December 21, 2014, 02:53:19 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 - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 12:40:38 PM »
the incredible display of ego around the comment about his picture being the best a Canon sports shooter could expect from it . . .   Just a quick look around other reviews should have told him that others are not having the same difficulties he had and should have made him think again before hitting that publish button.

I think you've touched on the key here: so many photographers hold up their own personal experience (anecdotes) as examples of what can be done and what can't, what should be done and what should not, and forget that their personal experience may not match the experiences of others.  While personal taste is appropriate for the artistic component of photography, it's more an exercise in engineering to decide how to use the equipment to collect the most and best data from each click of the shutter.

2
Have to admit I was surprised that BSI is just now arriving at this level of sensor - my naivety - assumed it would have been here long ago.

My presumption was that gapless microlenses were supposed to make BSI unnecessary, but perhaps there's some marginal improvement using both.

Maybe one of our resident EE's can answer this question.
I think BSI more about increasing the full well capacity rather than just preventing light from seeping between pixels.

Hmmm...I'd like to hear more explanation of this: I had thought that fwc was not strongly dependent on the surface area.

3
Have to admit I was surprised that BSI is just now arriving at this level of sensor - my naivety - assumed it would have been here long ago.

My presumption was that gapless microlenses were supposed to make BSI unnecessary, but perhaps there's some marginal improvement using both.

Maybe one of our resident EE's can answer this question.

4
Lighting / Re: ANOTHER ONE OF MY DIY, CHEAP LED RING LIGHT.
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:14:37 AM »
Mr. Surapon,

Sometimes I think you should quit your day job and become a full-time inventor.  You might become a billionaire.  ;D

5
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon to Target The GH4 With New DSLR Type? [CR2]
« on: December 15, 2014, 10:08:05 AM »
Boring Canon yet again.
Boring and profitable Canon yet again.

Quote
   Stop targeting start innovating!

Innovating is financially risky: Sony has been "innovating" themselves into near-bankruptcy for years.

Of course I love to see innovation, it's simply not financially reasonable for a profitable company like Canon.  Why market a lot of "innovative" products when your competitors are willing to find the (financial) duds for you?

6
if he gets 6 million
Assuming that's actually what happened.  Since the buyer did not choose to make the purchase public, we can't be sure it wasn't sold by his right hand to his own left hand.  If I had that kind of money to flush I'd hire one or more art scholars to evaluate the purchase before writing the check, and I can't imagine any sane art scholar evaluating that image as anything more than a pretty nice photo worth a few hundred bucks framed.

Quote
What's the harm if he gets 6 million for a photo he took/manipulated/whatever?
If he were honest about his manipulations I would agree with you.  Promoting a manipulated photo as a representation of a an actual moment in time is dishonest to the customer, and diminishes the credibility of the discipline as a whole.  I have no problem with manipulations -- many of them can be more powerful than the original images.  However they should not be misrepresented.

Quote
If anyone offered any of us that price for a photo or anything we made, we would gladly take it.
True, but I'd be honest about the origin of the photo.

Quote
I don't see how this could be bad for the photography industry at all and we should give a little respect for a guy who is achieving such immense success.
It could diminish the credibility of the discipline of art photography, and make all photographers seem like soulless money-grubbers.

7
this is actually a decent shot but worth that much money?  :o

It's a decent shot, but nothing more.  Considering his past, I'd not be surprised if the "phantom" wasn't fauxtoshopped in.  It also wouldn't surprise me at all if the buyer of this had initials P.L., and that the high announced price was just to generate buzz to sell lots of $200-$1,000 prints.

Sorry, no: this is a technically nice photo, and I'd be happy to have made it (I'm an amateur), but this is ridiculous!

8
Here's a summary that might help the pro-Sony camp understand the Sony-skeptics

 
  • There is no dispute: everyone wants more DR
  • Few dispute that Sony sensors appear to have greater DR at low ISO, which is a good thing all by itself
  • It's entirely possible that Sony sensors allow more shadow lifting, how much is in question
  • HOWEVER, none of these purported demonstrations can be considered authoritative because all are missing important qualities of open, objective testing. Proper testing requires: (1) Testing of the two competing sensors using identical scenes and techniques; (2)Disclosure of all raw images for "peer review"
  • Extraordinary claims about Sony sensor performance require extraordinary evidence, which so far is lacking.
  • Furthermore, for those with investment in Canon there is a cost associated with using a Sony sensor.  For the vast majority of photographers, in the vast majority of circumstances there is not yet a clear demonstration that the difference justifies the cost.

9
Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.

How is the process much easier?
You are still post-processing a lot more.
Its really about pre-production vs. post-production, if you spend a little more time setting up before the shot, then you won't have to spend more time in front of a computer. Or vice-versa.

Would you rather push a few sliders or for every shot set up flashes / reflectors / tripods / GND filters (depending on the scene)?

Again, no one is disputing that we all want better sensors, so that's not the question.  The question is whether Sony sensors are sufficiently superior (at low ISO) to be worth changing systems, or buying into a second system.  The critique of the image here is that it's constructed from two images, not one, so it's not a legitimate example of the low-effort "just move the sliders" advantage of Sony sensors.

10

Please explain: how can a sensor compensate for inappropriate or low-quality lens?  How can a sensor compensate for very poor focus?  How can a sensor compensate for poor composition?

Quote
A lens is only as good as the sensor. The sensor is the foundation. A mediocre lens will come to life when swapping from APS-C to FF.
I'm not convinced, please explain further: it's my understanding that lenses and sensors are mutually limiting.

Quote
The goal of all of this, of Canon Rumors, of camera tech chat forums, of speculation, is the holy grail of IQ.
I've seen a great many nice photos on this forum that would not be considered to have excellent IQ, but the composition made up for it.  I've seen some nice photos that had noise intentionally introduced for creative effect.

I'll concede that we'd all like to have sensors that are capable of extreme IQ, and then we can choose to do what we wish with it; however, I believe you're extrapolating your own priorities and values to the entire forum.

Quote
Lenses do play a role, but not in noise and DR.
A poor or misused lens can turn a high-DR/low-noise image into fodder for the bit-bucket.

Everyone wants a great sensor; however, I want it (and I believe this is true of others as well) in addition to all of the other features of a camera system that allows me to make the images I want.

11
I guess the lesson today is that post processing trumps all.

Sensor trumps all. The better the sensor, the less post processing.
Please explain: how can a sensor compensate for inappropriate or low-quality lens?  How can a sensor compensate for very poor focus?  How can a sensor compensate for poor composition?

The lesson remains the same, it's the entire system: from filter to lens to sensor to eye to brain to computer.(**)


(**) Note to Neuro: I'm aware that some of y'all consider the eyes to be extruded bits of brain, but cut me some slack on this one.  :P

12
Quote
Before looking at the RAW images, let's mention the second important aspect. It's very easy to see that the images are strongly underexposed. The reason is that the specific sensor I used, that of the Sony A7R, has tremendous dynamic range...But based on my familiarity with the A7R sensor, I knew I'd be able to extract perfect color and detail from the dark areas. Praise Sony!

Very nice image.  Where do I find the link to the comparison image he took with a 6D using ML?  I presume that he took a comparison image, otherwise it wouldn't be legitimate to claim this shot was only achievable due to the Sony sensor.

To be clear, it does seem that Sony sensors have real-world advantages in some circumstances; however, if you want to demonstrate to me that the difference is worth my money, you'll need to do better than this.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 05:40:40 PM »
I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.

Presuming that the lens will support it. At least one of my lenses (24-105L) has a rectangular baffle near the rear element, "presumably to reduce any reflections from the parts of the rear element which are not used to form the 24 by 36 mm rectangular image."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

(Don't ask me why the link to the cited review is labeled "28-105" instead of "24-105")

Yup, some are like that.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:43:10 PM »
I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

From my perspective, mirrorless isn't just about size, it's about freedom to do things you couldn't do with a mirror present.  For a higher-end (5D-class) and above mirrorless, two important options become available:

1. Interchangeable lens mounts, i.e. more advanced version of Metabones.  The camera can then "natively" use anyone's lenses.  This is more interesting for body manufacturers other than Canon and Nikon.

2. The ability to replace the mirror apparatus with a tri-chroic prism and triple-sensor system, to finally start shoveling dirt on both Bayer arrays filters and multi-layer RGB sensors, which inherently lose light.

Next time you watch a major sports event, have a look at those huge TV cameras.  FF mirrorless should be a scaled-down version of those, not a scaled-up version of P&S.

Edit: I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.

15
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Cyber Monday: EOS 6D Body & Pixma Pro-10 $1249
« on: December 01, 2014, 01:40:56 PM »
Does anyone have experience with Canon's rebate program?  Is it reliable, etc?  I know there have been complaints about many rebate programs, especially those that use third-party processing companies.  I've heard of rebate submissions falling into black holes, or the customer being falsely told that the paperwork was incorrectly submitted.

Any positive or negative experiences with Canon rebates?

Thanks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52