April 16, 2014, 04:15:40 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
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« on: January 25, 2014, 04:11:38 AM »
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

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.

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...

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..

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..

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.

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.

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.

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  :) )

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: August 01, 2013, 03:30:51 AM »
Well.. it IS essentially a creative filter.. as it represents something that is not what you saw, not what the camera captured, and not what anyone else would see if they viewed the scene that was captured - i.e.: a filtered effect or process.. ;=)

If you pose the question from a different direction you might better understand someone else's opposition. (Do you think EVERY shot you take, or anyone else takes, always looks better in some HDR representation?? Of course not, that is why some people consider it more of editing effect than a necessary shooting mode.)

From what I read and hear I think the real opposition is to the effect its popularity has had on manufacturers, given that it is simply the latest fad in photography, where development resources are spent on achieving greater dynamic range than can be perceived by the human eye as if it is some kind of requirement to photography.. In some cases it is pursued to the technology's detriment. As an example I give you Nikon's latest models from the D800 to the D7100 or whatever monstrosity came out last. Nikon has focused so much attention on achieving high dynamic range high megapixels bodies that they have actually 'reintroduced' grain back in digital photography! For those not in photography before the digital age, grain was eliminated with the very first digital bodies, not at all ISO settings of course, but at base ISO. As the technology matured we saw grain free 200 ISO, then 400 ISO, and today as high as 3200 ISO with certain bodies… To reintroduce grain as Nikon is doing (visible as low as 320 ISO in some of their bodies) is just insane, not only from a photographic sense, but especially given that it is all in the pursuit of selling dynamic range and megapixels to consumers who are more interested in spec sheets and rating tables than photography.

As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.

(btw - HDR processing/printing isn't new, hence the curiosity people have over its new found popularity, it is almost as old as photography itself. We just did it in the dark room back in the day..)

Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: August 01, 2013, 02:48:37 AM »
Yeah, sorry.. this just sounds like a 'fishing for attention thread' - like people do in online games where they pop off in chat what they feel will be the most offensive, provoking, or controversial statement they can make and then enjoy the aftermath of attention..

The reality, is that it does not matter what mode someone else chooses to shot in - and even if they are asking for assistance it should not cause anyone any emotional distress over it.

A large percentage of people I know shoot manual just so they can saw they shoot in manual - very similar to 'announcing' to someone you only shoot in raw - who the heck cares if the final image meets your (or your clients) requirements.

Each mode has its usefulness and drawbacks:
In a scenario where your subject, lighting, and distance changes for each shot, and not under your control, you are missing shots fiddling with full manual settings.
If you are shooting action (where shutter speed is your first priority) and the sun is not always lighting what you want then shutter priority allows you to focus on your subject and the next shot - instead of the next setting.
More concerned with depth of field in a changing scene, then aperture priority etc..

When I shoot in the studio I am almost always in manual because what I see isn't always what I want the camera to see so I push and pull exposure intentionally - and have the time to make any decision I want.. in the field I am almost always in shutter priority because I am almost always shooting at a subject-camera range where depth of field does not matter much and lighting (sunlight) are not a concern - but stopping the action is.

To the OP, yeah you should probably seek some counseling if you are actually getting emotionally distressed over someone else's personal choices regarding their personal activity.. =)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III focus points off center
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:13:20 AM »
You do realize that the AF point itself is not (1) pixel.. It is an array of many pixels in that given area, however during autofocus the camera can determine best focus based on the contrast in an area of just a few pixels depending on the actual subject/scene.

Basically what I mean is lets say under each focus point there is a grid of 100 pixels - and when focus is achieved under the selected focus point it happens to be on the right side of the 10x10 grid of pixels - then attempting to place a marker that represents the square/dot seen in the viewfinder precisely over the actual focus point in an image it is going to be off to the right of the super-imposed point in the viewfinder.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon SL1 sensor a step back?
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:48:36 AM »
Your joking right????

First off, the sensor isn't any different than any other 18mp body.. Same tech, same processor.
What you are seeing is a difference of metering and/or exposure of the scene. The SL1 clearly shows to be brighter (by compensation, meter, or gain) than the 7D or D7100. The other two bodies will show less noticeable noise in the shadows of those shots because the shadows are darker...duh. The exposure of the scene needed to be balanced across each body if they are going to 'compare' the results.

Secondly, why the hell is this guy comparing the cheapest Canon 18mp body ($799 with 18-55IS/STM) with the highest-end crop bodies from Canon and Nikon??? Then expecting it to be some improvement over, or better performance than those models.. Really??? (*T3i was $799 body only when released)

Thirdly, why are you giving any validation to this guys review to begin with when they apparently do not know the impact under/over exposure has on shadow noise. This is some website that is supposedly teaching about 'photography' yet at the same time is giving advice about what camera you should consider an upgrade to when you already have last years model... Sorry, if anyone is 'needing' to upgrade their camera body every time each new model comes out you are not interested in photography, and certainly do not need to be worried about a microscopic difference between this/that model.

Purely from a tech-gadget perspective: No, this cheapest 18mp body is not an upgrade from Canon's most expensive 18mp body, nor is it a cost alternative to Nikon's most expensive APS-C body.. Shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

(@Robboesan) Nikon has had one (1) new sensor since the 2010 16mp D7000, and that is the 24mp that was only recently announced in a couple of bodies. Nikon is not introducing a new sensor because they are concerned with providing the public the best technology for digital photography. If Nikon did not feel they were under marketing pressure from consumers who are more interested in the social tag their equipment might provide, they would not have released a new sensor at all. The 16mp sensor in the D7000 and D5100 is far superior to the new 'film-grain' 24mp by a far margin, so without the marketing pressure of being a whole (2) megapixels behind Canon they would have milked the 16mp sensor for an eternity just like their APS-C 12mp sensor.
(Really, grain?.. Re-introducing a negative artifact of the film era as something beneficial is appalling. Grain is something digital photography moved beyond in the early years of the technology. Marketing high megapixel induced 'film-like grain' at ISO/400 just to sell high megapixel cameras is absurd.)

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM »
Kind of disappointing that CR has nothing better to report than yet another camera no one really needs not coming out anytime soon to sit on the shelves collecting dust because as soon as it is announced everyone is instantly waiting for the next model.

Look, there are probably two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own. Everyone else just wants to be part of a social discussion and complain about what each new model should have had, needs to have, doesn't have, etc etc.. The reality is that consumers themselves are responsible for what new models do not have because the manufacturers feel they have to instantly gratify the squeaky wheels in order to be successful. If people would simply use what they have until it stops working then the manufacturers would only release a new body in each tier maybe every three/four years. Then when they did it would actually be the latest and greatest and would hold you for the rest of its life, certainly until technology advances to the point a new model is even warranted. (Megapixels are not technology in a photographic context, sorry.)

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..
2) Spend your money on the only piece/s of equipment that will ever improve your photography - lenses.. If you have anything left over and just have to spend it on something, take a class or attend a symposium to learn how to be a better photographer.

I know it sounds like social interaction 101, but:
Smile, wave, gesture to the camera, say hello, ask how the person is doing, depending on the subject or scene perhaps even ask in advance.

I have found the least objectionable approach is to make sure you do not project yourself on the street in an act of 'surveillance', you should instead look for a place to sit for a little bit, at least stop, engage someone while you continue to observe what is going on around you.

(You will still encounter those who maybe do not like the way they look, do not want someone to know they were where ever it was you saw them, etc.. nothing you can do with that.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5