Big Surf In Santa Cruz

[Photo-John]

This is a little different for me. I was riding the mountain bike in Santa Cruz on a day when the surf was extraordinarily big (Saturday 11/29). So after we were done riding we went out and I shot from the cliffs. It was huge. And I don't think I've ever seen so many guys in the water at one time - not that I go out there that often. But I'm sure glad I did.

This stuff was tough to shoot. It was pretty dark while I was shooting and these have all been pushed hard - they've essentially been push-processed in Lightroom. They were shot RAW and then lightened at least half a stop. I used the Canon EOS 50D and 70-200 f/2.8L lens at ISO 800, except for the last photo, which I shot at ISO 1600. I think ISO 800 is pretty solid with the EOS 50D and 1600 is good too - but not from this far away. The noise takes too much away from the detail in that last photo - although under the circumstances, I'm still happy with it. I could have used a longer lens for sure. A 300mm f/2.8 would have been great. But a slower lens wouldn't have worked - I needed all the light I could get to keep the shutter speed up. They're all a hair soft from motion blur and I didn't go under 1/200th second.

Anyway, I was excited about these both because of the subject and because they're good EOS 50D samples. I'm working my way around to writing the EOS 50D review. I think I've used it plenty now. So far I'm pretty happy, although I've come to conclusion that at low ISO, the EOS 40D was better. Not better enough to really matter - but better, all the same.

[Photo-John]

Since these are from such high resolution files and they've been pushed so hard, I thought it would be useful to provide unedited, 100% crops. Both of these have had some adjustment done in Lightroom, but none in Photoshop. The first one is an ISO 800 image and the second was shot at ISO 1600.

[brmill26]

First, very cool shots John. Especially for us East coasters for whom surfing is a foreign thing The guy in the second shot really got a ton of air!

As to the technical quality of the shots, they don't look all that bad considering. I came to a similar conclusion about the 40/50D ISO. Having seen your photos and those of several others, I think the bottom line point is that the 50D did not make any substantive improvements over the 40D. Therefore, if image quality or high ISO ability is one of your key concerns, there's no advantage to the 50D. I think we've reached the limit for pixel density, at least at current software abilities.

This is getting OT, but I wonder if you share my thoughts on this. Two things are happening: we are at, or very close to, the maximum potential of the APS-C sensor. Simultaneously, processing speed and costs are improving the viability of full frame sensors, such that we now see them in quite a few upper prosumer and pro cameras. Another current "problem," at least for a marketing point of view, is that the "entry level" cameras like the XSi have gotten so good, that for most people, there is little to differentiate them from the "mid range" xxD series cameras.

So with those circumstances in mind, along with the fact that processing speed mathematically continually improves at an exponential rate, I think within a generation or two, the manufacturers will seize the opportunity to differentiate the mid-range models again by making them full frame. IE, entry level cameras (XRi) are APS-C, mid-range models go full frame (60D), and the top of the line simply adds more resolution and features as today. Nikon may have already started that process with the D700, going with a "lower" resolution FF chip that emphasizes speed. Which brings up another great marketing point, that they could start relatively low in the MP range on FF chips, which would give them plenty of room to add resolution on new models.

That's all my personal opinion, but if I were a marketer with knowledge of APS-C engineering limitations, I'd like it.