September 02, 2014, 12:55:49 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 - ragmanjin

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: September 07, 2013, 04:34:19 AM »
I seriously hope they don't buy out Phase One. Phase and Dalsa have a beautiful thing going, and throwing Canon's now-outdated sensor tech into the mix would only turn gold to straw — not to mention it would have to be heavily AA-filtered and video-optimized to meet Canon standards. When Phase moved from Kodak to Dalsa, they lost the long exposures but gained worldwide acclaim for their colour accuracy and huge dynamic range. And, finally, after years of co-research and development between the two companies, they've brought hour-long exposures back on a Dalsa sensor, mixing the company's class-leading patented high-ISO pixel binning with Kodak's drool-envoking long exposures from yesteryear. Canon has nothing to add to either side of that; lobster-red skin tones and three less stops of dynamic range with all kinds of noise at any exposure longer than 30 seconds. Which is garbage for us stills-only photographers.
I keep reading posts from users asking Canon to bring in the first affordable medium format system. Look at the Pentax 645D. At the time of writing this, its price is about on par with that of the 1D X. And in true Pentax style, any MF Pentax lens you find in any pawn shop will absolutely work with the system. That, my friends, is cheap glass. Can't be beaten for price. A close second is second-hand Leaf backs attached to Mamiya AFD bodies. You can actually get yourself a whole 20+ MP kit with a couple lenses for less than $5000 if you're looking in the right places, and it allows you to switch between film and digital. I've got the DF+, but my Phase digital back pretty much lives on my Mamiya AFD. Kill the backup before you challenge the master, right? But if Canon buys Phase, they'd be killing the master to become the backup. That just won't do.

What are you shooting with an hour long exposure?

Light painting. Star trails. Lower than low light shots. Having the option to flick the shutter, go for dinner and come back to end the exposure offers a lot of freedom and opens a lot of creative doors.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:56:47 AM »
Man, it's about time they came up with a good new (actually NEW) sensor.

Sure. Because dividing every pixel in half for PDAF sensors covering the majority of the CMOS image sensor area has been done to death...   ::)

That's what I'm saying. Dick. Canon was leading the pack for years at the consumer onset of digital, but after the T2i, they completely stagnated. What I was saying was that it's about time we see Canon come back out on top with something nobody's thought of before. Every sensor was "new" when all they did was add four pixels' worth of faulty phase-detect autofocus to the T2i sensor or change up the filters a little. Same garbage. It's been at least three or four years since they were best, and all I'm saying is that it's nice to see them putting in the effort again.
While appreciate your appreciation of sarcasm, I feel you should be able to read the posts better than that, let alone what's between the lines.

3
Technical Support / Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:48:40 AM »
Being a photographer gives you the right to do THAT?! I've been missing out. I'm gonna fly something into someone on my shoot tomorrow and, if this video is any barometer for the norms of the day, I'll totally get away with it.

4
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:27:34 AM »
I seriously hope they don't buy out Phase One. Phase and Dalsa have a beautiful thing going, and throwing Canon's now-outdated sensor tech into the mix would only turn gold to straw — not to mention it would have to be heavily AA-filtered and video-optimized to meet Canon standards. When Phase moved from Kodak to Dalsa, they lost the long exposures but gained worldwide acclaim for their colour accuracy and huge dynamic range. And, finally, after years of co-research and development between the two companies, they've brought hour-long exposures back on a Dalsa sensor, mixing the company's class-leading patented high-ISO pixel binning with Kodak's drool-envoking long exposures from yesteryear. Canon has nothing to add to either side of that; lobster-red skin tones and three less stops of dynamic range with all kinds of noise at any exposure longer than 30 seconds. Which is garbage for us stills-only photographers.
I keep reading posts from users asking Canon to bring in the first affordable medium format system. Look at the Pentax 645D. At the time of writing this, its price is about on par with that of the 1D X. And in true Pentax style, any MF Pentax lens you find in any pawn shop will absolutely work with the system. That, my friends, is cheap glass. Can't be beaten for price. A close second is second-hand Leaf backs attached to Mamiya AFD bodies. You can actually get yourself a whole 20+ MP kit with a couple lenses for less than $5000 if you're looking in the right places, and it allows you to switch between film and digital. I've got the DF+, but my Phase digital back pretty much lives on my Mamiya AFD. Kill the backup before you challenge the master, right? But if Canon buys Phase, they'd be killing the master to become the backup. That just won't do.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Buying advice -> 60D too bulky
« on: July 27, 2013, 05:25:57 AM »
Hey guize,

so a girl was just asking me, what dslr I could recommend her.
She tried out a 60D and found it too bulky in her lovely tiny hands...

Main focus should be on landscapes, people, "sports".

I think she does not need a dslr because something mirrorless might just do that as good.
But because I dont own a mirrorless camera i thought i might ask you lot!


Any recommendations?

Thank you!

EOS-M is too sluggish on the focus for "sports" or people. The only two mirrorless models I'd recommend right now would be the Olypmus OM-D EM-5 or the Fuji XE-1, though the latter is also a little slow to focus if she's actually looking to follow the action. If you can find a Pentax K-01 right now, too, it would be an awesome price for a camera that actually looks good at top ISO if she's using auto all the time. Works with every Pentax lens ever, I'd check with any pawn shop anywhere for deals on telephoto lenses that would work with that.
As soon as Canon puts their dual-pixel tech into a mirrorless I'd recommend that in a second, but for the time being they are not the company to look at if you're thinking non-SLR (G1X excluded).
Thanks,
Raj

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera body advice
« on: July 27, 2013, 05:15:18 AM »
Yeah, they made an awesome sensor for the T2i and then used it in every camera for years after that. If you're on a low budget, I'd grab the T2i or 60D or T3i or 7D or T4i or T5i or SL1 or EOS-M or whatever. T2i's got the same sensor and same image quality as the rest, unless you're doing a bunch of video you're not going to miss out on much.

7
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 26, 2013, 05:07:59 AM »
right answer will always be, smaller pixels, lower noise
NOISE
simple as that

Is it that simple?  What about the signal?

now it is motor cycles again
please learn to discuss the subject, noise
small pixel always gives lower noise than bigger, the signal has not been up to discussion
You and Jrista has some problem to know what we discuss or not
Must it be like this?
and are you going to make you funny about me again?
head room, signal/noise , fluorite glass ,  etc etc  what next?

Ok, lets get to the root of this here.



1. Assume we have a hypothetical sensor that introduces ZERO read noise whatsoever...no dark current noise, no high frequency noise...no read noise of any kind from any electronic source in the camera, on the sensor die or anywhere else...just for discussions sake.

2. That sensor captures an image projected by a lens in dim light, at an ISO setting of 1600.

3. Is that image noise free, or is there an intrinsic component of noise that is a very part of the image itself?



This is a test. Your answer does matter. You will be judged upon it. Go!

test? what kind of tests?

I got guests here in my summer house, what kind of answer do you want?
A  pragmatic answer will be-YOU don't se any difference from middle grey up to high light, (I can call it infinity)
But you are going to se better results in the shadows - then there are a huge among of other answers
BUT first my guests who are staying here  2  days more.

and PS You will be judged upon it. Go!
what in h... is that?

And there you go, peoples! No answer, more obfuscation, and some beating around the bush about "guests".

I think we can safely come to the conclusion that Mikael does not understand the concept of intrinsic noise in an image signal.
Boys who do you think you are.
well Neuro and Jrista if  you don't understand my answer about signal noise and results below middle grey and  above middle grey here will come a quick answer
As I said it is one answer of many.

but here is one 
translate it can you do by your self
swedish to english  use google




Det enda som egentligen händer är ju att det då är helt och hållet [effektiv QE] som bestämmer bruset...
Brusvärdet är då alltid roten av ljusmängden (+tillskott normalt sett, men inte i detta fallet då). Bruset vid 18% grå eller ljusare kommer knappt påverkas alls av att det inte finns något läsbrus, det är en så liten del av bruset totalt sett här - även på ISO1600.

För t.ex 6D är vitpunkten i råfilen på ISO1600 ca 4400e- (FWC/16, eftersom ISO1600 är 16ggr mer än bas-ISO).
Mellangrått blir då 18% av 4400 = 792e-, och fotonbruset av detta är sqrt(792) = 28,1e- för 18% grå

Eftersom läsbruset i en normal kamera är ca 3e- vid ISO1600 hade detta knappt påverkat signalen. Skulle man lagt till 3e- till 28.1e- fotonbrus hade det blivit:
sqrt(28.1^2 + 3^2) = 28.3e- (+0.2e- inte en märkbar skillnad, knappt mätbar)

Under 18% grå kommer bruset växa saktare när man går neråt mot det mörkare om man INTE har något läsbrus. Detta är skillnaden jmf med läsbrus.
Vid 1% exponering (-6.6Ev) är den infångade ljusmängden bara 44e-, så bruset blir:
sqrt(44) = 6.6e-
Här är läsbruset märkbart, då
sqrt(6.6^2 + 3^2) = 7.3e-.

Skillnaden är då 6.6e- utan läsbrus vs 7.3e- med normalt läsbrus - ingen jättestor skillnad här heller, men antagligen märkbar
6.6e- av 44e- signal = 20*log(44/6.6) = 16.4dB brusavstånd
7.3e- av 44e- signal = 20*log(44/7.3) = 15.6dB med läsbrus.

Den viktiga skillnaden kommer ju när läsbruset hade börjat dominerar fotonbruset, nere i skuggorna. Samma sak som DR-punkten alltså.
På -10Ev har den "läsbrusfria" kameran fortfarande ca 6dB SNR. Kameran med 3e- läsbrus kommer då ha nästan noll i SNR, dvs lika mycket brus som signal. Här syns det mycket skillnad.

Den läsbrusfria pixeln kan helt utan förluster delas upp i hur små pixlar som helst utan att bruset över bildytan (per detalj) ökar, har man läsbrus kommer detta vid en viss pixelmängd börja bli "för många brustillskott" för att det ska finas någon vinst med det.


right answer will always be, smaller pixels, lower noise
NOISE
simple as that


Is it that simple?  What about the signal?

now it is motor cycles again
please learn to discuss the subject, noise
small pixel always gives lower noise than bigger, the signal has not been up to discussion
You and Jrista has some problem to know what we discuss or not
Must it be like this?
and are you going to make you funny about me again?
head room, signal/noise , fluorite glass ,  etc etc  what next?

Ok, lets get to the root of this here.



1. Assume we have a hypothetical sensor that introduces ZERO read noise whatsoever...no dark current noise, no high frequency noise...no read noise of any kind from any electronic source in the camera, on the sensor die or anywhere else...just for discussions sake.

2. That sensor captures an image projected by a lens in dim light, at an ISO setting of 1600.

3. Is that image noise free, or is there an intrinsic component of noise that is a very part of the image itself?



This is a test. Your answer does matter. You will be judged upon it. Go!

test? what kind of tests?

I got guests here in my summer house, what kind of answer do you want?
A  pragmatic answer will be-YOU don't se any difference from middle grey up to high light, (I can call it infinity)
But you are going to se better results in the shadows - then there are a huge among of other answers
BUT first my guests who are staying here  2  days more.

and PS You will be judged upon it. Go!
what in h... is that?

And there you go, peoples! No answer, more obfuscation, and some beating around the bush about "guests".

I think we can safely come to the conclusion that Mikael does not understand the concept of intrinsic noise in an image signal.
Boys who do you think you are.
well Neuro and Jrista if  you don't understand my answer about signal noise and results below middle grey and  above middle grey here will come a quick answer
As I said it is one answer of many.

but here is one 
translate it can you do by your self
swedish to english  use google




Det enda som egentligen händer är ju att det då är helt och hållet [effektiv QE] som bestämmer bruset...
Brusvärdet är då alltid roten av ljusmängden (+tillskott normalt sett, men inte i detta fallet då). Bruset vid 18% grå eller ljusare kommer knappt påverkas alls av att det inte finns något läsbrus, det är en så liten del av bruset totalt sett här - även på ISO1600.

För t.ex 6D är vitpunkten i råfilen på ISO1600 ca 4400e- (FWC/16, eftersom ISO1600 är 16ggr mer än bas-ISO).
Mellangrått blir då 18% av 4400 = 792e-, och fotonbruset av detta är sqrt(792) = 28,1e- för 18% grå

Eftersom läsbruset i en normal kamera är ca 3e- vid ISO1600 hade detta knappt påverkat signalen. Skulle man lagt till 3e- till 28.1e- fotonbrus hade det blivit:
sqrt(28.1^2 + 3^2) = 28.3e- (+0.2e- inte en märkbar skillnad, knappt mätbar)

Under 18% grå kommer bruset växa saktare när man går neråt mot det mörkare om man INTE har något läsbrus. Detta är skillnaden jmf med läsbrus.
Vid 1% exponering (-6.6Ev) är den infångade ljusmängden bara 44e-, så bruset blir:
sqrt(44) = 6.6e-
Här är läsbruset märkbart, då
sqrt(6.6^2 + 3^2) = 7.3e-.

Skillnaden är då 6.6e- utan läsbrus vs 7.3e- med normalt läsbrus - ingen jättestor skillnad här heller, men antagligen märkbar
6.6e- av 44e- signal = 20*log(44/6.6) = 16.4dB brusavstånd
7.3e- av 44e- signal = 20*log(44/7.3) = 15.6dB med läsbrus.

Den viktiga skillnaden kommer ju när läsbruset hade börjat dominerar fotonbruset, nere i skuggorna. Samma sak som DR-punkten alltså.
På -10Ev har den "läsbrusfria" kameran fortfarande ca 6dB SNR. Kameran med 3e- läsbrus kommer då ha nästan noll i SNR, dvs lika mycket brus som signal. Här syns det mycket skillnad.

Den läsbrusfria pixeln kan helt utan förluster delas upp i hur små pixlar som helst utan att bruset över bildytan (per detalj) ökar, har man läsbrus kommer detta vid en viss pixelmängd börja bli "för många brustillskott" för att det ska finas någon vinst med det.

What, nobody willing to hit up FreeTranslation?
The only thing that really happens is, of course, the fact that it is completely [effective QE] which determines noise ...
Brusvärdet is always the root of ljusmängden ( addition normally, but not in this case).  Noise at 18% gray or lighter will hardly be affected at all of the fact that there is no läsbrus, it is such a small proportion of overall noise here - even at ISO1600.

For example 6D is white spot in råfilen on ISO1600 approximately 4400 e- (attractive FWC/16, since ISO1600 is 16x more than base-ISO).
Mellangrått will be 18% of 4400 = 792e-, and fotonbruset of this is sqrt(792) = 28.1e- for 18% gray

as läsbruset in a normal camera is approximately 3e- at ISO1600 had barely had an impact on the signal. It would have added to the 3e- to 28.1e- fotonbrus had it been:
sqrt(28.1 ^2 3 ^ 2) = 28.3e- ( 0.2e- not a noticeable difference, barely measurable)

under 18% gray noise will grow more slowly when it goes down to the darker if you do not have a läsbrus. This is the difference comparison with läsbrus.
At 1% exposure (-6.6Ev) is the captured ljusmängden only 44e-, so noise becomes:
sqrt(44) = 6.6e-
this is läsbruset noticeably, then
sqrt(6.6) ^2 3 ^ 2) = 7.3e-.

The difference is then 6.6e- without läsbrus vs 7.3e- with normal läsbrus - no enormous difference here either, but probably noticeable
6.6e- of 44e- signal = 20 * log(44/ 6.6) = 16.4dB brusavstånd
7.3e of 44e- signal = 20 * log(44/ 7.3) = 15.6dB with läsbrus.

The important difference, of course, will when läsbruset had begun to dominate fotonbruset, down in the shadows. Same as DR-point then.
-10Ev has the "läsbrusfria" the camera is still approximately 6dB SNR. The camera with 3e- läsbrus will have almost zero in SNR, i.e. , as much noise as a signal. This can be seen very difference.

The läsbrusfria pixel can completely without losses are divided up in how small pixels at any time without the noise of image area (per detail) increases, it has läsbrus this will at a certain pixelmängd start to become "too many brustillskott" for it to appear any profit with it.


Not all of those words translated right, but the just of it looks like the maths. Nothing hurts my brain more than maths. All I know is that I have cameras with sensor sizes ranging from the size of my pinky nail to the size of your average card reader, and every time I print a print outside of that camera's native resolution, the outcome is exponentially better with bigger sensors and bigger pixels. As an example: http://motionblurdaily.com/2013/06/18/why-we-use-what-we-use-medium-format-vs-full-frame-vs-aps-c/

Or, as another example, check out the photos below. One is from a Canon SX40, with a sensor the size of my pinky nail and a pixel size of 1.5 µm, at base ISO. One is from my Canon T2i with an APS-C sensor and a 4.2µm pixel size, and the third is from a medium-format Phase One camera with a huge sensor (37mm x 49mm) and a 6.8µm pixel pitch. Can you guess which is which?

8
Lenses / Re: If You Could Have One 1 Lens...
« on: July 26, 2013, 04:03:08 AM »
If I could have one lens, it would be the 17mm f/4 tilt-shift beast. Full-frame sensor or crop, that sh¡t drips with potential.

9
Canon General / Re: Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
« on: July 22, 2013, 11:59:20 PM »
Good sensors yes, and yet they consistently sell less than Canon...

If sales figure is a mark of technical prowess then a Civics and Corollas are the best cars in the world.

If a Ferrari cost you the same as a Civic, which would you rather buy?

An 11 DR sensor can be a Ferrari. In what world are you residing?

You're missing my point. If cameras equipped with Sony sensors were Ferraris, people would not pay even higher prices for Canon 11 DR Civics.

You have no point. Masses care about instagram and iphone pictures. None of these dslrs are status items either. A lot of those who care about IQ and print big are not too happy about 11 DR (barring cognitive dissonance).

If DR is the only thing you care about, then why are you here? Go get something with a Sony sensor and take some pictures.

I bought into Canon initially, and continue to do so, because they have the strongest system FOR ME.  I'd like more DR, who wouldn't?  But that's far from the most important thing to me. YMMV.

Buy whatever suits YOUR needs, but dumping on other peoples choices and opinions, is just a waste of everyone's time.  If you have something constructive to say, even if it's negative, by all means do so.  All we've seen so far from you in this thread however, is drivel.

Well said.  And who cares how much DR there is in street photography anyway?

I do wonder if Canon will announce the high MP camera before Nikon announces their new FF camera.  I doubt the production Canon will have 75 MP.  That could simply be a test mule meant to stress the new processing (or some hardware aspect that excites heat or something), could it not?

That's a good point, but in my opinion it would seem more likely they're just trying to test two steps ahead of the competition. I figure the next full-frame we see will be another modest increase of 2 or 3MP tops over whichever it's replacing. When they make the move to take down the D800, they're going to make sure they do it right. Start off with a small increase like the 70D, then do the dual-pixel tech in the 1D C II (1D IIC? 2D C?) and maybe something just a slight bit higher-res than the next Nikon alternative for people who need MP bragging rights more than image quality. Either way, whether it's 75MP or a 37MP dual-pixel beast, it probably won't be on the shelves for a while yet.
Just a thought.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Who Adopted Adobe CC?
« on: July 22, 2013, 11:37:19 PM »
I was never able to afford the $6000 or whatever for a real licence before, so I ended up just buying the CS5 master collection from the Molino in Cusco, Perú. $4. I didn't feel so bad since I had paid someone for the programs, whether it was Adobe or not.
But as soon as they came out with the creative cloud thing, it's been awesome. $50/month or whatever (though they are open to a good barter if you call them, my assistant photographer is only paying $25/month) and you get every program, always up to date, anything new is yours immediately. By the time I've paid enough to match the previous cost of one of their programs, I'll already be using the next version. I haven't even paid as much as I would have had to for Lightroom 4 alone, and now I've got Lightroom 5 already. No extra charge.
In my opinion, this creative cloud stuff was an awesome call on Adobe's part — for people in my position. They basically f'd all the hobbyists.

$6000 in what currency?  It's like $2600 (max) for CS master collection in the US... and who needs a license to master collection anyway??  I never understood that.... If you do work that requires professional software for editing like... every art form... $2500 should be chump change for anyone that talented...

At the time, running a magazine, working as a freelance journalist, graphic/web designer, photographer and magazine/newspaper redesigner, I used several of the programs very frequently. You've gotta be diverse if you want to make any money as a freelancer in Canada, being that the wages haven't increased or even adjusted for inflation since the early 70s. Basically the place fresh magazine ideas go to die, too. Thanks for killing media, Harper. Now running a photography studio and doing all the design, websites, ads, layout, video, etc. in house, I still use a good four or five programs regularly, though now I'm finding I use Capture One for more of the actual digital darkroom process than anything else.

11
Software & Accessories / It's really not so bad
« on: July 22, 2013, 11:08:47 PM »
I was never able to afford the $6000 or whatever for a real licence before, so I ended up just buying the CS5 master collection from the Molino in Cusco, Perú. $4. I didn't feel so bad since I had paid someone for the programs, whether it was Adobe or not.
But as soon as they came out with the creative cloud thing, it's been awesome. $50/month or whatever (though they are open to a good barter if you call them, my assistant photographer is only paying $25/month) and you get every program, always up to date, anything new is yours immediately. By the time I've paid enough to match the previous cost of one of their programs, I'll already be using the next version. I haven't even paid as much as I would have had to for Lightroom 4 alone, and now I've got Lightroom 5 already. No extra charge.
In my opinion, this creative cloud stuff was an awesome call on Adobe's part — for people in my position. They basically f'd all the hobbyists.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 09:22:28 PM »
Man, it's about time they came up with a good new (actually NEW) sensor.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor
« on: April 06, 2013, 02:55:56 AM »
DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.
Can't agree with you without knowing specifically WHY you think this.  Not sure I would if I did, I don't care for the one-number DxO score either.
However...
Have a close look at the full test results for each camera sensor and compare those.  To start with, look carefully at the full range signal to noise tests and you'll likely see results closer to your expectations.

I'm gonna start this off by saying I was always a journalist first and a photographer second. Deep, borderline-invasive research is in my bones. I've definitely combed DXO's tests and scores thoroughly before any camera review I've written, and often something seemed a little off.
The whole thing was exacerbated when I helped start up this large-format print shop up north http://www.counterfeitink.com (wait till the third banner to pop up on the homepage and you'll see my ridiculous cigarette-bearing face top left on the Canuck-style $5 bill) and got to see the results of all these cameras first hand. I was the one optimizing photos for print, doing the upsizing and re-sharpening, and priming the finished prints for delivery. When a camera that prints a perfectly sharp upsized landscape print at 4x8' with no noise or lack of dynamic range scores 8 points lower than a camera with no details in the shadows, noise at near-base ISO and smudgy-looking detail only a touch above its native resolution, there is a fault in the system.
I've since left that print shop and started up a medium format photography studio, specializing in large prints. I run photography lessons, edit other photographers' photos and I still write the occasional review. I know using Phase One — with even just the Schneider kit lens that's sharp enough to shave with — is like touching perfection, because it's my main setup on the job. I know where "the bar" is set.
I can't emphasize this enough: You can read all the books and studies you want on Irish boxing but it doesn't mean anything until you've been in at least your first handful of Canadian bar fights. Having used, tested and reviewed a huge range of these cameras, having made large prints for every soccer mom with an SLR, having cycled through my share of gear and having cycled through my share of assistants with their own wide range of cameras and lenses, I know an 85 vs. a 60 on DXO means literally almost nothing when you've really put a setup through a hard day's work.
I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it, either. Again, check out the DPReview Studio Comparison Tool or better yet, put Best Buy's über-flexible return policy to work and try a few out for yourself, side-by-side and you'll indefinitely come to the same conclusion.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Digital Film (for use in old camera's)
« on: April 02, 2013, 04:38:05 AM »
this got me thinking (and it is a good April Fools post!)

the idea of a digital film cartridge is a bit goofy but it could be kind of cool if you applied the way we used to buy film (and why we bought the kind of film we wanted) to digital sensors.

imagine you buy a camera system, but the digital chip component was somehow interchangeable or customizable and could be purchased separately. you could then buy a HDR module or a B&W module or any number of other preferred spec modules. i'm basing this off of the experience you used to have with film where you had to make a creative choice before picking up the camera. maybe you could even deliver the experience via a CF card that you could upload to the firmware or whatever (i certainly don't have the technical understanding of how this would work...just spitballin).

which brings up another idea...what if you could upgrade camera bodies with newer chip technology as it was released through an interchangeable module. how many people would be interested in extending the life of their 1Ds3 if it were capable of just popping out the sensor module and buying an upgrade? interesting idea.

anyway, fun little thread. appreciate the nudge to my imagination!

You just described Mamiya's system exactly — though each digital back will cost you a decade's worth of the film they replace.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 02, 2013, 04:32:24 AM »
Now show me a Nikon file that could do this.

HAHA!
That's a lot like, "show me a Canon file that can do this?"
you just moved the sliders the other way.

And SINCE PATTERN NOISE IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THE HIGHLIGHT END, exposing to retain as much hilite detail as possible and BRINGING UP CLEAN SHADOWS is, more often, the desirable approach.
Unless, that is, you're shooting with some bandy PoS camera whose noisy raw files won't allow you to do that w-o required a whole lot of extra time in Photoshop.
(Are you an Adobe sales rep? ;) )

So....he showed you a Canon file that could do this. Sure, he carried out his argument-supporting shot with expert exposure and handling, but you're still arguing rather than showing much in the way of proof to support your own side. Care to share your Nikon wizardry? I can't be the only one who's curious.

Pages: [1] 2 3