I've never hand-on mf body before. To me, this body looksIt's a bit heavy but it's actually quite nice handling without a tripod
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.
Idylle by davidcl0nel, on Flickr
So do I! It's like a painting.
As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon.
I just re-read the entire thread and didn't see any "fervent rhetoric;" would you mind pointing it out? What I see are measured, thoughtful responses about different offerings.
Hi orangutan, just look at the post from Aglet. You will soon see plentiful amounts of fervour.
but I'm so glad he has pointed out all that banding in my images. Just imaging all this time all these photos and I've never noticed it. I must be a rubbish photographer. I must rush out and become a fervently passionate Nikon owner.
What's your evidence for that? Current Foveon sensors are crap at high ISO. For example, the LL review of the DP2M cites 'poor IQ above ISO 400...with current Canon sensors, ISO 800 isn't even 'high ISO'.
Seems like your understanding of these concepts is about as astute as your comprehension of the sensor design for DPAF, i.e. very poor:
+1You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but that's the bad argument here. Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.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.
So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut? Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...
I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.
You're being a bit too literalistic. If you read the context of my post, it was in response to the statement that EVF is inferior because it cannot show what the human eye sees. The intent of my response was to say that such a position is irrelevant because the human eye can't see which parts of a scene will be clipped, or which parts of a scene will be in focus, etc. An important reason for Live View (and EVF) is to have the sensor give you helpful information to capture the data you will need for post-processing. Beyond that, it need only be "true" enough to allow the creative aspects of composition.
As a side note: you are correct that sensor tech will continue to improve; however, there's no reason a high-end EVF can't have a couple of dials to spin through the range of what it sees. As an analogy consider flight simulators: for those who don't have surround monitor sets, there are controls to "turn your head" and look out the side windows. An EVF may not present all data at once, but can still present it.
I'm not yet sure what Aglet's angle is: