April 16, 2014, 06:45:21 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 - Lawliet

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 15, 2014, 02:25:28 PM »
It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
What's the buffer depth in RAW?

Guess in detail that depends on the raw format used. Pentax's own? Or DNG? About 10 framis iirc.
Partially the body dimensions are a result of the lenses. At least the older ones are designed for good old chemical film. Which comes with a certain minimum depth for the mirror box.
Another reason is ergonomics. Despite the larger weight working with a MF is much less tiring thrn with something NEX/A7 sized.

I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.
Those two are not the best comparison - with either the better viewfinder or zebras the MF wins, not because of the technical details, but for the ease of making actual use of them. If you want to take the guesswork ot of the equation the A7r would be the most fitting small frame counterpart.
But yes, at the moment it has a, in linear terms marginal, resolution advantage. The design feature that makes such a camera a no brainer for high end commercial photography is missing though. ???

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 12, 2014, 10:53:20 PM »
On the other hand the 1/125 sync hurts (even if that is good performance for medium-format)

Its more the lack of leaf shutter lenses - all the (relatively) new lenses they introduce, but no one thought of that. Those 1/125s were fine for low sensitivity chemical film and packs that had flash durations like todays cheap china portables/simple monolights...maybe Pentax hopes for a global shutter?

Now without that major selling point mainly detail reproduction remains, considering the current top shelf small frame lenses & the linear resolution differential that's not as much a reason to spend lots of money. That A7r+Metabones for now and the saved money for the next generation is quite reasonable.

not for handheld, steadycam stuff. I can't even imagine it on a crane....

Its highly modular - with that large cine-zoom and all the potentially useful external stuff it gets huge. But so would a A7.
The camera itself plus a photo-prime, w/o external monitoring&remote control(or that on a long tether) and you're back in the man portable ballpark. How global shutter for movement vs. higher payload capacity turns out for drone usage might be interesting, at least for 1080, in 2160 its much closer again.

Well, this is the camera to beat in terms of DSLR video.

Well, the new Blackmagic also comes with a global shutter & takes the whole host of Canons lenses w/o adapter.
Not to mention the more suitable form factor.

How prevalent is the ability (hardware and software) to edit 4K video?
Within the life-cycle of the next gen, eg. 1Dx2, 55D4 and such? My cellphone/tablet would probably handle that in terms of processing power. The same for any application that unloads parts of the work into a GPU. Just look what that already did for 3D-rendering and physics simulations!
Adding in the price/capacity development of SSDs makes even the proxies a moot point and ignoring the signs on the horizon would be risque.

Come on now, don't be a spoil sport, how many of you guys own a 4K TV? How many are going to be buy one in the next year or two?
Considering the availability of 8k sets I wouldn't buy another 4k without a very good reason...

"The only bad news is that it doesn’t record 4K on SD card. You will have to use an external recorder."  How many people are interested in doing that? 

People with the skill&ambition to make good use of HD/4k do it anyway. Or: on the fly compression of a 4k stream to SD card-friendly data rates leaves you with the same quality as common (&commonly to highly compressed) fHD, but at much larger handling costs.

Separate versions for 50/60Hz...ouch. While it prevents grid flicker, not that I'd know anyone who'd still use susceptible lights w/o genlock, it also keeps me from delivering video in the requested format half of the time.

I did not say that 4K is a lost train, but nothing indicates that it will be the hegemonic pattern to the end consumer. Perhaps in 2025 there are reliable and affordable media to replace BluRay.

I didn't feel thats much of an factor - you can always downsample to FullHD if media constraints require it - but how much longer the medium will be a major factor?
OTOH increased production cost might be a something to consider -whole production, with the part from sensor to end user being more of a side note-, thats unless one wants the higher res just to reveal previously glossed over and hidden flaws.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sonay Alpha a6000
« on: April 03, 2014, 02:54:15 PM »
Help me to understand why Canon/Nikon full frame cameras don't offer the same wide area coverage of focus points as the Sony A6000???

Because of the mirror - the submirror directing the rays onto the AF sensor has to fit into the body/underneath the main mirror, so its size and position are limited. Which means that peripheral points wouldn't see a thing.
A) a much larger mirror box to accommodate a full sized mirror - plus completely new lenses with a much larger flange distance. Not good. Not at all.
B) throw the mirrors out completely and have a clean optical path between lens and sensor. Have you noticed how far out the 70Ds dual pixels can do PDAF? Works with existing lenses and, if done consequently, reduces costs for both parts and assembly/adjustment.

EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS C200 & C400 at NAB? [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2014, 08:28:39 AM »

New tech debuts when it is ready.

Or from a update schedule POV - We get a new entry level every year, but trice that time between top level devices. The competition would love the idea of reliable top down trickle only progression. Even more then the current pace of new releases.


But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.
Depends on the timeframe - That "100-400 still MK I" I had served together with about 5 generations of bodies, the same with the 17-50/24-70/70-200 and some of the primes. Thats less then one lens sold for each body. ;) To get a decent ratio of bought first hand/owned and not just currently used equipment most people would have to keep tons of never used lenses around - if only because they have vastly different service durations.

Canon General / Re: TC switchable like built-in TC
« on: March 29, 2014, 07:16:40 AM »

I suspect that any practical implementation of the idea for general usage would be difficult or impossible because of the need to matchup the glass that switched in to a individual lens.  That would not preclude someone making a dedicated unit for a popular lens like the 70-200 f/2.8L.  It might sell for $700, but some would find it very useful.

You could switch between a TC2 and a daisychained TC1.4 + the Metabones Speedboosters optics. The latter would counteract the TC1.4, giving you something to avoid the extension tube effect. Some finetuning regarding overall lengths and compensation of aberrations would be required, but it would work regardless of the lens its attached to.


There must be an awful lot of people who have only one lens, and don't really need an ILC.

At least a minority doesn't get a new kit lens with every body. A 24-70/105, 70-200, the odd prime paired with successively a 5D, 5D2, 5D3 and you're about to end up in the 1.5 lenses/body-group quite fast. And then you have 3rd party lenses, Canon wouldn't include those in the announcement. ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 28, 2014, 12:05:53 AM »

I'm not sure they have had the tech for more DR and it didn't seem like they cared enough early on. A

What could stop them from reading the individual sensor cells of a dual pixel at different amplifications? Blending the exposures isn't exactly beyond high school math either. I.e. thats what you can get via Magic Lantern, just without the potential resolution loss, because you don't have to fall back to sensels that where meant to provide spatial data.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 27, 2014, 11:00:38 PM »
I'd like to see quad-pixel technology come out... with a sensor where you can bin all four sub-pixels together and have a 10Megapixel FF sensor with kick-ass low light capacity or access the sub-pixels and have a 40Megapixel high resolution sensor....

Phase One beat you on that idea!  :P
Admitted, going from ISO800 to ISO3200 that way won't get anybody from FF/APS-C-Land excited, but the idea is there.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22