« on: September 29, 2014, 08:18:21 PM »
Yes but to really take it over the top why not play with wide angle perspective at the same time.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm a wildlife photographer and shoot "wild" wildlife. No zoos or captive animals. I've spooked many animals with the should of the mirror slapping even on silent mode. I'd love a truly silent operating camera.... However I also would like an OVF.
Looks like the a7r will be your landscape cam. Now you can shorten your posts to a link to this thread when the issue rises.
As for Lee jay, I would say a bounce flash.
Yes, as should be quite obvious, a flash is often a great way to control scene contrast. That was a 550EX fired into the ceiling.
You do realize the whole point was to demonstrate DR, right? Oh, and um...I don't have a flash for the A7r...so, doing a comparison with flash just wasn't an option.
This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?
Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios.
Obviously this would only work with a mirrorless camera and you could not have a lens hood with pedals.
I think some of the advantages would be you get to hold the camera "normally" for portrait shots, you only use the pixels you want (thus keeping the size of files to a minimum), there is less cropping in post, etc.
What do you all think? Stupid idea or does it have some merit?
The 50mp sensor is medium format and Sony does not have a medium format camera system. They have worked with Hassleblad before. I think the state of Hassleblad financially was what lead to Pentax and PhaseOne also getting the sensor. The D800/D800E/D810 are Nikon and it has been proven time and time again that Nikon adds proprietary processing before writing data to the "RAW" file.
This is actually true of Canon now as well. DIGIC 6 processes the data before writing it to the RAW file. The 7D II will probably be fairly impressive at ISO 16000 for an APS-C camera. It'll be impressive because the data written won't really be truly "RAW"...it'll be cooked, just like a Nikon camera. The other thing Nikon does is clip blacks, instead of setting a bias offset. That tends to result in cleaner shadows, but it's discarding a little bit of data that could be useful in certain circumstances (such as astrophotography...which is the reason a hack was created to remove the black point clip and restore the bias offset, as it restores the linearity of the signal in Nikon cameras.)
For what it's worth, the A7s, a powerhouse at high ISO, also cooks the raw data. The BoinzX chip is very similar to the DIGIC 6 (I honestly don't know which has the superior design or approach...we'll have to see.) It too does noise reduction on the RAW data before writing it out to the file.
Cooking the RAW is probably going to be a standard practice now. Even if you reduce read noise, at high ISO, IQ is ultimately going to be photon shot noise limited. You can increase Q.E., but the high end sensors like the one in the A7s are already at 67%. There is maybe a third of a stop of "real" improvement to be made in the sensor itself by increasing Q.E. to 100% (which is doable, but expensive...at least currently...it may become cost effective at some point in the future.) Any other gains are going to have to be made either by increasing the sensor area (i.e. medium format sensor), or by processing the RAW data. For established camera systems, increasing the sensor size isn't an option...hence the reason everyone is cooking their RAWs now.
To all the people threatening to jump from Canon to Sony/Nikon...
When you bought your Canon camera, it was obviously because you needed/wanted its performance. It was good enough. Now suddenly it's not good enough? Did it deteriorate in quality? You bought a camera because its performance was what sought, and now its performance (which is the exact same as when you bought it) is not good enough? Y'all make me laugh. Hah.
Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III
Do you have a link to prove this?
Also, according to DXOMark, the RX100 Mk 1, 2 and 3 sensors are nearly identical in performance with Mk 1 only being very slightly behind for low light ISO.
1. The RX100 mk III is 20.1 MP, mk I and mk II are 20.2 MP as is the Canon G7x
2. DP Review interviewed Sony rep who confirmed that Sony does not sell their most current sensors to anyone, but keeps it for their own cameras. Sony sells only the sensors that no longer have unique value.
I don't know about 1, but 2 is patently false. The D800/D800E/D810 has been demonstrably "better" than the Sony A7R and where is the Sony 50mp camera that is currently sold by Pentax, Hassleblad and PhaseOne all with a Sony sensor?
The Sony rep was spinning a line in the hopes that gullible people would take a bite.
I bought and sold an EOS M + 22 + 18-55 + adapter. Then when the second fire sale (at $250) came around, I snagged the M + 22 again and added the adapter as well. When I had it previously, about the only lens I mounted on it was the 40mm. However, this time around I have additional lenses and find 2 that work really well with it. I use the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM both work wonderfully on it. The EF 85mm f/1.8 also works well but due to the longer focal length I find it slightly more difficult to compose images and locate my subjects - it's not terrible, but it's not great either.
For me, the 22 + 35 IS + 50 is a GREAT, LIGHTWEIGHT, small(ish) walkaround combo. Personally, I find zoom lenses on the M to be cumbersome and I don't really like them. Both the native 18-55 and adapted zooms. Adapted zooms are worse. Probably a personal preference. And note I haven't tried the 11-22 or the 55-200.
I agree, a fast 50 on the M will complement the 22 nicely. Much like a 35-85 combo on FF.
I didn't really like the 50/1.4 though (bought and sold it 3 times), so I am thinking on the FD 50mm lines.