[LeDave]

Here's my take on the Canon T2i

Plus the canon forums have a lot of new 7D owners talking of selling their cameras. 18MP what a bunch of baloney (which should be fried on the Pentax BBQDSLR K-8)

Let's not forget to mention what kind of lenses are required to handle the high resolution of the 7D. With a entry-level Rebel having the same 7D sensor, the newbies are not going to know they'd have to shell out a few thousand for a set of lenses. As that article stated, a 18mp entry-level is really not needed but hey what can I say? The consumers brought it upon themselves, they want megapixel? They get megapixels, but with their lenses they can afford.

[er1kksen]

Let's not forget to mention what kind of lenses are required to handle the high resolution of the 7D. With a entry-level Rebel having the same 7D sensor, the newbies are not going to know they'd have to shell out a few thousand for a set of lenses. As that article stated, a 18mp entry-level is really not needed but hey what can I say? The consumers brought it upon themselves, they want megapixel? They get megapixels.

Oversampling never hurts. But really, a cheap 50mm f1.8 stopped down to f5.6 should be able to handle it just fine, unless you've got a REALLY bad copy. Heck, they improved the kit lens a lot when they switched it to IS, so even that might be up to the job when you stop it down in its optimal range.

Far too much is made of this "problem." So if the sensor outresolves the lens, you'll get the maximum possible detail the lens is capable of delivering, and if the lens outresolves the sensor, you get the maximum possible detail the sensor can deliver. Why handicap the sensor just because some lenses aren't as sharp as others?

[Peter Zack]

Well the file sizes are not 18MB The camera is 18MP but going from the Canon web site, the RAW file size will be 24.5 MB. That's a huge difference from a 10-12 MP file at under 15 MB. Load 40 or 50 of those in Lightroom and see how fast your computer runs.

Sure memory and hard drive space is getting very cheap these days. But not necessarily good quality SD cards. Extreme III's and Lexar pro's are still up there for those smart enough to use a good quality card.

Lets say you had to do all 3.
$100 for a new hard drive
$50-60 for 2 Gb of ram
$100+ for a 16 GB SDHC Extreme III (B&H)

now lets consider that your computer is old and just lags like crazy on 24.5 MB files. But you bought up to a DSLR for the RAW IQ. You system can't be upgraded because the motherboard is too old or already full at 2 GB. I have one here like that which I'm typing from right now. It's fine for web stuff and almost anything else but forget editing big files. It's just too slow and it's maxed at Duo Core 2.0 GHz and 2GB ram.

So I have another system for editing. But if you didn't then you are looking at another $750++ for a faster CPU and much more if you are using an Apple or want a powerful laptop.

there's more to it than just the camera.


So suddenly your cheap camera is $250-300.00 more than you anticipated. maybe it's going to be $1000 or more for a complete system upgrade. For an experienced shooter, this might be expected and they may have already upgraded the hardware they need. But if you have been shooting a P&S and editing 4 MB Jpegs, they may not have considered any of this. That was mostly what my post was about.

[Rondec]

Well the file sizes are not 18MB The camera is 18MP but going from the Canon web site, the RAW file size will be 24.5 MB. That's a huge difference from a 10-12 MP file at under 15 MB. Load 40 or 50 of those in Lightroom and see how fast your computer runs.

Sure memory and hard drive space is getting very cheap these days. But not necessarily good quality SD cards. Extreme III's and Lexar pro's are still up there for those smart enough to use a good quality card.

Lets say you had to do all 3.
$100 for a new hard drive
$50-60 for 2 Gb of ram
$100+ for a 16 GB SDHC Extreme III (B&H)

now lets consider that your computer is old and just lags like crazy on 24.5 MB files. But you bought up to a DSLR for the RAW IQ. You system can't be upgraded because the motherboard is too old or already full at 2 GB. I have one here like that which I'm typing from right now. It's fine for web stuff and almost anything else but forget editing big files. It's just too slow and it's maxed at Duo Core 2.0 GHz and 2GB ram.

So I have another system for editing. But if you didn't then you are looking at another $750++ for a faster CPU and much more if you are using an Apple or want a powerful laptop.

there's more to it than just the camera.


So suddenly your cheap camera is $250-300.00 more than you anticipated. maybe it's going to be $1000 or more for a complete system upgrade. For an experienced shooter, this might be expected and they may have already upgraded the hardware they need. But if you have been shooting a P&S and editing 4 MB Jpegs, they may not have considered any of this. That was mostly what my post was about.

Peter, you are exactly right. I went through this when I bought a K20. I had had an older version of Photoshop Elements that couldn't open the RAW files. So, I got a newer version of Elements that could open it. That ran about 60 dollars. Then, suddenly my 3 year old computer that had been doing everything I needed up till that point started crashing intermittently when I would open too many RAW files. I ended up getting a new computer for about 700 dollars. Add in the extra memory cards and I was well over my out lay of (only) 650 dollars for the K20.

[dylansalt]

We will always be upgrading our computers & software - we just have to "suck it up" and do it.

[Peter Zack]

Yes but to what end? How many prints do you make at 48x72". I mean 80% of all digital photos (my guess) are shared on line or viewed on a computer screen. Do you really need an 18MP camera for Facebook?.

[LeDave]

Yes but to what end? How many prints do you make at 48x72". I mean 80% of all digital photos (my guess) are shared on line or viewed on a computer screen. Do you really need an 18MP camera for Facebook?.

Let's not forget to mention that this is a entry-level, I think a pro who print big would go bigger than a Rebal. It's just another way to market to the new consumers who don't know any better other than megapixels. Next time someone asks me how many megapixels I have, I'm going to tell them it has the same amount as their point and shoot, or even better would be their cellphone.

[er1kksen]

The relationship of filesize to storage space and computing power is a valid concern. Heck, my computer gets a little slow with lightroom and K-x RAWs, and I've got about 10gb left free on my hard drive (getting an external soon).

With the 7D, a workaround to this problem is using mRAW or sRAW. You get a reduced-resolution RAW file that's generally of higher quality than a RAW file from a camera with an equivalent native resolution. I was astounded at how good the 2mp 40D sRAW files looked (it made ISO 1600 actually usable!). When you need the full resolution, you can have it, but when you don't, you can have great 10mp or 4.5mp RAW files instead.

I had assumed that this would also be the case with the 550D. In any case, a camera in this segment (at $800 body-only to start it is NOT truly entry level, more budget-enthusiast level) has more need, in my mind, for mRAW and sRAW due to the factors you point out. People who can shell out for a 7D are more likely to have the resources to deal with 24mb RAW files without any trouble.

But it's not there. Nothing I have seen has said anything about the reduced-RAW formats being available in the 550D, even the spec charts where it's clearly listed for cameras like the 7D and 50D.

I don't consider this a huge problem for myself, even with my limited computing resources since I cut my teeth editing K20D files in RAWTherapee on an ancient tower running Vista with 512mb RAM (I'm not sure how that even managed to work, but it did, albeit very slowly) and these days I tend to be very selective about what files I keep. In a sense, that could be good for a lot of amateurs, being forced to be selective, kind of like the way film used to. :-D

But even if it was good for some users, that's definitely NOT sound business strategy. I can understand Canon crippling some upper-end features in their lower-end models to keep the market segmented, but honestly... when a feature is MORE useful to the low-end user than it is to the high-end user... I don't get it.

The Rebel firmware has some dedicated hackers. Hopefully they can just cook up a couple lines of code CHDK-style to enable reduced-RAW modes in this camera.

[er1kksen]

Also, printing large isn't the only reason to have more resolution. Greater resolution gives you a tighter noise pattern, smoother transitions even at moderate print sizes, and a lot more "wiggle-room" to work with if you do a lot of post. If you've only got 7mp of data to work with, you have to be very careful to be as non-destructive as possible with your editing techniques, but the more data you have to work with the less you have to worry and the more you can experiment.

[RJRock]

I agree that for an entry level camera, 18MP may be overkill. The only time I've had an image printed at 24"x36" was a movie poster for a friends' Indie feature. That wasn't a single image though. It was a multilayer composition made from several smaller images.

as for anything larger, I had a computer generated logo printed out, but that's a different thing all together. The largest print I can personally see using is an 8X10, with the possibility of a 15x20. But for most consumers, there is no need for such high resolution.

Besides, like someone said earlier. The sensor can only resolve what the lens is capable of (paraphrased of course), and though the kit lenses aren't bad, they are a far cry from the L-Series lenses that Canon sells.

For professional journalism and art, yes. For Mom & Pop vacations? No. Unless you get a shot of that UFO that's been buzzing around. Then you might need the extra resolution to crop.

[er1kksen]

That's the thing though; it's not really "entry level." It's starting at $800 for the body only. That's really the wants-a-serious-camera-but-has-a-low-budget range. The K10D was the golden child of that range when it came out (for those who really did their research). No one complained that it's largely semi-pro specs at an upper-entry-level price were overkill. Instead, they called it a bargain.

Some people have a strong desire to create professional-level art but simply can't afford a $1500+ camera body. They've got lenses and lighting to invest in instead, and the sensor in the body is more important than the body itself. For those people (and I am one of them) the T2i carries a lot of appeal.

People who want to shoot mom&pop vacations will buy an xS or T1i. The T2i is not really aimed at them. The T1i is not being dropped, you may note. It's merely being re-slotted at a lower price. I'm not sure what the status of the xS is but I wouldn't be surprised if they're keeping it as the super-low-budget shooter. T2i-T1i-xS looks remarkably similar to D90-D5000-D3000.

So given that its probably the highest-performance sensor you can get in a camera under $1k, I'm calling it a bargain. Just like I called the K10D and its successor bargains, and just like I call the K-x I own a bargain. They each offer (or offered) something unique at their pricepoint.

[pingflood]

So suddenly your cheap camera is $250-300.00 more than you anticipated. maybe it's going to be $1000 or more for a complete system upgrade. For an experienced shooter, this might be expected and they may have already upgraded the hardware they need. But if you have been shooting a P&S and editing 4 MB Jpegs, they may not have considered any of this. That was mostly what my post was about.

Sure, but then you can apply the same argument to just about any current DSLR and don't need to pick on the T2i in particular. Honestly, it's not a big step above processing say a K20D file when it comes to resource usage.

[Jodokast96]

No it's not and actually as I tried to say before, different opinions make the forum format work. Otherwise we'd all be doing something else. Heated discussion makes it fun and interesting.

But using terms like "Jackass" to describe someone you have no background on or don't know is rude and uncalled for. It debases the entire forum and your standing therein. IMHO it completely deflates your point of view making the term apply to you more than the person you aimed it at.

You can refute anyone's comments in a far more constructive manner with facts and not slander.

The OP is has a right to his opinion as do you. Post it in a respectful manner.

now back to the video discussion.

As I've already said, I was not saying, "Red, you are a jackass". The intent of my statement was not directly about him, but people in general. Replace the word "you" with "one". I don't think I've ever attacked anybody in such a way, especially on this forum, and never just for a differing opinion. Now if I say one that does so and so is nuts, an idiot, etc. and someone falls into that category and takes some offense to that, so be it. Example: Drunk drivers are A-holes. Well, if you happen to drive drunk and get offended, tough.

I stand by original statement that if all you are getting out of a Red is a larger sensor, better DOF, and interchangeble lenses for $49,000, you've been royally ripped off. My opinion and my right to it. My main point all along was that you do get far more than just that for the money you pay.

[pinholecam]

IMHO, there really is a photographer ante and a newbie/consumer ante here.

The latter would want to see increased numbers on all specs (higher ISO numbers, higher megapix, high fps, higher res video, etc)
They know little about the trade-offs (ie. Large file sizes; higher ISO noise; faster PC needed; horrendous editing man hours to make good quality video, etc). The best camera to buy is the camera with all the highest values.
The 550D generally goes in that direction. The danger is that it wins out this market segment and/or edges other camera makers in this direction at the expense of photographers who understand the trade-offs.

[er1kksen]

IMHO, there really is a photographer ante and a newbie/consumer ante here.

The latter would want to see increased numbers on all specs (higher ISO numbers, higher megapix, high fps, higher res video, etc)
They know little about the trade-offs (ie. Large file sizes; higher ISO noise; faster PC needed; horrendous editing man hours to make good quality video, etc). The best camera to buy is the camera with all the highest values.
The 550D generally goes in that direction. The danger is that it wins out this market segment and/or edges other camera makers in this direction at the expense of photographers who understand the trade-offs.

Interesting idea. Implying that only a newbie/consumer would be interested in things like higher ISO performance, higher resolution, fps, video resolution, and other general measures of performance, and that such things are useless to anyone who really knows anything about photography?

I would contend that there are plenty of photographers who understand and are willing to deal with the trade-offs (larger filesizes and their consequences) in order to get the higher quality images that result. I know I'm one of them. And it would be one thing if those were just empty numbers, but there is nothing to suggest that to be the case. The higher noise thing? It's largely a myth propogated by misinterpretation of image data and dXomark's poor rating system. Seriously, just go look at some samples. The 7D is now a known quantity. And that known quantity, specifically, is "the highest performing APS-C sensor available." I am a K-x owner and user, and as vaunted as my camera's little sensor is, I'm ready to acknowledge that the 7D is an even further step up. The proof is in the pudding; in this case, the pudding would be the final images, and that's all you really need to look at to see why a sharp 18mp and a good ISO 6400 without banding matters to photographers, not just consumer snap-shotters.