November 23, 2014, 05:32:49 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 - psolberg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most exciting thing at Photokina?
« on: September 12, 2014, 06:02:39 PM »
that 50MP sensor from sony was nice...but where is it!!!!

To support Thom's assertion that the D750 is two years too late:

fanboy talk. it will sell quite well in the face of comments like that. Nikon had a LOT of demand on the wings for this camera. It would be like saying a high MP canon body is 2 years too late. It isn't because a lot of people locked into the canon system will buy it.

and BTW the sensor is not recycled (also fanboy talk). Nikon always tweaks their sensors and dXO will confirm it. it may be the same basic sensor but likely has better process and tweaks to yield better IQ than the 6xx series.

I realize he shoots a lot of nikon, but while his technical articles are good, Thom Hogan is an absolutely blow hard. His obsession with DX, hostility towards sony, and dimissal of anybody but his power point charts make his sales forecast absurd.

I'm not sure what you mean. The 610 is just a rebranded 600 to put behind the QA fiasco. The 750 is a replacement that is overdue, in fact contradicting your statement. The 810 is just a unification of two lines which were a pain to market and stock. They did some improvements while they were at it but this is NOT a new camera.

I think you're seeing the result of a QA problem and an experiment: nikon thought the AA filter was still needed with high resolution bodies, and found the market doesn't care for it thus killed the AA filter for good. I don't see how this represents a change and I don't believe a 620 or 850 are going to show up this year at all.

you should update the title with "in korea"  ::)

and in asia buddy. which is not to say other countries won't follow. If you think nikon/canon are invincible, need I remind you of Kodak. I'm sure somebody told them digital was a big thing "in japan" just to have them who is laughing now?

I don't think nikon/canon will go down that easily but basically they are the two companies farthest behind in mirrorles, with canon trailing everybody else. IF they continue to rest on their laurels they may find themselves in the blackberry position of being too late even after being THE standard.

Trends. this is all about trends. And the trend is against the stablishment.!!!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:18:11 PM »
This is the kind of camera that makes people change systems.

Maybe a little will change but not many.
some D700 and D300 users will feel this is not real replacement to them, 1/4000 top shutter speed and flash sync only 1/200, No AF-on button, body style.
This is more like D620, upgrade from D600/D610 to D750.

This camera will kill the sales of the newly announced D610, which killed the newly announced D600 few months earlier. It's a good competitor to the 6D though, and I hope Canon's 6D Mark II will have a real focusing system, not that desperate 1 cross type point one.

I'm not sure that makes much sense. the price difference is huge for the market the 610 goes after. You can buy the 610 and one of the many choices of the excellently supplied nikon f/1.8 affordable prime set for less and be happy for less. This is for the D700 guy who never upgraded to the 800 series due to low fps. And remember the 610 didn't kill the 600. Nikon killed the 600 to get rid of the bad rep of a QA fiasco.

plus if you're coming from APSC and don't own any full frame glass the price of the 750+lens starts to be an issue specially if you really don't need the 750s semi-pro features.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:11:31 PM »
I don't like to bash companies just released gear without seeing the whole story, but seems strange to me it is somewhat crippled at a mere 6.5fps when the gripped 700 clocks at a respectable 8fps. hopefully nikon can correct this with a grip because 6fps really isn't going to cut it as an upgrade for action shooters if you were used to the 8fps of the prior model.

other than that, seems like a good price to me. It will probably hit street prices of low 2's for a 6.5 FPS full framer with semi-pro build. This is what I love about competition. If you asked me that would happen this year I'd say no. well done. well done.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And people say Canon is behind??
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:05:21 PM »
wow, so much fanboy-ism it is sad. the D750 isn't late any more than the canon 3D is late. The d750 is a very affordable camera for nikon people looking for a 6+fps light MP count body.

Why can't people enjoy competition instead of turning everything into a religious debate? IMHO, this is a great camera for the price and I have no doubt a lot of nikon shooters who would have opted for a 5DMKIII won't any more which is probably what nikon set out to do.

Sorry, that's totally false.

Go try it yourself. There are A7 / A7R test scene samples at multiple sites.

Furthermore, if you need to upsample, starting with more data means the upsampling process is more accurate, as it has to fabricate LESS artificial data than s 24mp or 20mp or 18mp file.

That's true in so far as there's more real data (lpmm at a given MTF) to begin with.

Hang out on a print forum sometime. For all the bickering we do over pixels, they do 10 times more over paper quality, ink quality, dMax, L*, metamerism, bronzing, ink emulsions, etc. It matters to the people at the lab who do all the printing for...millions of people who order prints from labs.

Any of the current Epson Professional series printers/ink sets on a paper like Hot Press're looking at the very top end of what can be laid down on paper today. I won't order laser photo paper prints (Frontier or Noritsu) when I can print or order Epson.

You yourself know it isn't just about looking at two images strait out of camera. The editing latitude differences matter as well, the response to things like NR or white balance or exposure changes that better data with richer information that gives us the ability to reduce noise more effectively with less effort, that all matters. Maybe not to everyone, maybe not even the majority (at the moment), but to a lot of an increasing number of people, IMO.

There's not a significant difference between an A7 and an A7R in these respects.

Again, to separate the print issues from actual RAW fidelity. You call it pixel peeping, I call it latitude of post processing and oversampling. Per your point, remember the A7R shoots really compromised RAWS. It is not the same data from the Nikon's more refined pipeline. I wouldn't really shoot with an A7R personally if I had a D810/800 because sony's RAW file choices crippled the A7R.

you can find more on the subject online off course.

So while the A7R is a great tool indeed, let's just say it doesn't speak for the state of the art 36+MP sensor class.

I've shot with 20MP canon bodies, then moved to 36MP Nikon bodies, and would certainly consider 50-100MP bodies from whatever company can deliver as much in the RAW file as they can (not the A7R way). Surely sony learned and this will carry forward. The point being not the brand which is a secondary aspect. The point being, other than storage, super sampling and higher resolution is always going to trump lower resolutions regardless of media output for my choices. This is why I'll always prefer 36MP to 22 because there is just no benefit to me in the 22MP file, and far too many drawbacks. This is why I'd prefer 50 to 36MP for the same reason and beyond. Now if I covered sports and say, ended up with 2000 images per hour, that equation would change. And off course these high detail cameras aren't aimed at everybody. I recognize that.

Ultimately as I've said it, if you don't value high MP output you're in two camps:
1) you don't need the latitude or would benefit from over sampling. Other aspects rule more.
2) you could use the gains, but are just holding on to what you have because you want/have to.

#1 will always be the case. #2, IMHO, it is inevitable. I don't see canon/sony/nikon ever making another 20s MP full frame again save for the people in camp #1, which I admit is a market. Their landscape/studio game will be 30 or 40 minimum to be competitive. At the density of even APSC, we'd be in the high 40s to 50s territory by now. In many ways, it is not just inevitable, but overdue.

Many of the fears is storage and processing. However the emergence of high resolution photography will provide the tools. As 36-50-100MP become "standard" surely adobe and others will incorporate oversample in their workflow. As indicated by myself and others, color accuracy, aliasing, bayer interpolation artifacts, all are directly tied to resolution with improvements on the MP count making a positive impact. Therefore it stands to reason PS and LR could very much offer you the option to take the 50MP raw, super sample it down to your workflow target resolution, yielding superior results to low resolution capture. You can then choose to discard, or archive the original RAW and work on the derived file.

This super sample step would go BEYOND mere resizing post raw to RGB conversion. RAW->RGB to low MP is what people currently do to demonstrate benefits of 36 vs 22 and surely will of 50 vs 36 but this is not the best way. Ideally the raw processor would create your say 36MP file from the 50-100MP RAW without having an intermediate RGB image that is then downsized using the various interpolation methods. You'll always work and in your case print from the target resolution of your choice, but you just have a better version of it than if you didn't. Again, all inevitable.

Ultimately I'm not trying to convince people to give up their 20+MP gear. I moved out of that, and I know many will once canon catches up and then, surely everybody will build a shrine around some gear and sing praises to all the things I've mentioned. What I care about the trend, not any specific model or brand. There is a lot more than shooting B+W geometric patterns and whatever DXO computers spit out as a number. So when people get worked out about what their 24-70 can do with a pattern in a high vs low sensor resolution, they are essentially missing the forest for the trees. Some will realize this, some won't. And that's ok. everybody should do what works for them.  ;D

I want a 50MP camera and the 55mm and 85mm Zeiss Otus as kit lenses. :D

And why not 50MP?

Some peeps who are serious about big prints will sure love a small camera with MF quality. They will pay the price for the best glass. The more options the better.

+1. More options the better. As you say. I really can't understand the hate crowd. It's like they want to live in a world where everybody shoots the same boring 20MP with the same boring options. They probably want everybody to drive a gray toyota prius :)

I say bring it on 50-100MP. Surely we could have cameras which do the down sample internally and surely adobe will make it standard to down sample your images prior to developing it at your target resolution and space requirements. I know I will always prefer the latitude of editing over the compromise. Otherwise I'd be shooting 6MP because it was "good enough". Well, "good enough" is ok for "good enough" goals. I want more :)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:41:24 AM »
so they now have the world's best 85 and world's best 55. time for a wide angle otus? I really need to try one of these out. The Nikon/Canon mass produced 85's are ok but if the 55 was any indication, this lens will make them both looks like toys.
I can't remember where I saw it, but supposedly they have said that a 35mm f/1.4 is the next Otus.  I was hoping for a 24mm, but I'm sure it will be amazing.

Also, I'm I the only one wondering about 86mm filters...those aren't going to be cheap!

I'm also a fan of 24 vs 35 but I get it why they'd go for 35. A 24 would probably run WAY upwards of 5K.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:37:19 AM »

Key points:
 - price is about that of the 5D3 on special.
 - similar number of AF points, suggesting similar AF capability
 - more megapixels
 - at least the same video, if not 4k
 - similar fps rate (6.5  or 8)
 - it will be the Sony Exmor sensor, so clean shadows, good DR, etc.
 - we can expect an oil or dust issue to be uncovered in the first 3 months after release, taking another 6 months to resolve and a D760 to be released next year.

This looks like the successor to the 5D2 that many of us expected but then Canon decided to plunder our wallets with 5D3 pricing.

except for the last point on QA which brings the quality of your post down to fanboy levels, I'd agree with most. But no, this wouldn't be a true successor to the 5D2 which was a landscape/studio, low fps, high detail camera. The 5DIII is a strange animal. Never felt like a 5D series camera at all. It was more of a 3D. I would have expected the 5DIII to be exactly what the D800 was: detail and image quality first before burst rate.

but whatever, the cards are on the table and no doubt nikon will sell a monster ton of these as many Nikonians didn't feel their D700s were properly followed up with the 8xx line and now we know, they weren't.

At a MSRP price of 2.5K, soon to be about 2K on the street past the release hype, it is a very competitive camera for the price.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:31:25 AM »
so they now have the world's best 85 and world's best 55. time for a wide angle otus? I really need to try one of these out. The Nikon/Canon mass produced 85's are ok but if the 55 was any indication, this lens will make them both looks like toys.

I would argue that 22 MP vs. 36 MP is negligible with any lens. You need a 50% or greater gain on each axis before it really becomes evident in print.
having shot both, it isn't. But it depends on what you're doing. If you're web publishing at full HD or approximate, then yes.

I was printing samples to an Epson 3880, some crops scaled to appear as if they were being printed on a larger printer (i.e. up to 36" eq).

I'm open to evidence that with some scenes 22 or 24 vs. 36 has more of an impact in print. But when I tried it as long as I was working with RAWs and scaled the 24 MP file up to 36 MP with light sharpening, the impact in print was negligible. It's not that I could never see a difference, but I had to really be looking for it.
scale up and sharpening isn't going to yield the same benefits than scaling down which is essentially going to oversample the bayer artifacts that plague digital. While what you did was basically create data which asn't there to begin with you also magnified the digital artifacts that degrade IQ. Then there is noise. Noise gets smaller and finer without detail killing algorithms when you downsize but larger and more bloated when you upsize.

Ultimately the technique will dictate your results. Garbage in, garbage out as they say. But if I were to summarize it in one sentence: I rather shoot it at 36-50MP and benefit from downsample all the time than the alternative. I think this why ALL camera makers, including canon will no doubt put 50+MP as the de-facto standard for most of their full frame sensors aimed at landscape and studio.

As for printing, the problem is that you introduce so much variation: inks, paper, humidity, temperature, viewing conditions all can affect your perception of a print output which makes "looks the same to me" comparisons highly irrelevant. However of interest to digital photographers concerned with detail is the RAW file as measure of image quality. How that projects to XYZ printing environment by no means negates gains in the digital files. As I said, I think this is all inevitable this is the way all OEMs will go. Other than storage which is always getting cheaper and buffer and frame-rates limits, there is just no real benefit to lower MP counts at the digital file itself.

There are some interesting entries over at Loyd chambers that discuss improvements in color sampling, color resolution sampling, bayer pattern artifacts, and other topics. Just a few I could find, but many more exist all over the web.

the thing I find confuses a lot of photographers which claim "my L lens won't resolve more anyway" blah blah is that they do not understand the Bayer matrix used in digital. Once you understand how a RAW file is basically composed of mostly green and huge missing parts of blue and red which are "guessed", you can understand why a high resolution bayer sensor can act as an RGB sensor of lower resolution but that yields better quality and noise characteristics. This is REGARDLESS OF LENS. Yes higher quality lens = better results. But oversample even a kit lens will product a techincally superior image to the same lens under a lower resolution bayer. Off course if you shoot with L lenses or any professional lens from any OEM, you're going to get more than just modest gains...exactly why this sony sensor is exciting.

Well, first Nikon owners are not very proud of Nikon behaviour during the D600 dustgate  >:(.

Second, I observed more frequently Nikon camera for sale second hand than Canon (subjective as I have not counted them). I concluded that Canon owners were happier so keeping their camera longer.

well, canon isn't proud of 1DsMKIII oil gate. listen, stop playing the fanboy card. every OEM messes up. canon will, so don't tempt karma :)

I never understood why photographers get so worked up over stupidity such as who is happier based on anecdotal evidence. who cares.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And what does Canon do?
« on: September 05, 2014, 03:13:29 PM »
I've said it before and I'll say it again: sony and others breaking the stagnant canon/nikon status quo is welcomed, overdue, and inevitable. This means better products at better prices for everybody.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33