The Great Compromise : Canon EOS 60D

The new Canon 60D, pictured with a battery grip.

Since the arrival of the Canon EOS 7D and subsequent release of the T2i / 550D there has been a gap in the Canon lineup. Buying the 50D no longer seemed practical to many advanced amateurs, since it was so outclassed by the features of the T2i, but the price of the 7D put it just beyond the range of what many were willing to spend (and the weight and size beyond what they were willing to tote around). Yet, the advanced amateur still yearned for more features and ease of control, and frankly, more status than is offered by the entry level “Rebel” line.

The Canon EOS 60D, announced about a week ago, is clearly intended to fill this gap. Probably available in September, its expected price of $1099 falls nicely between the Rebel T2i ($799) and the 7D ($1535). Its features, also, are largely intermediate between the two cameras that were already very similar. The controls are similar, but not identical, to the 7D, while the construction is much more in line with the T2i than the 7D (or the 50D, for that matter).

Lets take a quick look at the differences, side-by-side:

	Canon 60D	Canon 7D	Canon Rebel T2i (550D)
Price	$1099	$1599	$799
Body Material	Polycarbonate & Stainless Steel	Magnesium Alloy	Polycarbonate resin & fiberglass with Stainless Steel
LCD Monitor Size	Articulated, 3.0", 1,040,000 pixels, 3:2 aspect ratio	3.0" 920,000 pixels, 4:3 aspect ratio	3.0" 1,040,000 pixels
Sensor	18 Megapixel CMOS	18 Megapixel CMOS	18 Megapixel CMOS
Crop Factor	1.6	1.6	1.6
Sensitivity (ISO Range)	100-6400 +12800	100-6400 +12800	100-6400 +12800
Metering System	63 Zone (point linked) Evaluative 6.5% Partial Metering 2.8% Spot	63 Zone (point linked) Evaluative 9.4% Center Weighted 2.3% Spot	63 Zone (point linked) Evaluative 9% Center Weighted 4% Spot
Focusing Points	9 cross-type points	19-point dual diagonal cross-type	9 Points, 1 cross-type at center
AF Working Range	-.05 EV to 18 EV	-.05 EV to 18 EV	-.05 EV to 18 EV
Still Photo Frame Rate	5.3 frames per second	8 frames per second	3.7 frames per second
Maximum Burst Duration	58 jpg 16 RAW	94 jpg 15 RAW	37 jpg 6 RAW
Exposure Compensation	1/2 or 1/3 stops via thumb-wheel	1/2 or 1/3 stops via thumb-wheel	1/2 or 1/3 stops via dedicated button + dial
Shutter Speeds	30 - 1/8000th sec.	30 - 1/8000th sec.	30 - 1/4000th sec.
Standard Flash Sync Speed	1/250th sec.	1/250th sec.	1/200th sec.
Highest Video Resolution	1080p	1080p	1080p
Max Video Frame Rates	30 fps at 1080p 60 fps at 720p	30 fps at 1080p 60 fps at 720p	30 fps at 1080p 60 fps at 720p
Media Type	SD / SDHC / SDXC	Compact Flash	SD / SDHC / SDXC
Weight	755g	820g	530g
Viewfinder Coverage	96% Frame, .95x magnification	100% 1.0x magnification	95% Frame .87x magnification

Probably the most important change between the 60D and the previous models in its line is that it does NOT have a metal body. Instead, Canon opted for a lighter, less expensive polycarbonate body which, although lighter than the magnesium 7D, still feels quite sturdy.

And perhaps just as significant, Canon has designed the 60D with a fully articulated, 3″ LCD screen for use in “Live” viewing mode and for video… the first ever on an SLR. Since I never use “Live” mode, and rarely use video, it’s hard for me to get excited about this feature, but perhaps for some photographers out there, it’s just what they’ve been waiting for.

The Deciding Factors

All three cameras share the same basic CMOS sensor, providing very similar resolution and high-ISO performance. All three cameras share the same video capabilities. So which should you get?

Buy the Canon 7D ($1535) if :

1. You are a professional or use your camera daily. It is the most robust of the three, with a magnesium alloy body that will stand up to the wear and tear of daily use. This is especially important if you’re a journalist and your camera equipment suffers undue abuse.
2. If you are primarily an action or sports photographer. The dual digic-4 processors of the 7D make it the fastest, and its 19 cross-type point focusing system is the most reliable in difficult situations.
3. Because the 7D has two Digic-4 processors, it is likely to be able to handle high definition video files better than single processor models, though I’d be surprised if there’ll be much of a practical difference.

Buy the Canon 60D ($1099) if:

1. You want the 7D but can’t afford it. The differences are minimal, and a good photographer can easily work around them.
2. You shoot a lot of video and the articulated LCD would be helpful to you.
3. If you’re upgrading from the Rebel line and would like to keep using your SD cards.
4. You shoot a lot of action. The 9 cross-type focusing points are a major improvement over the previous cameras in this series (40D, 50D, etc) and the Rebel series, and will help tremendously when focusing on action or in low contrast situations.
5. You’re looking for a lighter alternative to the 7D.

Buy the Canon Rebel T2i / 550D ($799) if:

1. You’re on a tight budget but still want an awesome 18 megapixel sensor, full features, and 1080p video.
2. If you’re looking for a lightweight camera for travel and will be able to treat it with a bit of care, or a backup for your usual camera.
3. If you primarily shoot portraits or products rather than action, or shoot landscapes/art.

The new Nikkor 85mm f1.4 G is expected to be a perfect portrait lens.

Yesterday, Nikon announced the upcoming release of four new Nikkor lenses (available in September), two or three of which are aimed primarily at amateur photographers. However, nestled in among the bunch is a lens that will have broad appear to portrait and wedding photographers: the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G . As we all know, the range from 80 to 105mm is classic for portrait work. With today’s Nikon APS-C sensors, the 85mm becomes a 127mm, which is still very close to that range, making this lens suitable for photographers working with full frame or crop sensors.

But what’s so great about this lens in particular? At f1.4, it will give you an extra 2/3rds of an f-stop of extra light over the f1.8 model. Not really a big deal, especially considering the performance of today’s VR lenses (which provide a full 4 stops in many circumstances) and CMOS sensors at high ISOs. No… what today’s photographers are interested in is the shallow depth of field and bokeh (ie, blurred quality of the out-of-focus portion of the image). The lens features 9 rounded aperture blades to keep the background bokeh buttery smooth.

“But wait!” you say. “Doesn’t Nikon already offer an 85mm f1.4 lens with 9 rounded aperture blades?”

Yes, it does indeed. The Nikkor AF 85mm f1.4D has been in production for quite a while. So what does the new lens offer?

• Improved image quality beyond the center of the image. The earlier lens performed very nicely in the center, but the quality quickly fell off quickly at apertures below f2.8. At f1.4 (which is what you’re paying for), the edge resolution was quite poor for a prime lens. Nikon boasts that the new lens has consistent center to edge performance.
• Special Coatings to improve color, contrast, and resolution. SIC and nano-crystal coatings are in use.
• A silent-wave motor makes this lens compatible with all modern Nikon AF cameras, whereas the earlier lens had no integrated motor and relied on the camera body.
• Finally, it offers Manual-Focus priority Auto-focus (in addition to manual focus). This means that you can focus the lens manually while in AF mode to make fine adjustments, without damaging and gears or motors.

With the impressive  image quality of recent Nikon optics, I look forward to seeing how this lens really performs in the field. The only major drawback I see at the moment is the price tag, an estimated $1699 on the street. Currently, the Nikon 85mm f1.8D is quite inexpensive ($433), has much better optical performance than the older f1.4D, and still displays gorgeous bokeh.

The Sigma Counterpart: 85mm f1.4 DG

In comparison, the new Sigma 85mm f1.4 (also expected in September 2010) will cost a mere $899, but shares many of the features of the new Nikon: the latest design and lens coatings, a silent motor, and internal focusing. It remains to be seen how the two will compare optically, but $800 is a considerable difference to overcome. Needless to say, the Sigma will also be available for Canon (and other mounts), where it will have to compete against Canon’s 85mm f1.8 and f1.2L .

Three IPS Panel Monitors: a Viewsonic, an HP DreamColor, and an Eizo with hood and colorimeter.

Is the monitor really that important?

The quick answer: YES, absolutely.

IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COLOR AND TONAL DIFFERENCES on your monitor, then you can’t make good post-processing decisions and adjustments to your digital negatives. It’s that simple. You can’t adjust your curves to give your print smooth tonal transitions or to distinguish subtle shadow detail if you can’t see those transitions and details to begin with.  In order to make optimal adjustments to your digital negatives, you must be able to see as much of your color gamut as possible and the color must be accurate and reliable.

Monitor Technology : IPS vs. TN

This ASUS is a typical desktop monitor. About $200 for a 24" screen, but it will not have the color response needed for photo editing.

TN stands for Twisted Nematic, which is by far the most popular and wide-spread screen technology. If you have a standard or even higher-end “gaming” LCD monitor for your PC, this is what you have (the same is not true for some Macs). TN screens initially gained popularity because of their low energy consumption, but also because of their quick response time, which is important in reducing ghosting and producing smooth motion for gaming and video. Most TN monitors these days advertise response times of 2-6ms , though they are not always measured in the same way, so comparison is difficult. They are also very bright and are being made with increasingly high resolution, so they appeal to most average consumers. They’re also the cheapest monitors on the market.

More importantly for photographers, though, is that TN monitors use 6-bit color technology, and therefore can’t display the full 24-bit color range (16.7 million colors) that video cards can produce (and that the monitor manufacturers usually claim they can produce). Instead, they attempt to simulate the full range of colors by interpolation of other colors, which they do with limited success. Many TN monitors (non-LED) display less than 30% of the NTSC color gamut, and the color that they do display is only accurate when viewed head-on, so the appearance of color shifts when viewed from and angle is dramatic, and problematic around the edges in any circumstances. Improvements are continually being made in TN technology, but they have a long way to go.

Eizo makes some of the best editing monitors available, using IPS and PVA technology.

IPS panel monitors, on the other hand, have a different set of advantages and disadvantages. IPS stands for In-Plane Switching, although modern IPS panels actually make use of a variety of improved technologies, such as S-IPS,  H-IPS,  AS-IPS, and E-IPS. Engineering details aside, the main advantages to IPS panels is that they are truly 8-bit technology (or 10-bit), with many IPS monitors producing 125% or more of the number of colors in the NTSC gamut. Second, the colors do not shift when viewed from different angles; most remain accurate well past 170 degrees. But of course, there are disadvantages as well, though they are also improving. Initially, the IPS technology was much slower than TN, with response rates of 20-50ms. This made it unusable for video and gaming. S-IPS and a variety of “turbo” technologies have now improved that rate, and 14ms and faster speeds are common, making them very suitable for video, though still somewhat less desirable for gaming.

IPS monitors have been much more expensive as well, though the gap is beginning to narrow.  Even a year ago, the most common IPS monitors (Mac Cinema Displays) cost three times as much as similarly sized TN screens, but now 23″ IPS monitors can be found for as little as $300. Professional graphic arts monitors using IPS and other less common technologies still cost thousands of dollars, though.

S-PVA is another excellent but less common technology. Like IPS, S-PVA panels use at least 8-bit technology, have very good gamut coverage, and colors do not shift when viewed off angle.

Which Monitor Should I Get?

The answer, of course, depends on your budget. You can spend anywhere from $300 to $3000 or more.  In this case, however, it is a safe bet that even the cheapest options will be dramatically better than what you’re currently using (if you’re using a standard TN desktop workstation screen).

The ViewSonic is a great entry level editing monitor, at only $300 for a 23" IPS screen.

On the low end of the price spectrum, Viewsonic has recently begun producing 23″ and 26″ IPS wide-screen monitors that are very competitively priced. The 23″ model (VP2365wb) runs about $299, while the 26″ model (VP2655wb) is about $942. Each maintain consistent color even when viewed from a 178 degree angle. The 23″ model was designated a “best buy” in one of the PC magazines this month due to its great performance and reasonable price, and the larger screen is even better if you can afford it. They don’t provide specific gamut details, but I’ve never seen bad numbers for an IPS monitor, and those who have switched (even from Macs) have been very happy with them.

In about the same price range, the NEC EA231WMi is another good option that uses an eIPS panel. It covers 96% of the sRGB color space, and is well built. Street Price is about $340.

Only a little more expensive is the HP ZR24w, a 24″ display that costs around $399. Reports are that once it is calibrated, it has extremely accurate color… even more accurate than monitors that cost twice as much.

If you can afford to spend a bit more money, the options open up tremendously, and the potential for enhanced performance also increases.

An fine monitor at any price, the Dell U2410 sells for only $540.

The new DELL U2410 is an an impressive monitor for the price. At only $540, it provides 100% sRGB coverage and 96% of AdobeRGB, with 12-bit internal processing… not to mention built in card readers, USB ports, etc.  Early production models of this monitor had some dithering problems that have since been corrected with updated firmware, so they should not be a problem. Because this is a true extended-gamut monitor, operating systems prior to Windows 7 (that don’t manage your color) will make this monitor difficult to use.

A popular option. Slightly less expensive when NOT purchased directly from Apple.

Another very popular option is the Apple 24″ Cinema Display. Apple Cinema Displays have been  standard workhorses of the graphic art trade for years, and they’re one of the reasons that Macs have kept such a strong hold on the industry. They’re more expensive than some similarly performing models (around $880 for a 24″), but have a reputation for quality. Some people have reported problems with reflections on the glossy screen surface.

If high performance is more important to you than sticking to a tight budget, there are a few monitors that fit the bill.

The HP DreamColor LP2480zx is probably the nicest monitor that I’ve ever had the opportunity to use. It is a 10-bit monitor, covering a full 100% of the AdobeRGB color space. The difference between this monitor and the Apple Cinema Display that I’m more familiar with is clear from the first moment that I used it; I could actually see more in photos than I had previously realized was there. This does come at a price, though… about $1850.

Similarly, the Eizo ColorEdge CG241W (and related monitors such as the CG243W, etc.) is a stellar performer. If you’d like to read a full comparison between an older Eizo monitor and an Apple Cinema Display, let me direct your attention to the Luminous Landscape article that first drew my attention to Eizo monitors, here: The Eizo ColorEdge CG301W vs. The Apple 30″ Cinemadisplay. Again, the performance comes at a cost… especially if you opt for the 30 inch versions of these monitors, but even at 24″, the cost is substantial at $1900.

There are, of course, numerous other excellent monitors out there. In fact, I haven’t even mentioned the offerings from major companies like Samsung (though I left them out on purpose) and LaCie. I’ve listed some additional monitors in the table below, but I hope that everyone reading this will add their experience and input as well. I hope that this helps!

[Since there are more monitors than I can reasonably test myself, I've listed monitors with which I've had personal experience, for which I've heard good recommendations from reliable sources, or about which I've read multiple convincingly good reviews. If your favorite monitor has been left out, feel free to email me or reply to this thread with relevant info. -JMG]

Additional Necessities

If you’re going to spend the money to get a good quality display, you’ll also need a color calibration system for it. In fact, this is true no matter what monitor you’re using… but it would be especially wasteful not to calibrate a high quality display. These can be quite inexpensive, and there are a variety of choices. Most high-end monitors are bundled with a colorimeter already. The Spyder models range in price from about $85 to a couple hundred, as do the models from X-rite, like the ColorMunki ($500) and Eye-One LT ($150).

It also makes sense to create color profiles for your camera using something like an X-Rite Color checker. It can dramatically improve the color accuracy of your photos, and is quite simple (see the videos here).

Additionally, you should keep in mind that some of these monitors use 10-bit or higher technology, and require specific graphics cards, and in some cases, the DisplayPort connector must be used rather than the standard digital output or HDMI. If you expect to use 10-bit or higher display technology, check with the monitor manufacturer to see what graphics cards are supported.

Which is the best Canon SLR for Video Use? How do they differ?

[For non-video related comparisons of these cameras, please see my previous articles : 5D Mark II vs. the 7D and the 7D vs the T2i.]

Currently, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is unrivaled in the world of SLRs for professional quality video production.  For those of you who watch the FOX medical drama “HOUSE”, you may be interested to learn that the recent season finale (May 2010) was shot entirely with Canon 5D Mark IIs. The 5D’s closest competitors, though, are also Canon SLRs, and less expensive ones at that.  These are the Canon EOS 7D and the Canon T2i / 550D.  There are a few fundamental differences between these cameras and the 5D which may make them more attractive to some film makers, while others may be deterred. I’ll quickly discuss these differences below. As always, additional information and further questions  are welcome!

Depth of Field

The fundamental difference, of course, is the sensor size. The 5D carries a full-frame sensor, while the 7D and T2i use APS-C (ie, 1.6x crop) sensors. For video, however, this creates a completely different set of problems than it does for still photography. Image quality is NOT a significant difference, as 1080p HD video (1920 x 1080 pixels) is only 2 megapixels. In each of these cameras, only about 10% of the data that can be captured by the sensor will be used, so issues of lens resolution (discussed previously regarding the 7D and 50D), diffraction, etc, that plague the world of fine art photography are simply not field-relevant with video; video resolution is too low to reproduce these problems.

The main issue with video is depth of field. Since HD video resolution is so low, comparatively speaking,  most video cameras have very small sensors… many of them less than 1/4 the size of an APS-C sensor. The smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field… so most consumer grade video cameras produce video in which the backgrounds are relatively sharp in comparison to the subjects, which looks very distinctive and, frankly, cheap. Professional grade video cameras use larger sensors and can use depth of field more creatively, but cost a small fortune. Or a large fortune, in many cases (hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Many professional grade video cameras, costing $100,000 or more, use small 2/3″ sensors. The Sony HDW-F900R CineAlta is a perfect example.

And this is where the Canon SLRs excel. They have large sensors with incredible lenses, and can produce depth of field effects (separation of subjects or subject/background) just as well as film cameras of the past and modern production video cameras. Even APS-C sized sensors (Canon’s are about 22.2 x 14.8mm ) in Cameras such as the 7D are much larger than most video camera sensors (the Red One is an exception, with a sensor about the size of an APS-C, and a camera setup can be had for only about $20,000).

Since the APS-C size sensors of the 7D and T2i are both about the same size as 35mm movie film frames (which are smaller than 35mm still photo frames), they produce a shallow depth of field that is very similar to film-based movie cameras. The 5D Mark II has an even larger sensor, and therefore has a significantly shallower depth of field, at least potentially. Regardless of the camera, the actual depth of field will still depend on the focal length of the lens (ie, 24mm lens vs. 200mm lens) and the aperture at which the lens is used.  Since all of the Canon cameras can be used with the full line of EF lenses, many of which utilize a maximum aperture of f1.4-2.8, there should be little difficulty in achieving very smooth, shallow depth of field, as long as it’s not too bright to use the wide apertures.  Shutter speeds higher than 1/250th of a second can produce a choppy looking effect because each individual frame loses motion blur and becomes too sharp.

Since movie film travels vertically (for typical formats), its widest dimension is actually about the same as the narrow dimension of a full frame still photograph.

Video Features

The three cameras in question are remarkably similar when it comes to video functionality. The following table highlights the many similarities and a few of the differences between the three models.

Firmware

One of the great things about using a camera that is controlled by software is that, in this digital age, it opens the door for the possibility of 3rd party improvements. When the Canon 5D Mark II was introduced, film makers were immediately enchanted by its potential in the industry, but the camera was missing several important features for serious video use. Consequently, a team of clever programmers/film makers got together and created a firm-ware upgrade for the 5D called “Magic Lantern”.

Magic Lantern isn’t a firmware replacement. It is, essentially, a sidecar; a piece of software that runs along side the 5D’s native firmware. Full details about Magic Lantern can be found on their website, but it is a FREE download and can be used by anyone willing to try it.

Currently, Magic Lantern offers the following features for the 5D Mark II:

• On-Screen Audio Meters
• Zebra Stripes
• Disables Audio AGC
• On-Screen Crop Marks for different aspect ratios

Magic Lantern for the 7D is under development, and is expected to be available soon. You can check the progress on the Magic Lantern 7D development website. Although it is technically possible, I have not yet seen any mention of devel0pment for the Rebel T2i / 550D. Since there are so many similarities between the 7D and 550D, it is quite possible that once the firmware for the former is released, it will be modified to work with the latter.

Conclusions

For the moment, the 5D Mark II is the clear winner for true production work, due in large part to Magic Lantern. However, the dedicated video controls of the 7D (and the price tag) make the 7D a very close runner up, and the development of new firmware may push it over the top. The T2i has the advantage of being even less expensive and produces identical video to the 7D, but may not have the firmware available for professional use any time in the near future.  Some people also prefer the fact that it uses SD cards instead of Compact Flash, as they tend to be less expensive and can be locked.

I’ll update this post as more information becomes available, and as I have time to absorb it. Please feel free to submit additional questions, comments, corrections and updates!

Which 70-200 Lens Should I Buy? A Quick Guide

Canon's 70-200 lenses, and a Sigma thrown in for good measure. Not to scale.

With the release of Canon’s latest offering, the EF 70-200 f2.8 USM IS II, Canon has at least 5 pro-quality lenses in the same focal length range. If you include the original EF 80-200 f2.8 from the 1990s (now discontinued, but still available used), the count is up to 6. And then there are the offerings from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and the other third parties. Tokina’s lens in this range, now over 8 years old, has fallen out of favor, and I’ll leave it out of this comparison. Tamron’s offering is very impressive optically, but does not currently have image stabilization. Sigma has recently announced the addition of a new, image stabilized version of their very popular lens (and we can hope for some minor improvements to image quality that is already very good).

As expected, with the differences in features, the prices run the gamut, from a very reasonable $700 to a very hefty $2500. The chart below should cover many of the details.

The MTF 50 numbers provided are all from independent tests (photozone.de) on similar equipment. I’ve refrained from providing MTF data for the other lenses (which are not currently tested at photozone.de) because MTF numbers are notoriously poor comparatives when testing conditions are not identical. Keep in mind that in each case, higher numbers are better, and the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point between the attribution of “excellent” and “very good” is 1850.

For what it’s worth, tests on the latest Canon lens (the mark II) have produced very impressive results. In addition to the improved IS, the image quality is now remarkably high; so high, in fact, that DPreviews give it a “best in class”, as it outperforms even the latest comparable Nikon lens.

How to Decide?

Determinations on what to buy will most likely come down to three factors. The most important is probably subject matter, followed by output type, and finally, your budget!

All of these lenses are designed for use in low light situations, with either a large maximum aperture, image stabilization, or both. Additionally, all of these lenses are designed for full-frame sensor cameras (such as the Canon 5D MarkII) but will also work on APS-C sensor cameras (like the Canon 7D, T2i, 50D, etc). With the APS-C models, you’ll benefit from the sweet-spot effect and get the least vignetting and most consistent sharpness from center to edge.

You can choose a lens with a slightly smaller aperture (f4) but with IS :

• if you shoot in low light but photograph subjects that are not fast moving. An image stabilized f4 lens will give you the equivalent of 3 times more light (3 f-stops) in a situation for hand-holding, but since your shutter speeds will still be slower you won’t have action stopping power.  If an f2.8 lens were shooting at 1/250th of a second, an f4 would need to shoot at 1/125th. A non-IS 200mm lens should not be hand held below 1/250th sec, whereas an IS lens can safely be held at 1/30th in many cases.
• if you primarily shoot scenics, architecture, etc, or shoot tripod mounted. If you use a tripod, then the matter of image stabilization is moot, and the aperture is much less important.
• if you don’t shoot in low light. Canon’s f4 IS lens has amazing resolution and is relatively inexpensive, so unless you need the single extra f-stop, it’s a great choice.

You can buy a non-image stabilized lens :

• if you primarily shoot from a tripod or monopod, or need to stop action. Sports photographers and wildlife photographers will not benefit as much from image stabilization because they’re required to shoot at high shutter speeds to stop the action, which already reduces the need for IS. Although IS does help sometimes, it can also sometimes make small adjustments in composition slow or otherwise awkward, too.
• if you shoot with flash, or in bright light. If you shoot with flash but want to keep bright lights/windows etc in the background sharp, IS can be handy, though.

You should buy an f2.8 image stabilized lens :

• if you can afford it. They are the most expensive, but give you the most flexibility.
• if you frequently shoot in low light, especially with high ISO, and with relatively slow moving subjects. News and Wedding photography really require this type of flexibility, unless you’re a heavy flash user/strobist.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

What have your experiences been with these lenses? Although I’ve used most of them, I have not tested many of them thoroughly. I’d be interested to hear your stories and recommendations!

Who will benefit from paying for the Canon 7D?

[If you're interested in the VIDEO features of the Canon 5D Mark II, 7D, and T2i / 550D, you may also find this article helpful: Canon SLRs for Video - JMG]

This week’s introduction of the new Canon 550D / Rebel T2i raises some interesting questions.  This is a camera that clearly out-classes the Canon 50D in many regards, and has many of the features of the Canon EOS 7D, but at less than half the price (Currently $799 at Amazon.com). Will professional or semi-professional photographers be satisfied using the T2i instead of the 7D? What types of photographers will get any practical benefit from paying double for the Canon 7D?

Let’s get this out of the way first. If you’re at least a semi-pro, you’ll want to opt for the 550D designation over the “Rebel”, if it’s available. What photographer over the age of 15 wants a camera with “Rebel” in red letters across the front? Just kidding.

More seriously, though, let me do a quick side-by-side comparison of their features. If you’d like to see the whole table at once, just click use the drop-down menu at the top-left of the table:

The back of the Canon T2i is dominated by the 3" LCD

If you think any items should be added to this table for comparison, let me know.

There are certainly some differences between these cameras. The 7D has a metal body and a brighter viewfinder with full coverage. The 7D will feel better in your hand,  and these things are always nice. On the other hand, the new 550D sports a higher resolution LCD than the 7D, which can be handy in the field.

The main differences, though, are centered around a very specific style of photography, and really might not be a benefit to many photographers. The main area difference? Speed. The Canon EOS 7D will focus on faster moving subjects, and take more photos at faster shutter speeds. It has a faster flash sync speed, too. Many of these are the result of the dual-processor power of the 7D, though some are certainly limitations for marketing purposes… (my Canon EOS A2 in 1994 had a 1/8000th sec. shutter speed at half the price of this camera… I’m sure this isn’t a technological based limitation for the “Rebel”. I don’t remember ever using it then, either).

For example, if you primarily shoot in the studio, there would be no benefit to spending the extra $900 on the 7D, especially for product photography. Since they use the same sensor, the image quality will be identical. Fast moving models might be a little more of an issue if you’re shooting with very dim modeling lights, but most models are staying within a relatively small studio space, so this just wouldn’t make much difference. In fact, a great deal of portraiture work would fall under this category as well.

Similarly, if you primarily shoot landscapes or other still-life fine art photography, you can expect the same image quality as that produced by the 7D, and being able to focus faster and take 8 frames per second won’t make any difference.  Both have mirror lock-up, which is more important to this type of work. Indeed, if you’re backpacking and every ounce counts, the Rebel T2i / 550D has the benefit of being lighter. Keep in mind that if you’re rough on your cameras out there in the wild, the 7D will hold up better.

I suspect that the lens mount is the only metal portion of the housing of the Canon Rebel T2i / 550D

On the other hand, journalists who need to catch fast action on a regular basis will have better success with the 7D, as it has a superior auto-focus system. The Rebel T2i’s AF system is basically the same that found in the 40D, so if you have used that camera with success, the Rebel may suit your needs as well. Sports photographers will undoubtedly enjoy the accuracy of focus provided by the 7D.

Similarly, wedding photographers (especially wedding photojournalists) may find the speed and accuracy of the AF (as well as the other high-speed functions) useful for catching those moments that only happen once. If you’re a more traditional wedding portraitist, the 550D may suffice, especially as a backup. Indeed, you could buy two of the Rebels for the price of a 7D. David Ziser, a well known Ohio wedding Photographer (see his training videos on KelbyTraining.com) used a 40D for years. Personally, I would not use a 550D as my main camera for shooting weddings since my own work involves catching fleeting moments… but I’d consider using one for a backup or second body.

Needless to say, if you have the extra money, the Canon EOS 7D is going to be the superior camera. However,  that saved $900 could buy a pretty nice lens (or two) or some pocket wizards or flashes… The choice in the end depends on your shooting style and how important it is to have extra money left over for extras.

As always, comments are welcome!

READY TO BUY ONE? I’ve found that the best prices are at Amazon, but some people prefer B&H for their selection and reputation.

Canon Announces New Model of Iconic Lens : 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM

The New Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II USM

[UPDATE: Now that this lens is available and has been tested, I've published a comparison between this AMAZING lens and several others in the same focal range. You can find it here: Canon 70-200 lens comparison ]

Today, Canon announced the release of their updated model of the 70-200 f2.8, a workhorse for photojournalists and and other photographers who enjoy its wide apertures, snappy auto-focus, and (usually) crisp optics. Don’t get your credit cards out yet… it won’t be shipping until at least April, according to Canon USA. Read the rest of the article for a quick summary of the key differences.

Optical performance seemed to be the focus of the new model. Changes were made in the internal elements, an additional UD element was added (the previous model contained already included 4), and a flourite element was added. Naturally, Canon claims that the new design increases contrast and resolution throughout the range, but they also make special note that it reduces secondary chromatic aberration. The minimum focusing distance has also been improved by about 6 inches. When test models become available, it will be interesting to see how these claims hold up; Canon is up against stiff competition with the Nikon counterpart, but also with 3rd party manufacturers such as Tamron, which has released its own popular (and inexpensive) lens in this range.

Independent tests of the first IS model showed that the MTF was less than ideal at 200mm, and performed poorly with the multipliers. Canon’s released MTF diagrams show a marked improvement in this regard.

Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM L

Mechanically, the lens should be faster focusing as a result of new programming, but just as importantly, the image stabilization (IS) has been improved by a full f-stop. Whereas the previous model added the equivalent of about 3 stops of stability, the new model claims 4.

Physically, the lens has also been re-enforced a bit. The barrel has been strengthened, they say, though the overall weight of the lens has only increased by 20 grams. It’s not clear to me whether the weight difference is the result of housing changes or optical changes.

The biggest problem with the current model in this focal range has been consistency in production, with photographers around the net complaining about having trouble getting one of the good ones. I can only hope that this is addressed by Canon during the production of the new model, and that the new optical performance is at least as good as their 70-200 f4, which is superb (and generally superior to the f2.8).

[Updated: April 17, 2010]

Now that the new lens has been released, I’ve added an actual price to the side-by-side comparison table below. The price difference between the first model and the mark II is currently about $600 ($700 with rebates on the earlier lens). If you’re a pro, this is probably a worthwhile cost for the improvements (especially those in resolution when used with the Canon 7D and Eos 1D Mark IV). No matter who you are, though, $2500 is a significant purchase, and before you make it you might consider one more option.

Look at the price difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the f4. Both are “L” series lenses, with exceptional quality and performance, and both are IS lenses. The price difference? $1300 . The performance difference? ONE F-STOP. Keep in mind that the f4 IS lens is already going to be hand-holdable in more situations (by a couple of f-stops) than a typical, non-IS 70-200 f2.8 lens, assuming that your subject’s motion allows it.

Is it worth $1300 to you to have one extra stop of exposure, or would you rather (on those occasions when it’s necessary) temporarily bump up your ISO a stop, or add flash? For some photographers, these options are simply not viable. For those of you who CAN do it though, $1300 will buy you a really nice second lens (an ultra-wide zoom, perhaps, or a nice macro lens). Your shooting style will dictate the answer, but keep in mind that for many photographers, the new lens will be a waste of money.

NOW, for those of you who only look at tables:

Lens Model	70-200 f2.8 IS USM	70-200 F2.8 IS II USM
Price	$1850 ($1700 w/ Canon rebate)	$2499
Weight	1470g (3 lb 3.85 oz.)	1490g (3 lb.4.55 oz.)
Dimensions	3.4″ x 7.8″ / 86.2mm x 197mm	3.5″ x 7.8″ / 88.8 x 199mm
Elements	23 (18 groups)	23 (19 groups)
UD Elements	4	5
Flourite Elements	0	1
Minimum Focal Distance	1.3 meters	1.2 meters
IS Performance	3-stops	4-stops
Filter Size	77mm	77mm
Lens Hood	ET-86 (Cost: $65)	ET-87 (Cost: ?)
Tripod Collar	Yes	Yes
Cool Looking White Body	Yes	Yes

As always, comments and questions are appreciated.

Canon 7D vs Nikon D300s

A few weeks ago, I compared the Canon 7D to the Canon 5D Mark II, suggesting that they’re both excellent cameras, but suited to different types of work. However, there is another camera that appears to be intended for the same target market as the Canon 7D, with many similar functions and a very similar price (within $100). That camera is the Nikon D300s, which was released a few months before the 7D. Again, I can say that they’re both excellent cameras, and the deciding factor for purchasing one will undoubtedly be which of the features are most important to your photographic style.

But the cameras are not created equal. Let me begin with a side by side comparison of their most prominent features.

From this quick comparison, it should be clear that the cameras have a lot in common. The Canon 7D, however, seems to excel with its video functionality and it’s RAW shooting capabilities. As a RAW shooter, I must admit that I’ve have been very disappointed to find that I’d purchased a camera that claims 7 frames per second and can only manage 2.5. On the other hand, the D300s does have remarkably fast auto-focus, and slightly less shutter lag than the Canon.  If I were buying a camera based on its ability to shoot video, the added resolution of 1080p (as well as the ability to shoot slow-motion video at 60fps) would be persuasive, although I don’t have any particular interest in video.

Sensor and Digital Noise

Obviously, the Canon 7D has a substantially higher resolution sensor. With a fine lens (coupled with excellent technique), I have no doubt that the Canon‘s sensor will produce images superior to the D300s in good lighting situations. Many of us, unfortunately, spend most of our working day in poor lighting situations. The D300s, like it’s predecessor the D300, has excellent low light sensor performance.

Canon 7D: ISO 6400: 100% Crop

Canon 7D: ISO6400, Reduced to 12.3 Megapixel Equiv. (32%)

Noise reduction applied before reduction. (Noise Ninja, auto-profiled)

Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that the digital noise is significantly better on the D300s than the 7D (though I haven’t seen conclusive tests at this point). We know that digital noise is a pixel-level problem, and that the 7D‘s pixels are much smaller than those of the Nikon. If you were to take a noisy 18 megapixel image and down-sample it to 12.3, would any of that digital noise survive? What if you ran noise reduction on the Canon image before down-sampling? The downsampling would reduce the effect of the softening that is normally introduced by noise reduction. We are talking about a 32% reduction in size, which is significant.

The photos at left were taken with the 7D (pre-production) at ISO 6400, which is available as an extended ISO mode on the D300s, but is the highest normal shooting ISO on the 7D. Considering the grain that I used to get with Tmax 3200, even the noise of the non-reduced image is impressively well controlled, and once it is reduced, it’s not much of a problem in this case (although this example is less noisy than other parts of the image).

As you can see in the noise reduced example, because the noise reduction was applied before re-sampling, the sharpness of the final the two down-sized examples is very similar if not identical. This is the benefit of starting out with a much higher resolution image when post processing is going to be a significant factor. As far as I’m concerned, this final image is what the Nikon D300s has to compete with straight out of the camera (at its highest possible ISO setting). Unfortunately, I only have an older D300 available for testing at the moment, but since the sensor is the same, I may decide to post comparative photos later.

Canon 7D : ISO 6400, 100% Crop

Down-Sampled 32% to match the size of the Nikon D300s sensor.

Noise reduction applied before down-sampling. (Noise Ninja, Auto-profiled)

Lets take a final look at another region of the same photo in which the noise was a little more prominent to begin with.

After simple down-sampling, the noise in this part of the image was heavy enough to remain somewhat prominent. With the addition of noise reduction beforehand, however, the sharpness of the image remains roughly the same and the noise is becomes a minor problem, in comparison, though it is certainly not gone.

I’ve presented the preceding information based on the assumption that the Nikon D300s is equal to or moderately superior to the Canon 7D when it comes to digital noise to begin with. At this point, however, testing seems to show just the opposite to be true. Nikon D300s shots at ISO3200 and 6400 from at least one test are hardly recognizable, much less usable. Click here for further details (opens in new window).

Testing of both cameras will continue, and problems with each will become more apparent. At the moment, though, I’m inclined to believe that the Canon holds the advantage in this competition.

* The prices listed are from B&H Photo, as they are a reputable but inexpensive store. Cheaper prices may exist elsewhere on the internet (and are frequently seen in the Google ads that appear in the right column of this blog), but if they’re too much lower and new models haven’t been released yet, consider the possibility that you’re looking at a scam.

And why the 16 Megapixel 1D may produce better images than the 18 Megapixel Canon 7D

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV : The Camera for Action Photographers

Yesterday, Canon officially announced the newest member of the 1D series: the Mark IV. It’s a machine that is clearly built for speed, now boasting 10 frames per second (enabled by dual Digic 4 processors), a new high sensitivity auto-focus system, and even higher ISO settings for better shutter speeds in lower light. All of this is coupled with a brand new, 1.3x crop factor, 16 Megapixel CMOS sensor.

What’s that? Only 16 Megapixels? But wasn’t the 7D just released with an 18 Megapixel sensor? I’ve already seen posts around the internet along these lines, questioning the reasoning behind this new sensor, so let me briefly explain why it might be a good idea.

Let me begin with the premise that what photographers want is the best possible image for the file size that is produced.  If the image quality of a 15 megapixel file is equivalent to that of an 18 megapixel file, then we’ve gained nothing by adding the extra data. For example: since the sensor resolution of the Canon 50D (15Mpixels, 1.6x crop factor) already exceeds the resolution of most of the Canon lenses that I’m aware of (especially in real-life shooting situation), some have argued that the pixel count increase in the 7D (18Mpixels, 1.6x crop factor) currently serves no purpose but to increase file sizes. See my discussion of the 7D’s new sensor for further information.

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV : Rear View

The 1D Mark IV also has an increased pixel count over the 50D, but it does not fall victim to the same problem as the 7D for one reason : SIZE. The Mark IV‘s sensor is physically larger than those of the other cameras mentioned, maximizing the resolution of the lens. I haven’t found an exact pixel count for the effective area of the Mark IV‘s sensor, so I can’t provide a receptor per/mm comparison, but the important thing is the .3x difference in magnification of the lens’ flaws. This should make a significant difference in image quality.

It goes without saying that the lower density of receptors on the sensor will help decrease heat and digital noise, which may be one of the reasons that Canon was able to increase the maximum ISO up to 102400, two full f-stops faster than the 5D Mark II. It remains to be seen how the sensor will perform in the field, but in theory, this is promising.

So why didn’t the 1D Mark IV get a 21.1 megapixel sensor like the 1Ds Mark III and 5D mark II? My guess is that it’s to decrease the processing time of each photo. Although it only has one Digic 4 processor, the 1Ds Mark III can only shoot at 5 fps, and the 5D is much slower than that.  Perhaps the reduced data flow requirements allow the camera to perform at these record speeds. Of course, there is also the benefit of the magnification from the crop factor for photographers (like sports and wildlife photographers) who regularly use telephoto lenses, and the “sweet spot”  effect of using a smaller sensor as well.

If my calculations are correct with the approximate numbers available, it seems that the sensor of the new 1D Mark IV has about 21% greater receptor density than Canon’s current full frame sensors. Perhaps this means that the next full frame sensor camera from Canon will sport a 38 Megapixel sensor! Time will tell.

The Canon 7D and 5D Mark II: Resolution Comparison

I’ve had a chance to make a cursory comparison between some full resolution photos taken by the new Canon 7D and a Canon 5D Mark II, and the results have not been exactly what I expected. Before I go on to describe the results, let me mention that the 7D in question is a pre-production model, and results may improve (where theoretically possible) by the time that they ship. I’d also like to thank Steve Eastwood at Modelmayhem for providing the images.

As I mentioned in my previous discussion of these two cameras, the overall pixel count difference is minimal in terms of final print size, but because the 5D Mark II has a full frame sensor, it has a much lower receptor density (about 156 receptors per millimeter) compared to the 7D (about 233). Even though it may seem that higher resolution on the sensor would lead to sharper photos, we should not expect this to be the case in practice because even our best lenses offer a lower resolution than the 7D sensor, and therefore the sensor’s extra resolution will not be capturing extra detail.

Figure A: Canon 7D - 100% Crop

Figure B : Canon 5D Mark II - 100% Crop, ISO 3200

If this concept is hard to grasp, consider this scenario: suppose that you have a fixed focal length lens (say, a 100mm) on your 5D and you set up an object on a table in your studio so that, with your camera on a tripod 10 feet away, it fills the whole frame.  Now suppose that you put the lens on a 7D and place the camera on the same tripod. Of course, the object won’t fill the frame any more, it will be cropped. In order to fill the frame the same way (or as close as possible), you’ll have to back up a few feet.  After backing up a few feet, you’re now using less of the image that would be produced by the lens on a full frame camera to create the same photo, which also means that you’re magnifying the lens’s flaws.

Figures A and B are from a little less than 1/4 of the distance across the frame horizontally. This means that on the full frame sensor of the 5D, this is getting near the edge of the frame, which we’d expect to be a bit less sharp. On the 7D, this is using a more central part of the lens, so any lack of sharpness is less likely to be related to optical problems with the lens.

As you can see, however, the 5D is still sharper, though not by a tremendous amount. The difference is most noticeable in the “www” text below the logo box. Since the two images were shot at 3200, noise is also a factor.

Digital Noise

Figures A and B display a significant amount of digital noise, but in each case, no more noise than a CCD equipped camera would have produced at ISO 800 a few years ago. The question, however, is whether there is a difference between the cameras. At ISO 3200, there is remarkably little difference. This is counter to my initial predictions, and counter to conventional thought that suggests that denser sensors produce more noise. I’d still give the edge to the 5D Mark II, but I wouldn’t consider it enough to be a deal breaker.

At ISO 6400, the difference is more pronounced. Sample images are below.

Figure D: Canon 5D MarkII at ISO 6400

Figure C: Canon 7D at ISO 6400