 20D. I like it a lot and get good results with it most of the time.
These are the features I miss the most from my Canon 1N's as I shot
most with the spot meter and I always got great flash pictures.

If canon doesn't fix the flash exposure problem I probably won't
upgrade when they replace the 20D. If they fix the flash exposure
problem, add spot metering, and go to 10 or 12 MP I'll switch in a
minute.

Art