July 23, 2014, 04:34:30 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 - 9VIII

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 04:21:54 PM »
You seem to be missing the point, if the screen isn't calibrated to the same colour as the original subjects illuminant then the colours can't match

We're talking about two different things.
I'm just saying that the computer can tell you what you are looking at in that moment, what flavour of light is coming out of the screen, which is what many people seem to debate. I'm not debating the accuracy of the image capture system.

2
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:33:58 AM »
On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)

Are you saying there is reason to doubt the colour calibration tools commonly available? Otherwise I've already covered the topics you describe.

Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.

So your point is that the colour of an object will change depending on circumstances. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of colour (whatever colour you see at any given moment can be measured).

3
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:41:13 PM »
On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)

Are you saying there is reason to doubt the colour calibration tools commonly available? Otherwise I've already covered the topics you describe.

4
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:09:49 PM »
Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
thus the argument. I can not give up because its really near to orange than red. but she insist sees otherwise.
maybe we are both correct, its how we see it.

That was a missed opportunity. In this day and age there should be no room for arguments over what colour is.

Colour is a wavelength of light, it's not subjective in any way. Going a step further, when you're looking at it on your monitor most editing programs have a string of numbers that tell you the exact colour of any given pixel. In this case it's hard to say if the colour being produced is just like the one that was captured, but at least you can say quite precisely what colour is being displayed.
The last step to ensure accuracy is to have a calibrated monitor, but even if you don't it's probably not going to be that far off.

5
I might buy a 5D-4 "lite" - with no video! (if priced much less than the video version.)

Remember how much of a discount people got for having no video on the Nikon Df?

6
Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR.

Along those lines, I don't think it would be difficult for Canon to differentiate between their SLR and dedicated video offerings. There's so much stuff you can do to include "4K" on the box without encroaching on the professional video line.

My bet is the 5DIV will have 4K.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:48:15 PM »
Right now I'm having flashbacks of a prior thread where people were debating the best technique to get an equivalent shot of exotic water foul using a 50mm lens instead of 600mm.

I think it involved snorkeling while holding a camera just above the water for a couple of years.

8
I'm not concerned about the photos.... but reducing the functionality of the camera/lens to reduce its resale value if stolen.

If Canon incorporates this locking functionality across the board, thieves would have a fiduciary causation to avoid Canon gear. 

If you are going to risk your freedom... you want to get the most return on your risk...

I think a stolen car has more value for the parts alone... I'm not sure you can say that about a camera body.

I try to understand this subject.
It makes sense to lock your mobile since it contains a lot of private information - like contacts (some people store a lot of add. info with those contacts), social media, photos, email etc

Your camera.....it has a memory card with photos only. Let's say the camera get stolen. The thief will open the memory card slot and has access to the photos. A pincode does not prevent it.
A pincode that prevent the use of the camera? You think that the thief will bring it back? He may throw the camera or try to sell it for parts. But you will not get it back.
A thief knowing that stealing this kind of camera doesn't make sense because it has a pincode? Most will not know that and try to steal it anyway.

Even if you have a pincode (or fingerprint scan) it doesn't bring back camera or photos. Yes, photos...it would make sense to encrypt the storaged photos so a stranger would have difficulty to access them. But encrypt photos while they get stored on the memory card will slow down the burst speed - not something we want.

A good insurrance will help...(not bringing back your photos though)

I really doubt there's much of a black market for camera parts. That requires a population of people willing to build or repair cameras on their own, which as far as I know is pretty much limited to LensRentals.com.

9
I went for "articulating touchscreen".
I was going to say standard touchscreen at first, but if people don't want an articulating screen they can just flip it around and leave it that way (It also absolutely eliminates the possibility of light leaking into the body). At home I would probably use a tablet most of the time, but you never know when there's going to be odd shots you want to take away from home, and I can't imagine holding a phone and a camera being the best option when you're trying to take a picture in awkward positions.

10
Nikon already has a patent on matching lenses to bodies, hopefully that wouldn't stop Canon from implementing something similar.

If you (digitally) lock lenses to bodies and have to input a code every time you turn the camera on (and then leave it on for the rest of the afternoon) that would be pretty secure.
Just require the code again before you flash it. If all goes wrong send it to Canon with a proof of purchase.

Initially it wouldn't be a deterrent, but after a few years people would catch on. It wouldn't make fencing stuff impossible, but with all the extra effort involved it would be far less appealing (going from a one man operation with no skill required to two or more with special equipment).

11
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 13, 2014, 12:34:56 AM »
The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF.  How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?

The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.


If they are the same, then the EVF is doubling the system lag.

Quote
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.


Sorry, EVFs don't show that, they show the in-camera JPEG conversion, which is way, way smaller than what the sensor can see.  I post this example often:




All this example shows is that you don't know how to use a camera.

In one of the A7R launch interviews the photographer was giving examples of low light pictures where the camera was picking up details he couldn't see (people in the background).

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 06:06:20 PM »
Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.

I have to wonder if they're trying to protect the Big Whites. The 400f5.6 prime has arguably superior IQ to some of the old big whites, and upgrading something like that might look a little unbalanced.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they had all the version II supertelephoto lenses out before releasing a budget option that performs on a similar level.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon BG-E13 Flimsy Tripod Mount
« on: July 12, 2014, 01:52:55 PM »
This is why I vastly prefer a lens with a tripod collar. I wish Sigma would have put a tripod collar on the 50 A given that it's basically the same size as my 150mm macro lens.
And another reason I really hope the 7DII has an integrated battery grip.

14
I have one technical question for those of you, who understand those things well.

Full frame format is 36 x 24 mm large. But we know that larger sensor gives better image quality. (here I speak about physical size and not about number of MP)

So, what is the reason that manufacturers don't make DSLRs with a slightly bigger sensor?

The full frame sensor is the same size as a single cell of film negative from when people used to use film in cameras. Some still do but not many.

Anyway, back when the first full frame sensor was released, the maximum size it could be was that of the film negative because all of the lenses had been designed to fill that particular rectangle with light in a particular way. To use any other shape  or a bigger size would not work well.

Why don't you have round sensors?

Where would you display a round picture?
On your round monitor?
On your round TV?
Would you print it out on round paper?

I still like the idea of a sensor that covers the entire image circle (with "circular" image lenses) just so we can get rid of the whole concept of "portrait" and "landscape" orientation while holding the camera. It allows for conversion from one to the other on the fly in post.
A waste of silicon? Sure, but it's not like we're saving humanity with our cameras as it is.

15
One other thing to mention, the larger the sensor, the fewer sensors yielded per silicon wafer. This, and the increased waste (wafers are round, so the larger the sensor, the larger the wasted fragments on the edges) translates into much higher cost for sensor production.

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken on this...

That's correct, but defects are equally concerning.
The reason it gets ridiculous really fast is you're pretty much guaranteed to have a certain number of defects per wafer (usually caused by dust), so in the hypothetical case that you get ten defects on a wafer but you're only producing really small sensors, all ten of those defects will only cause you to throw out a very small portion of the wafer.
If you were to try to make a sensor so big that you could only fit four on every wafer, at ten defects per wafer you'd pretty much be wasting your time as the chances of getting a single functional sensor out of it would be very low.
I remember reading a comment that Canon had to drastically improve air quality when moving to full frame production.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35