April 20, 2014, 01:08:26 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - horshack

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
What is the potential risk with ML anyway? I believe I've read something about frying your sensor (!) when using Dual-ISO. Is that a big risk and if so, why?
No risk. ML runs on your memory card, the moment you replace the memory card, there is no ML ... use it without fear.

My understanding is that once you install it on the 5DIII you cannot undo the boot flag. This means that if you don't like it (slow boot times, or something else), you can't "reset" your cmaera to factory performance. That is a barrier to me. I'll give it a try when I see that it is completely reversible.

That was a limitation of the previous 5DM3 ML releases. It's been fixed in this release - the bootflag on the body can now be cleared.

2
Lenses / Re: Strange AFMA results with canon 50 f1.4
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:49:09 PM »
The 50 is one of my favorite Canon lenses but it's micro-USM motor makes it a rather finicky and imprecise focusing lens (shot-to-shot variability). I've had the most success with it by tuning at infinity - that produces good results at all distances whereas the opposite is not true (tuning at 50x and expecting it to focus well at middle to infinity distances).

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Microadjustment Automated
« on: January 13, 2014, 08:33:34 PM »
I don't think CDAF's lack of predetermine directionality would matter in this case. All that is necessary is for CDAF to achieve focus as a reference point. Once a reference point is attained (and CDAF CAN indeed achieve very good focus once it's done going through all its gyrations), you save the focus group position of the lens, then all you need to do is test PDAF at a distribution of AFMA settings until you zero in on the one that most closely matches the CDAF position, and ensure that setting produces repeatable results.

The PDAF cycles aren't required. Once CDAF has found the optimum contrast point, the AFMA value can be determined almost instantly by evaluating the phase differential and then applying the appropriate AFMA adjust value to bring that differential to its minimum. This is one method outlined in Canon's patent.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Microadjustment Automated
« on: January 13, 2014, 12:00:33 AM »
I'd have to read through the patent to see if there are any unique elements to it but generally speaking the idea of using CDAF to auto-tune PDAF has lots of prior art online.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent
« on: December 20, 2013, 07:29:44 PM »
Some of this patent seems to overlap what Emil Martinec came up with back in 2008:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28750076

6
Software & Accessories / Re: Magic Lantern and the automated Dottune
« on: December 14, 2013, 04:03:36 PM »
I use Reikan Focal.  It works and is accurate.  Dot Tune seems to have a broad tolerance for accuracy. 
There is no broad tolerance with DotTune. The midpoint of the confirmed range is the optimal AF tune value. Those who have tried both FoCal and DotTune report to me that both arrived at the same calculated AF tune value.

7
Software & Accessories / Re: Magic Lantern and the automated Dottune
« on: December 14, 2013, 03:59:50 PM »
Hi all,
I am having trouble discerning the progress of the automated dottune in Magic Lantern.
I have tried reading their website, but am a little confused if it is available.
If it is available (5DMk3), which version of Magic Lantern do i need to download.
Also,
If I use Magic Lantern to determine an amount of fine adjustment, will it move it to the cameras internal
memory area, or do I need to modify that value manually.
Essentially, I was wondering if I needed to be using Magic Lantern all of the time to be able to get the adjustment
during actual use of the camera/lense combo

Thanks for any info you can provide.

GlassEye :o

It's been available in the developer stream since its inception but I don't believe there's been an official ML release yet since that date. When executed it will store the AF tune value in the camera's memory automatically upon completion.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:53:35 AM »
I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

9
FF sensors have 2.25x more area than an APS-C sensor. That means than APS-C sensor must be 2.25x more efficient at converting light in order to even just match a FF sensor's performance let alone exceed it. That's just not possible when both chips benefit from the same technology improvements. It's only possible when comparing a much older FF sensor vs a contemporary APS-C sensor, such as the 5Dc vs D7100/K-3.

ok.. thatá what logic tells us.... so how do you explain the results?  :)

There are an infinite number of ways to perform invalid tests. And another infinite number of ways to misinterpret the results :)

10
FF sensors have 2.25x more area than an APS-C sensor. That means than APS-C sensor must be 2.25x more efficient at converting light in order to even just match a FF sensor's performance let alone exceed it. That's just not possible when both chips benefit from the same technology improvements. It's only possible when comparing a much older FF sensor vs a contemporary APS-C sensor, such as the 5Dc vs D7100/K-3.

11
I'll wait for the $799 equivalent from Sigma.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 12:45:55 PM »
So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

hehe, I know your post is in jest but in actuality for nearly every focal length where the two systems go head-to-head in glass (for the same generation design) Canon completely wipes the floor with better designs/IQ. The only notable exception I can think of is the Nikon 14-24mm. I own both the Canon 70-200 II and Nikon 70-200 VR2 and the Canon is what I reach for most of the time, esp. when I want to do off-center composition at 200mm. It's a spectacular lens.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D vs D7100 ISO Comparison at 100%
« on: August 31, 2013, 05:34:28 PM »
The High ISO performance between two competing bodies of the same generation are very close, which means two things:

1) The differences aren't that important in actual, practical use.

2) To measure those small differences you have to use an exacting methodology. This means the same absolute exposure (aperture/shutter speed) with the same lighting. Matching the aperture requires using the same lens on both bodies, which for Canikon means using a Nikon-mount lens with a manual aperture ring, and adapting the lens to the Canon body using a F-mount -> EF mount adapter. Failing to use the same lens on both bodies means the actual aperture/t-stop can vary by up to or more than a 1/2 stop, which is larger than the actual High ISO difference between most bodies of the same sensor size. Naturally you also have to use a tripod, timer release, MLUP, and identical framing.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Highest Usable Iso?
« on: August 29, 2013, 06:50:45 PM »
I compared my 6D to my D3s (since sold) and outside of some technical aspects of IQ like a bit lower color saturation the 6D was almost neck and neck with the D3s at the Ultra High ISOs. It's that good.

I agree with other posters that it's more useful to state the usable ISO in terms of +EV stops relative to another body...because everyone has a different idea as to what represents usable in terms of noise and detail.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 04:01:48 PM »
I have to say, I was also a bit disappointed by the DXOMark. But actually I start to question the real world connection of their marks. I was looking at the sample shoots of the 70D at dpReview with their nice tool they have. My impression was that the 70D is quite good at high ISO, even beating the D600 in some areas when using JPEGs. The D600 which should actually be better than the 6D (according to DXO), but at high ISO the pictures look either the same (RAW) or the 6D is better (JPEG).
At first I didn't see much difference at low ISO, until somebody pointed out some parts of dark color cards. There you can see the advantage of Nikon at low ISO. The Canons have some nasty noise in some colors, even at low ISO. But they represent only a small part of the whole picture, the rest looks almost the same for both. At high ISO the Canon files look either the same (RAW) or better (JPEG).

Also interesting, check out the Fujifilm X-Pro1; this sensor rocks! It easely keeps up with all the FF sensors from Canon and Nikon. Sadly there is no test planned for this camera at DXO, this would be interesting to see.


I suggest we make a blind test for IQ of Canon and Nikon (and others). Select some areas of the preview comparison tool, and take the pictures from different cameras and rank them according to the IQ. This could settle the IQ war for a while. The problem is, that one could select areas that suit one of the two better than the other, but it should be possible to make a fair comparison.
I suggest 4 samples of one area at a certain ISO from 4 different Cameras at either RAW or JPEG. Then I would take maybe 6 areas. The cameras can be different in the other areas, but can also be the same. The order of the pictures from one area should be random. For each area the pictures can be put in the order according to their quality. This should give a good idea about IQ of the different sensors.

What do you think?


dpreview doesn't match lighting/exposure between cameras, which makes their comparisons unsuitable, esp. since the High ISO differences between modern sensors are approaching margins of erroor. The Fuji has a good sensor but it's only about equal to other APS-C sensors - it appears better than that due to a lower nominal ISO rating (requires a slower shutter speed to achieve the same exposure as a Canikon sensor). I did a controlled comparison of the Fuji here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1223542/0

Pages: [1] 2 3