July 24, 2014, 02:29:02 AM

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 - 3kramd5

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Weird. It's as if the shutter got hung up (open) briefly. If so, send it to Canon. I'll be interested to see if there are other explanations.

2
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:03:54 PM »
2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.

This is the one that often comes up that I believe PBD is attempting to shed light on. Forget everything that requires side by side constant lighting to compare, and just point out which of the images in his collage are 50L dreamy. I can not. Can you?

Side by side yes, I'm sure most people could pick out differences. But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?

3
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 17, 2014, 03:22:03 PM »
The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.  I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

If someone can offer me an EVF with zero distinguishable lag and a dynamic range and color gamut matching the sensor, I'd eat the battery weight. I suspect producing a 12+ stop display may be challenging, however. They may be able to do it with clever back- and side lighting, but that would jeopardize the accuracy.

4

Now reasonable is 1 MP per upgrade is proabably a bit more reasonable.

Sure, a 1MP upgrade is more reasonable/realistic, but it certainly isn't interesting :)

5
What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?

...

At the moment I can't think of anything to answer either of those questions.  Anyone?

Plenty. They can put the 1Dx AF unit in. They can bring back CF. They can make an APS-C version of their 120MP APC-H sensor. Etc.

There is quite a lot they CAN put in it. The better question is what WILL they put in it, and history suggests that if there are any improvements beyond a higher model number, they'll be marginal. DPAF seems likely.

1dx AF?....that will never be in a rebel

CF, doubtful as  the market trend is SD for the low end

120MB sensor???? are you smoking something????

The rebel is never going to have anything crazy like that.  and a dev announcement????  I really doubt we'll see that as there is little to no dev going into it ---it's a rehash of the old which is what happens on a product that gets refreshed yearly.  With new FF bodies on the horizon and the 7d's replacement, they have plenty to talk about.  Rebel releases will only get hype in a year that offers no other significant model updates.

Think you missed the point man, he said they COULD put anything in from the awesome tech they already have, including the 120mp (not mb like you wrote) aps-h sensor, which is real btw. But they don't put that in becasue obvious reasons.

Exactly. The open ended question in the OP was "What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?" They can put any tech they're capable of producing into the T6i. They won't, but they can.

6
What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?

...

At the moment I can't think of anything to answer either of those questions.  Anyone?

Plenty. They can put the 1Dx AF unit in. They can bring back CF. They can make an APS-C version of their 120MP APC-H sensor. Etc.

There is quite a lot they CAN put in it. The better question is what WILL they put in it, and history suggests that if there are any improvements beyond a higher model number, they'll be marginal. DPAF seems likely.

7
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:42:56 PM »
I use filters to accomplish something. It could be to facilitate wide open or long exposure shots in daylight, it could be to cut glare, it could be to complete weather sealing, etc. If there is no specific goal a filter is part of, I don't bother.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:07:55 PM »
At its core, I believe, DXO does measurements to support its software packages. The data they generate and publish on DXOMark is somewhat useful to consumers, but it's extremely useful to them. It's a bit silly/sad that they got in the scoring business as their unspecified methods sometimes produce clearly absurd results, which gives the entire outfit a bit of a black mark (and invites questions like 'well if you don't like their scores, why do you use their software').

Consider that across the Internet, criticism of DxO typically only comes from people that own Canon products. That piece of data speaks volumes about how DxO results are absorbed, don't you think?

I'll take your word for it. It may speak volumes, but the words don't necessarily mean anything in particular other than the fact that many consumers like to have their purchases validated even if a black box third party does the validation with esoteric scores derived using undisclosed methodology.

9
Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:01:58 PM »
Am I the only one who doesn't care what mode random people use? It's one thing to observe what camera someone has (and since manufacturers often put the model name on the strap, it's easy for those of us to don't follow the mass market offerings closely) from afar, but getting up close enough to observe mode-selection dials? That's weird. IJS.

It's kinda obvious when rebel users came to me and asked for photography advice. Not only they were shooting in the green mode, they were also using auto focus(camera focus to nearest point.)

Would that considered as "weird"?

Of course when someone asks you for advise it isn't weird to first observe what they are currently doing. That's appropriate.

I just got the impression (for example from the post above citing a percentage) that people were scoping out random passers by, "haha that dude is on automatic, he must be a total noob," or "lol that chick bumped her dial to bulb and she probably won't notice until it's too late to get the bride and groom kissing, loser."

It's not like I particularly care if people look at the dials on my cameras, it's just kinda a weird curiosity, especially since the dials don't tell the whole story.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:28:13 PM »

Hey, that can't be - Canon has TWO "N"s, Nikon has only one "N".   ;D

I take a lot of "information" on the net with a giant crystal of sodium chloride.

Hmm, I see what you mean about the salt........

In Nancy's defense, people often misspell it CANNON (usually when asking which "lense" to buy).

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 10:39:03 AM »
At its core, I believe, DXO does measurements to support its software packages. The data they generate and publish on DXOMark is somewhat useful to consumers, but it's extremely useful to them. It's a bit silly/sad that they got in the scoring business as their unspecified methods sometimes produce clearly absurd results, which gives the entire outfit a bit of a black mark (and invites questions like 'well if you don't like their scores, why do you use their software').

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 08, 2014, 11:44:47 PM »
its' impossible to fully realize the full resolving power of a sensor with a high resolution lens, and to get very close, you rapidly run into diminishing returns. You get to the point where doubling your lens resolution gets you a few line pairs closer.

It's an asymptotic relationship...system resolving power is asymptotically related to the resolving power of the lowest common denominator of the system.

Thus the moral of the story is: if your primary goal is to maximize system resolution (and for the majority of people, that's likely not the case, regardless of what one may read on some fringe forums), always upgrade the weakest component.

Yeah, pretty much. Although that can become prohibitively expensive at some point.

The 7D is a good camera, but it doesn't perform terribly well with the telephoto lens it's most often paired with, the 100-400. However if you move up to one of the Canon great white primes, the 7D becomes a stellar performer at ISO settings 1600 and lower, and becomes viable at ISO settings higher than that in the evenings. It's just that you have to spend a LOT of money on those lenses to maximize the potential of the 7D.

On the flip side, if you upgrade the camera itself, to one with a higher resolution sensor (which the 7D II should have), then instead of spending $6000 to $13,000, you spend maybe $2500-3000. It's still a large chunk of change, but not necessarily prohibitively expensive.

Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 08, 2014, 09:36:18 AM »
its' impossible to fully realize the full resolving power of a sensor with a high resolution lens, and to get very close, you rapidly run into diminishing returns. You get to the point where doubling your lens resolution gets you a few line pairs closer.

It's an asymptotic relationship...system resolving power is asymptotically related to the resolving power of the lowest common denominator of the system.

Thus the moral of the story is: if your primary goal is to maximize system resolution (and for the majority of people, that's likely not the case, regardless of what one may read on some fringe forums), always upgrade the weakest component.

14
or is the base ISO amplification factor calculated by the camera manufacturer so that the exposure comes out right.

Yes, the amount of gain applied to the signal is targeted at a net brightness according to ISO setting, all else being equal. The smaller the sensor, the more gain.

See neuro's post here:

The answer lies in what ISO is...and isn't.  Many people have a poor understanding of ISO, incorrectly assuming that a given ISO setting means a fixed amount of gain applied to the signal.  ISO is a standard (that's the 'S' in ISO, ISO 12232 is the relevant standard in this case), and that standard effectively means that for a given exposure setting in terms of aperture and shutter speed, the resulting image will have a defined brightness.  How does an image taken at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a PowerShot S100 have the same brightness as an image at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a FF sensor, even though the FF sensor is over 20 times larger?  More amplification (gain) must be applied to the lower total signal from the smaller sensor. More amplification means more noise.  Obviously, the same is true for m4/3 and APS-C relative to FF, to a progressively lesser degree.  Likewise, a medium format sensor needs less amplification than a FF sensor to achieve the necessary brightness for a given ISO according to the standard, and therefore has less noise than FF.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:35:07 AM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?

Yes, I have seen the subforum. It would be a prefect place to speak about things like Sigma lenses or Manfrotto tripods. But Nikon gear normally doesn't fit on a Canon camera. Endless discussion about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras doesn't help anyone shooting with Canon cameras and lenses.

It's the perfect place to discuss anything other than Canon.
Here's the description of the forum: "Nikon, Leica, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest go here." While endless discussions about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras may not *help* canon users, it's certainly interesting, and having the forum keeps users posting here rather than spreading out to a nikon site for nikon and a leica site for leica and a sigma site for sigma, etc. It's a canon-centric website, but that isn't to the exclusion of non-canon stuff.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21