March 05, 2015, 03:40:31 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 - roguewave

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
The thing is you can get an adapted Sony that will offer a lot more dynamic range and only modestly less resolution for a ton less money.

DR difference = 21%

Resolution difference = 38%


Well, you can also look at it this way:
21% is the difference in the number of stops. However, because DR is an exponential function, where each stop doubles the dynamic range, a difference of 2 stops essentially means 400% wider DR :).

A resolution increase from 36 to 50 mp, on the other hand, although it gives you 38% more pixels total, is only ~17% (=sqrt(1.38) ) increase in each dimension, not a whole lot.

Canon General / Re: Merry Christmas and A Happy Holiday Season to All
« on: December 25, 2014, 03:04:40 PM »
Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year! I hope you all get the PHOTOS you wanted :-).

Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.

How is the process much easier?
You are still post-processing a lot more.
Its really about pre-production vs. post-production, if you spend a little more time setting up before the shot, then you won't have to spend more time in front of a computer. Or vice-versa.

Would you rather push a few sliders or for every shot set up flashes / reflectors / tripods / GND filters (depending on the scene)? Even so, some moving subjects like Marsu42's horses may not lend themselves well to pre-production setup. Or if you are in certain public places. Or traveling light.

The thing is, you still have the pre-production option if you prefer, but you also have more flexibility for post-processing. Why some people are against that is beyond me. Many are excited about a marginal improvement in high ISO noise in the 7DII vs the original 7D after 5 years of development, but 400% more DR (~2 stops) is not important?

Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.

*If* you need to jump through hoops. I'm the first one to point out that current Canon low iso dr is often limiting for motion scenes. But then I have to reluctantly agree that not all people seem to make use of the dr they have. That's because you have to *underexpose* probably a lot, and get an ugly, dark picture on your lcd before raising shadows in post.

Today, I shot my usual horsies and recognized that in the winter sun there's really hardly any way to max out 11.5ev of my 6d, I didn't have to use ML's dual_iso once.

Nice capture!

Rather than blaming the manufacturer for bad results... they know the abilities of the equipment and find ways to achieve their desired results.

An idea which DRones seem utterly unable to cope with...

Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.

Yet I bet you paid 1000s of $$$ for the latest and greatest Canon shooter... if you practice what you preach, why don't you find ways to achieve your desired results with a 40D, which you can get practically for free?

Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:14:21 PM »
Nice shots! Don Haines, these tamarack colours are amazing.

Last fall with Canon 40D:

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 03:20:43 PM »
7DII and D750 are way different markets.  You buy the APS-C flagship for use with supertelephotos and the additional crop on the field or in the wild.  The FF/FX camera works better with wide angle lenses and equivalent focal lengths.

I don't know a single pro photog who uses a crop camera. They all bailed on the 7D pretty quick and never went back.

Anyone who pays $2000 for an inferior APS-C sensor is getting ripped off.

I remember seeing a post on these forums about a sunset-watching squirrel picture taken with the 50D and published in the Outside Magazine... weren't you that photographer? Not bad for an inferior APS-C sensor ;D

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 08:39:23 AM »
This is the kind of camera that makes people change systems.

Maybe a little will change but not many.
some D700 and D300 users will feel this is not real replacement to them, 1/4000 top shutter speed and flash sync only 1/200, No AF-on button, body style.
This is more like D620, upgrade from D600/D610 to D750.

This camera will kill the sales of the newly announced D610, which killed the newly announced D600 few months earlier. It's a good competitor to the 6D though, and I hope Canon's 6D Mark II will have a real focusing system, not that desperate 1 cross type point one.

True, but let we wait the real world testing on real camera. I think Canon purposely give 6D the simple feature to not compete with their own advance model like 5D3 and 70D.

Yes, typical Canon... you can get a feature-packed 7DII and (presumably) IQ quality not far off from a 2010 Rebel, and live with it for the next 5 years. Or you can get a 6D with great IQ but with autofocus from a 2010 Rebel. If you want both IQ and features, you need to fork out another $1000-$1500 to move up to the 5DIII.

At least on paper, this seems to be a fantastic all-around camera, at a good price.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:17:45 PM »
I do believe in Santa Claus. I do I do I do.  And flying reindeer.  And rainbow-pooping unicorns.  Any of those are more likely to be real than an APS-C sensor that's as good or better than the 5DIII at high ISO. 

In a fight between physics and fantasy, my money is on physics.   8)

I don't disagree with you about sensors, but still, be careful betting all your money on it :)...

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
   -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895

"The resistance of air increases as the square of the speed and works as the cube [of speed]....  It is clear that with our present devices there is no hope of aircraft competing for racing speed with either our locomotives or automobiles."
   -- William H. Pickering, Director, Harvard College Observatory, 1910

"Even considering the improvements possible...the gas turbine could hardly be considered a feasible application to airplanes because of the difficulties of complying with the stringent weight requirements."
   -- U. S. National Academy Of Science, 1940

"Professor Goddard...does not know the relation of action to re-action, and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react....he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
   -- 1920 New York Times editorial on Robert Goddard's rocket work.

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing.  Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformations of these atoms is talking moonshine."
   -- Ernest Rutherford, 1930

"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will carry scientists.  To escape the Earth's gravitation a projectile needs a velocity of 7 miles per second.  The thermal energy at this speed is 15,180 calories [per gram].  Hence the proposition appears to be basically impossible"
  -- A. W. Bickerton, 1926

"Fooling around with alternating currents is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever."
   -- Thomas Edison

Your talking about on a per-pixel basis. On a per-pixel basis, that is true. However I'm talking about on a whole-image basis, or as it's called, on a "normalized" basis. When you compare images as a whole at the same size, assuming the same absolute area of sensor was used, then there won't be any difference in noise regardless of pixel size. There will, however, be a difference in detail.

This all assumes same pixel generation. The 5D III does have an advantage in upsampling due to it's newer pixel generation. It has higher quantum efficiency and overall a better pixel architecture, than the 7D pixels. That means less noise per pixel. I actually wish I had a 70D. That would make for a better comparison, as then both cameras would use sensors of similar generation, instead of being separated by over three years of technology. That's unlikely to happen unless I meet someone with a 70D who will let me borrow it for a night, I have no intention of buying a 70D.

Jrista, thank you for the comparison! I found it very interesting.

I believe your experiment also shows that the current Canon FF sensors do not outresolve good lenses - contrary to some claims I've seen on this forum, essentially saying that lenses are the limiting factor and higher resolution FF sensors are pointless.

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot SX520 HS & SX400 HS
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:05:34 AM »
"...ideal for active families that want to take shots of their children’s soccer game..."

and with a 1008mm equivalent at the long end, they can do it without even leaving home :).

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: June 11, 2014, 05:38:04 PM »
What? Their review says nothing about the old one being better.

Why, it says:
In terms of our SQF test, the new Sigma beat out the 50mm f/1.4 offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sony and the Sony Zeiss. However the original Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX lens and the monstrous Zeiss 55mm Otus lens did edge it out, ever so slightly. Oddly enough, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX still holds the title of being our benchmark for 50mm f/1.4’s in this test.

One of the coolest moments I've ever had in nature, and I won't forget it.  The key was avoiding people at all costs. I had the place to myself because it wasn't deemed "as good" at sunrise.

Or because you were the only one willing to get up in the middle of the night and get to location before sunrise :-). Either way, very nice shot and congrats on the publication!

Oh, and guess what?  Sales figures also impact the business decisions being made by whatever brand meets your camera system needs, too.

I think you're flipping the pancake a bit.

Sales do matter in terms of determining the business decisions of a company. We however are the end users, not the company. To us it can be nice to know why they did this or that, but ultimately it is a very academic interest. Sales figures do not affect our experience once the product is in our hands and do not improve our output or our enjoyment. The first rule of statistics is that it never applies to individual cases.

In the end of the day, I don't really care whether Canon feels the need to update this or that. My money is supposed to be spent on fulfilling my needs, not Canon's. If their products are good I buy them, otherwise I don't and it doesn't really matter if other people think they're good for them. If I have to choose, I'd rather be a quality minority than a trivial majority, yes.


Absolutely. The explanation that Canon does not update their lenses for > 20 years because the market lets them get away with it is logically correct, but not particularly satisfying for those end users, whose needs aren't completely met.

It's like your kid saying the reason he hasn't been doing his homework is because he can get away with it by copying his friend's solution... a valid explanation, but probably not one you want to hear.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS $648
« on: December 22, 2013, 09:48:48 PM »
I always get really excited when I see good deals such as this. Then I remember I live in norway :(

Funny :-). Seriously though, aren't there deals in Norway? What's the price over there?

Here in Brazil the 6D can't even be found at stores (just searched -- not even online), but the 60D is worth around US$ 2,000 body-only and up to US$ 3,500 with the 18-200 kit lens. Pretty ridiculous.

Are you serious? That's crazy! For that amount, you could probably fly to the US to buy it, and still have money left after paying airfare and hotel :-).
Exactly, plus you could get a second one and sell it for a reasonable amount when you return back!!

What's the reason for that? Is it Canon's pricing policy? Electronics in general? Or is everything more expensive? I'm guessing something else (i.e. food, housing) must cost less, because it would be hard to get by paying 3x for everything. Unless your incomes in dollar terms are proportionally higher, which is unlikely.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5