Does the 7DII have Autofocus micro-adjust capabilities?
I've seen no mention
Yes!, ...found it on DPR review of camera.
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.
Does the 7DII have Autofocus micro-adjust capabilities?
I've seen no mention
The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand.Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.
If you have something to say, blab away, ...but "well-stated"?
Maybe without the "s..." and F......" that you frequently seem unable to express yourself without.
I am no language prude, having spent a 37 year career surrounded by "man-talk" (firefighting), but do we really need/want that class-level of discourse here?
Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.
I have created an extensive article on the topic on my newly launched website.
Check it out here: http://www.focrates.com/articles/pp_images_and_why_to_shoot_raw/pp_images_and_why_to_shoot_raw.html
Hope that helps!
I sort of noticed the funny side of Menace's comment, you know the bit where someone freezes the subject to the point they are slow to move, then shoots them ?? shoots them ?? see the funny side at all ?? No ? must be an Aussie Kiwi thing.
These two were swinging about next to the TV so I grabbed a few shots (hand held with external flash) and combined 3 in Zerene Stacker. Woodlouse was already very dead but the spider was nice enough to stay still. I've never worked out how to shoot these spiders from a flattering angle - anyone managed it?
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a flattering angle for any spider!
I wanted to share the next installment of my Rolling in the Deep series. This time it is in Komodo Indonesia. This is a wide angle look. With a Macro version coming soon. Let me know what you think.
Komodo - Rolling in the Deep - Canon 5d Mark II
Superpixel sounds like what you want. I actually wish that mainstream RAW editors like Lightroom would offer that as an option, honestly. Some people care more about color fidelity and tonal range than resolution, and having LOTS of pixels with superpixel debayering would be a huge bonus for those individuals.
Using it in post sounds nice, but what we're after is a way to save space on the memory card. Could a camera use superpixel debayering as a part of the image capture process and still save the file in RAW format?
Nope. Once you debayer, or do any kind of processing to the data, your no longer RAW. Canon does offer the sRAW and mRAW settings. Those are what, at best, you could call semi-RAW. They are closer to a JPEG in terms of actual storage format (YCbCr encoding, or luminance+Chrominance Blue+Chrominance Red), but everything is stored in 14-bit precision. It's also encoded such that you have full luminace data, basically a luminance value for every single OUTPUT pixel, but the Cb and Cr data is sparse, it's encoded from multiple pixels (I forget if it is a 1x2 short row, or a full 2x2 quad), and that encoded value is stored as a single pair of 14-bit Cb/Cr values for every 2 or 4 luminace pixels (I think exactly how many color pixels are encoded per luminance pixel depends on whether your sRAW or mRAW). Now the luminace is encoded per output pixel. If your mRAW, I think that's basically 1/2 the area of the full sensor, and for sRAW is basically 1/4 the area of the full sensor. So your luminance information is encoded from however many source pixels are necessary to produce the right output pixels. I think 2x2 for sRAW, something along the lines of 1.5x1.5 for mRAW. (There is a spec on the formats somewhere, it's been a long time since I've read it...my description above is not 100% accurate, but that's the general gist...basically, a 4:2:1 or 4:2:2 encoding of the image data.)
You definitely save space with these formats, but I have experimented with them on multiple occasions, and your editing latitude is nowhere remotely close to a full RAW. You can shift exposure around a moderate amount, but you have limits to how far down you can pull highlights, how far up you can push shadows, how far you can adjust white balance, etc.I am guessing it is more than that. Let's say Canon's next move would be to 3.5µm pixels. With a 500nm process, the actual photodiode, assuming a non-shared pixel architecture, would then actually be barely 2.5µm in size at most (once you throw wiring and readout logic transistors around it.) With a shared pixel architecture you might be able to make it a little larger. On the other hand, if you drop from a 500nm process to a 180nm process, the photodiode area could be close to 3.14µm. (This assumes that wiring and transistors only require a single transistor's width border around the photodiode...it's usually not quite that simple, at least based on micrograph images of actual sensors and patent diagrams.) With a 90nm process, the photodiode could be up to 3.3µm.
I think the 500nm process is really limiting for Canon now. They COULD do it, there is nothing that prevents them from creating a 3.5µm pixel sensor with 2.5µm photodiodes...but I don't think it would be competitive. The smaller photodiode area wouldn't gather as much light as competitors sensors that are fabricated with 180nm or 90nm processes, and they would just be a lot noisier.
I am really, truly hoping Canon has moved to a significantly more modern fabrication process with the 7D II sensor. I think that alone would improve things considerably for Canon's IQ.
I'm guessing the only reason you mention 90nm and not 30nm is that in this application the cost/benefit ratio favours slightly larger circuits rather than smaller? (you'd only gain minimal surface area but potentially make production much more difficult)
Well, I mention 180nm and 90nm because I am pretty sure Canon has the fab capability to manufacture transistors that small. In the smallest sensors, transistor sizes are a lot smaller than that...I think they are down to 32nm for the latest stuff, with pixels around 1µm (1000nm) in size. I think that some of Canon's steppers and scanners can handle smaller transistors, 65nm using subwavelength etching, but I don't know if that stuff has been/can be used for sensor fabrication. I know for a fact that Canon already uses a 180nm Cu fab process for their smaller sensors, so I know for sure they are capable of that. Their highest resolution fabs are around 90nm natively, but again, most of what I've read about them indicates IC fabrication...I've never heard of them being used to manufacture sensors (but there honestly isn't that much info about Canon's fabs...nor who owns them...)
I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.
Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.
This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.
Who cares? It isn't your site, they can leave or delete anything they want.
I don't care for posts magically disappearing our being redacted. I think it is reasonable for a notation to be made that a past was removed and the rule that is being cited as having been broken. Ditto with redactions.
silent moderation can be confusing.
[...achieving a speed equal or even better than the 1Dx in an APS-C-sized DSLR represent a much smaller engeneering effort than that required for FF since the mass of moving parts (mirror and shutter) involved is approx 1/3 of a FF camera, so much less inertia and, consequently, less energy required.
"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")
Still not getting what I'm saying. Reread this:
[AAAK! I don't know why the quote box is not properly placed, why the "re-read this" bracket/link is missing or why the text is red. I attempted to "modify" the color to black with no change, …any suggestions?]
Done! ( the re-read)
A quote from the re-read: "It's the artistic vision to actual art conversion process that takes so many years, decades, to ultimately master. Because that process is going to be largely unique to each individual, …"
If I may speak frankly, I get the feeling that I am witnessing the angst of an artist struggling with the same drive that fuels the effort of anyone with a true artist's heart - "How do I SAY what I am trying to say, …what I really WANT to say?"
Because the saying is as "unique to each individual" as what is intended to be said, I question that a discussion among a group is going to offer real help to the individual, …his work is just that, his work (!), and no one else can really tell him how to do it.
In the same way that Edison learned a thousand ways NOT-to-make an electric bulb filament, the wastebasket fills with the artist's ways NOT-to-say what he intends. Attempt follows attempt, with the drive unsatisfied, until with luck, there sometimes comes a "There!,…I've got it!" moment, and finally, a period of satisfaction.
If the gods are smiling, it won't be followed, after some time for further reflection and pondering, by the nagging "Maybe it would be better if I had only done this one little thing differently".
I think unfulfillment and frustration are the lot of the artistic temperament, with personal vision the inspiration, and passion providing the energy.
Since you define the "it", only you can recognize the "got it!" moment, and it is only your instinct that could have led you on the path leading to it.
I would appreciate seeing a sample of the type of discussion you have in mind re. "how to achieve your vision".
I find it difficult to imagine such which would actually assist one in his necessarily personal striving.
Here are a couple of probably meaningless-to-others examples of things I find in my own mind, that are perhaps very different from what is in yours :
I don't like Laurence Fishburne's stern "I'm the baddest ass, most threatening, faceless-behind-the-shades intimidator you've ever seen!" macho posturing(or anyone else's, though it seems the "cool" thing these days. I'm a retired firefighter, and know the difference between fake heroes and real ones.)
My personal vision, regarding , let's say, composition in images, is largely a matter of feeling for a vaguely defined "balance" (...not the same as symmetry), …with the "weight" coming from color, form, light/dark intensity, leading lines, etc., etc. How I judge this is by a sort of defocusing of my vision and an attempt to"feel" the effect of the image overall. I "know", somehow, when this feels right TO ME (!), and am confident that it is an honest portrayal of MY interpretation, my "artistic expression".
I realize this is an entirely subjective, and probably somewhat subconscious process, and do not expect others to feel/see the same, and I neither seek nor value their judgement.
How my saying this could be of help to others, in a discussion of "achieving personal vision" is unclear to me. The same procedure might as easily lead someone else with a totally blank feeling, because it is in fact my way, when they alone can discover their own.
The bottom line is that IF anyone finds something of value in something I have created in this manner, especially if they feel the same about other examples, it could be said that they "like my work", my "style", and find some sense of satisfaction or pleasure in viewing it. They might well consider it "art".
I think it is interesting to note that the "it" that I felt I had "got" might in fact be entirely different from the "something" that the viewer found pleasing. Yet somehow a chord was struck.
There will always be elements of mystery in art.
"To each his own", no?
[ I concede that nothing I've said here relates to "Canon Rumors" ]
PS - I know I use quotation marks often, …it is my method of voiceless emphasis, …air-quotes for the internet.