July 31, 2014, 07:52:10 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 - SiliconVoid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
 ::) Wake me up when they release the auto-aperture FD lens adapter...  ;D

2
Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 16, 2014, 12:57:02 AM »
Put an umbrella mount on your tripod/monopod - then no one has to hold it.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone own both Canon and Nikon
« on: July 16, 2014, 12:46:06 AM »
This is late (I do not get to sit down at a computer as often) but if you are simply after resolution and hate shadows in your images, I would suggest as some others have done - which is something like the A7R. Purely as a 'digital back' for whatever lenses you wish to use.

As for lenses, I would strongly suggest a couple of Canon's TS lenses before the Nikon's, simply because many of Nikon's lenses of recent years rely a good deal on in-camera corrections, which has allowed Nikon to slack on physical IQ in the lenses. This means that when not used on a Nikon body the lenses do not perform as well. Canon on the other hand, which only recently included/support lens correction in-camera on the very latest bodies, have had to maintain a little higher physical IQ in the lenses.

Sure, most pp software provides lens correction, but not on off-brand combinations.. so you will not get the proper corrections on something like the 14-24mm when used on the Sony body as you would on a Nikon body, and the same goes for the 17mm or 24mm TS on the Sony body, but the Canon's would need less correction to begin with.

Rental of your proposed setup will provide the best information regardless..

To give you an idea on what benefit in-camera corrections can make, DxO has the opportunity to test lenses on an independent body - a real measure of how a lens is designed, built, and performs - by testing on something like the A7R (as it has the same resolution that DxO says makes all the difference in the world) but stated that most people purchasing something like a Nikon lens would be using it on a Nikon body, and therefore any compensated benefits to be had in that combination are relevant to the lenses performance scores.
(Even though in-camera corrections mask the lenses physical design and performance)

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 16, 2014, 12:16:01 AM »
*This references the inaccuracies of sensor scoring primarily, but if one feels this logic is sound - then everything else provided by DxO should carry the same weight.. otherwise:*

For those interested, or anyone concerned with physical testing/measuring/grading (in the context of empirical data results) DxO does not actually measure the 'downsampled' image.. DxO does not evaluate the downsampled data at all, and derive their scoring based on the lowest achievable ISO setting regardless of how poorly said camera/sensor performs through the remainder of its designed operating range. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no scoring, averaging, or ranking in any way associated with how the sensors operate through the rest of the manufacturers designed operating range. They run their measurements on the pixel level data, and because they are convinced by their math that 'every' aspect of image quality improves at a ratio of xx/pixel like perceived noise does, it is not necessary to take measurements on the 'downsampled' 'normalized' data..
(Interestingly, they have been challenged by some in the industry to actually measure a real downsampled image, but that would mean having to redo all of their measurements and subsequent rankings so they decline the challenge.)

So the algorithm used to show that noise performance (visible/percieved noise, not physical) improves at a rate of xx per pixel can be applied to all other areas of image quality..
To which DxO believes a sensor that can only capture/reproduce 22bit color at the pixel level can somehow produce 24bit+ color when downsampled.
To which DxO believes a sensor that can only capture/reproduce 90% tonal accuracy at the pixel level can somehow produce 100% tonal accuracy when downsampled.
To which DxO believes a sensor that operates at 39db of SNR at the pixel level somehow operates at 45db when downsampled.
To which DxO believes a sensor that can only capture/reproduce 12 stops of DR at the pixel level can somehow produce 14 stops of DR when downsampled.

If you are ok with theoretically calculated performance, then DxO is your source for comparison - otherwise it should be known that DxO is in the business of producing/selling post processing software. Therefore like any marketing department would do, they will cater to anything and any demographic they feel will have/produce the most momentum of interest in their software - which is apparently not bound by the laws of physics and does things no other software can do. As DxO is determined to displace Adobe, they will first and foremost attempt to appeal to the same 'creative-minded' demographic that Adobe does = Nikon.

It is ironic that after all the years of Nikon defending itself as not just 'a base ISO studio camera', and Canon refuting its ranking of being 'the everything else field camera', each camp can still be found and marketed to in the same locations they have always been.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:45:22 PM »
Really curious why you expected/anticipated "IQ" to be better, better than say the 6D you already own...??

Megapixels do not have crap to do with IQ, and it does not make a hoot of a difference whether you have 1 or 2 more stops of DR because they are in the shadows anyway, so unless you intend on 'removing' the shadows in all your shots the additional DR is not even visible. Your 6D has better DR at the upper end, which is what typically gets clipped by most all Sony sensors, and that is where Canon already gives you a DR edge in addition to exposing shadows about one stop better than Nikony from the getgo...

Not trying to bash people or devices on the bases of MP envy, but unless you are needing to print base ISO images at large sizes, there is no advantage to pumping out 36mp files... that is certainly debated by many people, but it is the reality.

As for the mechanics of the device, well you mentioned not anticipating much there, so the lack of any 'real' system lenses from Sony is, and continues, to be its major failing.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: June 25, 2014, 03:45:20 PM »
Purely from a financial perspective it would make sense for Nikon to consolidate the line, as there is almost no functional difference between the two, and they have not sold anywhere close to the numbers anticipated to meet financial projections.

In that regard however, the proposed 'upgrades' would not be of of the significance many consumers would expect for a 'consolidated' model (ala 1Dx and D4). The upgrades are basically software and a badge, sans the processor - which in the end is technically still a software upgrade.. The new processor will provide the muscle needed for a different AF algorithm, noise reduction algorithm (the alleged ISO improvement), moire suppression algorithm, and sRAW (which if based on the D4 implementation will be a waste of processor cycles anyway..) oh, and let us not forget the crucial addition of GPS! (sic).
No.. What I see in this consolidation is simply an attempt to restore faith in the Nikon brand. Showing their base that when they see something wrong, or lacking in tangible benefit, they react - and decisively - to trim the fat and produce the lean mean product they should have released initially. (queue the I AM xxxxxxx theme music)

As for the 'new' model.. In my opinion they could gain back their D700 base (the ~790k they thought would upgrade) if they would take current tech in a lower mp sensor (akin to the D4) yielding better overall ISO, DR across the ISO range, color and tone across the ISO range (all without the unnecessary processing) faster fps, robust AF, 1080p video, and stuff it all into a body that is more comfortable to hold (they still have the D700 castings, heh) with truly needed ergonomic changes like moving ISO and AF mode selection to the right side so you do not have to transfer perch of the camera back and forth between your right and left hands. There is already a large hole in the body due to the flash for wireless communication, but not important either way there.
If they want to run a body like that along with a high-mp body that fewer people need/want, that would make multiple bodies more feasible all around.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 25, 2014, 04:11:38 AM »
Quote
Don't expect "eventually" to be tomorrow, though. The big name DSLR cameras are the high end ones. They don't sell as much as the Canon Rebels and Nikon Dxxxx models, but they are usually where significant leaps in larger format technologies are made. We already had major new DSLRs released over the last couple of years, and major new mirrorless cameras just over the last year. It'll be a couple years at least before we see any significant innovations trickle down to the DSLR and Mirrorless arena.



I gave some extreme examples sure, but my point is still quantified. The primary difference in our expression is verbiage that attempts to assert knowledge and understanding of physics... (no offense, just an observation)
I work for a medical equipment manufacturer specializing in imaging technology, and if no comparison were made beyond the technology we work with I can assure you that consumer digital imaging products are not implementing the latest imaging technology. If one were to then compare other industries that develop and implement imaging technology outside the realm of consumer photography products, dslrs might as well have a little chimp inside with a tablet and chisel... The physical size of a $2.5billion device has little to do with researching the concepts of that technology for other applications, especially when the $2.5billion device contains many more elements than the digital sensor, and provides ample room for design and implementation to meet other criteria such as serviceability and maintenance - not how small the packaging could be.
However if you are prepared to offer higher megapixels, improved noise algorithms, marginally improved read noise, and the absence of a mirror (all within the concepts of traditional sensor design) as examples of 'new technology' then we have little to discuss given the discrepancy in perspective and definition.



This if funny as hell btw: Fstoppers Nikon DF Digital Camera Hipster Review
Fstoppers Nikon DF Digital Camera Hipster Review Small | Large

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 18, 2014, 06:57:32 PM »
You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.)

On the contrary, I am well aware of where noise is introduced, both as a consequence of design as well as the increased gain to have a sensor simulate higher ISO sensitivities..
However do not be mislead in the assumption that the digital sensors in modern cameras in any way represent the cutting edge of digital imaging - they do not - they are not even close. Unfortunately real cutting edge technologies result in million dollar digital imaging equipment that is of course not cost effective to build into a consumer product. Additionally do not assume what we know about physics today is all there is in the universe, our knowledge and conceptual understanding of physics has been challenged many times over through human history. Your response asserts your comprehension of imaging technology is limited to any single wafer sensor design, and additionally those limited by todays consumer technology… The Hubble telescope for example can resolve more detail than the D800, with greater dynamic range, and all at much higher ISO ranges because that is what is was designed to do regardless of cost as it was not intended to be a consumer product - yet its total mp count is a mere 5.1mp. It does however use multiple sensors to capture the analog data which is then put back together to produce an image, but clearly showing that 'more mp' is not the only approach to image quality.
In dslr sensor design there are several immediate approaches that could be researched, one being a sensor that is designed to operate at a base signal amplification much higher than current technology (~300 ISO) resulting in a base ISO sensitivity of say around 3200, with the greater gain adjustment at the lower sensitivity end as opposed to current implementation, and only a small increase in gain to achieve 6400-12800. Textbook physics tell us that such an approach would not leave enough signal strength at ISO 100 sensitivity to get readable data (again thinking we know everything about physics) but that could be countered by charging and reading fewer photosites at lower sensitivity settings. Then increasing the number of photo sites charged and read at the higher ISO range. That would of course mean the resolution output of the camera is lower at lower ISO settings and higher at higher ISO settings, or it could simply be set to output say 15mp images during ASIC processing regardless of the actual mp count of the sensor.. There would of course be a massive number of consumers who would feel cheated in some way in buying a 45mp camera that only outputs 15mp images, but hey people are buying a 36mp camera today that has to be downsampled to 8mp in order to generate DxO award winning images so that should not really have any impact as long as it produces the desired output in the end, right…
Another method would be multiple sensors, very much the same method high end digital video camera equipment is designed. With only a small increase in camera size there could be multiple sensors utilized to only read certain spectrums of light, four being the most logical array (Red, Blue Green, and UV to measure intensity) which would yield more color and light intensity data than is captured today by any consumer device. Data that translates to detail, color spectrum, tonal accuracy, and dynamic range..
Yet another method would be a single wafer design where one third of the photosites are dedicated for each primary color spectrum, somewhat similar but further on the approach taken by Fujifilm and their X-Trans sensors (and the original design found in the S2, S3, S5 Pro)..
Fujifilm is probably the best example of what I meant in my original post.. Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina are not actually pushing the boundaries of digital imaging technology, they are catering to the boundaries of consumer marketability. Fujifilm is unfortunately one of the few (if not the only) consumer imaging company actually trying to advance the digital imaging world at this time by working outside the box.. As I stated earlier, and it is to the actual detriment of the technology, it is simply a matter of dollars and cents - for Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina it is cheaper to try and improve current technology than to explore/develop new technology. The major players have too much invested in current technology to explore a new approach, at least not any time soon.
Regarding my ‘unfortunately’ reference to Fujifilm I did not mean that in a bad way, quite the contrary, I love Fujifilm’s approach - What I meant is if new technology like that was being backed by the kind of money/research Canon and other major players spend on 'old-tech' improvements we would already be where I stated we should be in the imaging world.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:11:38 PM »
I think the bigger question is - Does Canon Even Need to Answer the D4s...
(btw: if naming convention holds up the D4s will not be any significant increase in mp, if any at all, so it is not going to be a 'pro-body' D800 - just improvements Nikon feels worthy of a different model name)

If we look at Canon's current lineup of top tier bodies (1Dx, 5DmkIII, 6D, 70D, T5i) they all outsell their competitors offerings. While Canon surely wants to advance the technology as much as the next brand, it comes down to dollar and cents in the end.. and it is there that Canon continues to hold the lead. So other than bragging rights to some ambiguous scoring service there is actually little reason for Canon to worry about a specific brand or model they already outsell...

Not everyone will agree with this but as for the other argument - DR! - well it is not as significant or as necessary as many believe. By that I mean while a generous range can provide flexibility and creativity in certain situations it is of limited use. A properly or creatively exposed shot can relieve the need for 14 stop post processing as there would be no 'need' for it to begin with. To give an example: If Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc were to develop a sensor that captured every scene with well lit shadows, exaggerated colors, exaggerated contrast, a complete dream like scene with 50-stops of DR, and no more leeway for processing because the sensor has already captured and reproduced everything there is to be seen - people would still complain about the lack of stops they have in post as a must have, must design etc.

Isn't photography the art/science/creativity of capturing light and shadow?? If the scene being captured has shadows you cannot see into with your eye then there is no 'need' to remove the shadows in development/print, actually doing so tends to ruin the feel of the scene most of the time. It is true that there is an interest/intrigue in an image that looks the way you see the world in a dream - where everything is lit by some magical indirect lighting coming from every direction - but as it is not the way we see the world in real life it will always be a method of processing, a fad, an interest that comes and goes.. It is not something a camera manufacturer need redesign their products around. It is simply not something 'needed' to the point that people fret over 1,2,3 stops difference between this model or that brand.

We would all be better served by a sensor that produces noise free images through the ISO range, even if it did not capture any more than 11 stops of DR, and I mean without downsampling, without film-like-grain, and without 3x the post processing.. I personally would not care if Canon ever squeaked out another stop of DR as long as they work towards ISO 100 performance at >6400 ISO...

10
Canon General / Re: Spray and Pray Discovery
« on: October 21, 2013, 04:10:20 PM »
If it is not too windy (maybe a couple millimeters of movement of the subject) I will typically fire off 5-7 shots and then load those into PS to do some focus stacking - plus that works great with wider apertures..
=)

11
Canon General / Re: Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
« on: October 21, 2013, 03:58:16 PM »
Whether or not it is a cropped sensor or 35mm format does not matter in regard to 'benefits' of a mirrorless camera.

List of mirrorless benefits:
Access to mount/use just about any lens ever made.
-End of list:


Just about everything else involved with mirrorless cameras is a work around or detriment, sorry..

12
Canon General / Re: What's Next for Canon?
« on: October 21, 2013, 03:50:30 PM »
Why does there need to be anything 'next' from Canon, or Nikon, or Sony....
Have all you people actually outgrown your existing equipment???
Your skill in photography demands more camera than you have now???
Your creativity is being suppressed by the outdated equipment you have now???

Or is it really a situation where you do not wish to learn photography and are always vigilant for something that might do everything for you....?

Personally I would prefer the manufacturers stop worrying about MP and turn all that R&D towards a digital sensor that can produce 6400+ ISO as clean as 100 ISO.. Until that has been accomplished everything else is a waste of time and money.

13
Sad so many people today think every new model has to have the latest gadget in order to be functional - and then base superiority on whether another manufacturer has the same gadgets in their new model.
It really does not matter what some 3rd party service says about sensor performance, especially when the measurement data is taken out of the camera before it is processed and does not represent the data the user would ever have access to. The reality is that in the field it is function, ergonomics and experience that allow you to get the image - not one more stop of DR or more MP.. To that end you still see more Canon equipment in the field than any other manufacturer.

In reading comments here and other forums regarding the new Sony body, I do not think people realize how crappy AF performance is going to be using other lenses than the new Sony lenses.. That realization along with the plethora of older 3rd party lenses will mean - manual focusing - which is even crappier using an EVF.. Mirrorless bodies are neat and all, certainly a means of access to more lenses than any one manufacturer ever dreamed of, but it is of limited benefit and not a functional substitute for an OVF and dedicated AF sensor.

As for the excitement over body size... all any manufacturer needs to do is drop pop-up flashes, drop 3.x" displays, drop the gadgetry that provides no benefit to actual photography (GPS, WiFi, etc) and maybe even ditch video recording (though that does not effect camera size other than another button, but is less than ideal with a ~2" lcd) and there would be plenty of room to shrink the body size around a FF sensor, mirror, and OVF.

In reality it is the average consumer today wanting any gadget they think will take the photo for them and tell everyone else they were there that prevents manufacturers from producing small foot print DSLRs - - NOT the current technology.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: October 21, 2013, 03:00:47 PM »
Certainly does sound like a fun product that could possibly kick serious butt!
However, for those looking away from Sony's recent A7/r ...
What's the register distance for the A7?...  is it short enough to handle adapters and a variety of other makers lenses?  If so, makes a very versatile imaging back end compared to an F-mount.

Yes, it can handle adapters for Nikon, Leica, Canon etc.  There are already videos on youtube of people testing pre-production models with 3rd party lenses, such as the 17-40L, with working autofocus.  Also, Samyang has announced that they'll be releasing 5 lenses for the Sony FE mount (14mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC, 24mm f/1.4 ED AS IF UMC, T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC, 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC, 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC). 

Also, given that Sigma has their lens mount swapping service, I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with their own FE mount.

In reading comments here and other forums regarding the new Sony body, I do not think people realize how crappy AF performance is going to be using other lenses than the new Sony lenses.. That realization along with the plethora of older 3rd party lenses will mean - manual focusing - which is even crappier using an EVF.. Mirrorless bodies are neat and all, certainly a means of access to more lenses than any one manufacturer ever dreamed of, but it is of limited benefit and not a functional substitute for an OVF and dedicated AF sensor.

As for the excitement over body size... all any manufacturer needs to do is drop pop-up flashes, drop 3.x" displays, drop the gadgetry that provides no benefit to actual photography (GPS, WiFi, etc) and maybe even ditch video recording (though that does not effect camera size other than another button, but is less than ideal with a ~2" lcd) and there would be plenty of room to shrink the body size around a FF sensor, mirror, and OVF.

In reality it is the average consumer today wanting any gadget they think will take the photo for them and tell everyone else they were there that prevents manufacturers from producing small foot print DSLRs - - NOT the current technology.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D610 yes D600 minor upgrade!
« on: October 08, 2013, 09:17:55 PM »
Makes me imagine a 5D 3.1 with a nicer sensor - 1 stop more DR , less banding / noise and maybe 30MP.
And keep everything else with it!

(Then the proper Big MP can still be a separate beast!)


-What exactly is wrong with the 5DmkIII sensor???????

-The 5DmkIII already captures a comparable scene with about 2/3 stop brighter shadows than Nikon, so you already have the ~1 stop more DR from the get-go. Stop longing for technology that serves limited other purpose than an anticipated ranking from a "pay-for-score" service like DxO. The reality with broad DR is that most people use it to create (read:recover) a shot they could have taken in the first place if they learned how to properly read/adjust exposure.

-Same thing with more MP.. A survey of the some of the largest printing firms in the US indicates that poster size prints represent the smallest percentage of their output - so very few people are printing posters and therefore have little argument for high MP other than hoping to crop a shot they should have properly composed/captured in the field..

Too many 'photographers' today are waiting for a camera with 200mp, full sensor AF, and 204,800ISO so they don't have to do anything but point the camera in the general direction of their subject and then go home and crop/zoom the shot they should have taken in the field - that is not photography, that is surveillance...

(Please understand I am addressing the perspective of your comments because they are ignorantly shared by a large percentage of consumers - I am not attacking you personally  :) )

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5