July 28, 2014, 01:15:54 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 896
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:35:39 PM »
I have wondered for a while about the possibilities that DXO and Nikon are tied at the hips. It looks like the ratings are heavily skewed towards what Nikon is good at and completely ignores what Canon is good at. After all, a Nikon 7100 beats a Canon 1DX in the sensor ratings..... yet in the real world, how many people are going to upgrade a 1DX with a 7100?

when you look at the specs for the two cameras on DXO, and you look at autofocus (the place where Canon really shines) you find that the Nikon 7100 has "Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); Continuous-servo AF (AF-C); auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A); predictive focus tracking activated automatically according to subject status. Manual focus (MF): Electronic rangefinder can be used " while the Canon 1DX has "One Shot AI Servo ".

And drive modes.... the Nikon does 6 frames per second and the 1DX does 12.... so what does DXO say?
Nikon 7100 - Continuous low-speed [CL] mode; 1-6 frames per second Continuous high-speed [CH] mode; 6 frames per second Interval timer photography supported Mirror-up [Mup] mode Quiet Shutter Release Self-timer mode Single-frame mode
Canon 1DX - Single, Continuous L, Continuous H, Self timer (2s+remote, 10s+remote), Silent single shooting

Tell me that isn't biased......

I actually really doubt there's any collusion between Nikon and DxO.  Their Scores are biased, but there's a logic to that bias (still...bias is bias, and they don't make it obvious).  I also take issue with their 'black box' formulas. 

As for the specs issues, the Nikon ones are copies straight from Nikon's website, as are the Canon drive mode spec (yes, DxO really should have listed comparable specs including fps).  The AF mode DxO lists for the 1D X differs from the Canon USA spec, likely they took it from the EU site.  Good thing, though - Canon USA says the 1D X also has AI Focus, and it doesn't...a typographical error on Canon's part.

Of course, DxO could have made 'honest errors' but as I said, their history argues against them.  For example, when called on their mistake of stating the 70-200/2.8L IS II was not as good as the MkI lens it replaced, they defended their conclusion and explicitly stated no mistake was made...then a year later, they silently replaced the original data with new data supporting the opposite (and correct) conclusion.

32
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:31:03 PM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.


I know nothing of the sort
...


So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?


Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?  You really might want to consider taking one.  Honestly, I'm not trying to be insulting (although I admit it could be taken as such).  You really seem to have difficulty grasping the meaning of written statements, not just mine but those of many people on these forums. 

To clarify...and read carefully, please.   DxO does not include Canon's logo among their 'sample of clients' which include 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers'.  Given Canon's status in the industry (#1 dSLR manufacturer for >10 years, and one of the top 10 compact camera makers), it would be a foolish business decision to not display Canon's logo if they were able to do so.  I assume DxO are not fools, so what are the other possible reasons to exclude Canon's logo?  The most likely (and therefore, first-listed) reason is that Canon did not give them permission to display their logo.  That's a reasonably common practice - I work for a Fortune 100 company, many small vendors request permission to include our logo on their list of clients, and for the most part we deny those requests.  The other possible reason is that DxO is making a misleading statement on their website.  Are they 'lying'?  It's shades of gray.  They state "all of the top ten DSC manufacturers" but don't specify what they mean by 'top ten'.  Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on DxOMark Sensor Scores' and maybe Canon is not on that list.  Perhaps they mean 'top ten based on sales in France' and maybe Canon is not on that list. 

Regardless, my statement which you call out, "I know nothing of the sort," immediately followed and was mainly in reference to your final statement: "...you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't."  As I stated, DxO has a history of 'being false on their website'...they have been guilty of that many times, so it's a reasonable possibility that it may be the case with this particular issue. 

Perhaps you could state your reasoning which supports the idea that DxO is being truthful that their client list includes 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers' as defined in a relevant way (any relevant way, e.g. global sales, would place Canon on that list), but has chosen not to display the logo of the #1 dSLR maker and BusinessWeek's #35 global brand (link) among their list of clients.   What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions? 

Actually, I expect your response to be something pithy like 'we can't know' or 'it doesn't matter,' – both of which are copouts to which you've resorted in the past.

33
Lenses / Re: What do you do with lens cases?
« on: July 25, 2014, 08:41:00 PM »
I prefer the LowePro individual lens cases...

Me, too (obviously!).   However, I'm not too keen on their resized cases (the ones named by size, e.g. 8x6, 9x13).  There's nothing equivalent to the old 1W (I have two), which is perfect for a variety of lenses with their hoods (24-70, 24-105, 17-55, 16-35, TS-E 24, 35L, 85L, 135L, etc.).  The 2S is ideal for the 100L Macro, also no current equivalent.  Likewise, there's nothing like the old 1N (which I also have) that was purpose-made for the two TCs, even came with a padded disc to go between them. 

The 8x6 is ok (holds the EF 12 + 25 tubes or the EF-M 18-55), the 9x13 is perfect for my RRS BH-55 LR ballhead, but no lenses I own fit with their hoods.  I got the 11x14 for the 70-300L, it's really bulky (it's the size for all those 1W lenses+hoods I listed above, but they rattle around in it); it holds the 70-300L ok, but not if the tripod collar is on it (the less bulky Lens Exchange 100 AW holds the 70-300L with its collar).

34
Lenses / Re: What do you do with lens cases?
« on: July 25, 2014, 08:29:30 PM »
Not to go OT too much, but I'm curious to hear the ratio of lenses to bags owned by this forum.  Photogs tend to be mighty picky about camera bags.

Not including the nice pouches/cases that come with L lenses, I have 7 camera bags and 7 lenses.  In fairness, only three of the bags are purpose-built for cameras and the others are generic-use satchels and bag that I have foamed-up with inserts.

I have 13 lenses (will be 14 soon, deciding between the 16-35/4L IS and TS-E 17/4L), and two TCs.  I have a whole bunch of Lowepro cases and bags:

  • 8 Lens Cases (various sizes) and 2 Lens Exchange cases (both sizes – 100/200)
  • 3 Toploader Pro bags (all three sizes – 65/70/75)
  • Utility bag 100 AW (perfect for 1D X + 40/2.8 pancake)
  • 2 Sliplock Pouches (10/30) and 2 Quick Flex Pouches (55/75)
  • 4 backpacks (Flipside 300/400, DSLR Fastpack 250, Lens Trekker 600)
  • 5 small camera cases (Dashpoint 20/30, Apex 20, Napoli 20, Edit 100)
  • Deluxe and light technical belts

I also have 5 Storm hard cases to store gear at home (im2720, im2500, im2300, im2075, im2050).

It might be immodest, but I'm a bit proud that I have more camera bags than my wife has purses.  ;)

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 25, 2014, 06:59:13 PM »
M mode with Auto ISO is great for fast-moving subjects in fast-changing light!  You pick the shutter speed to freeze or show motion, the aperture to give you the DoF you need, and the camera picks ISO for a metered exposure.  On the 1D X, you can bias the metered exposure by setting EC.

I would never do that.  I like a group of shots from a single event to have a consistent "look" which means a roughly consistent amount of noise from shot to shot.  Many of these shoots have exposures varying by four stops or so.  I usually shoot at ISO 200 and f/6.3 at these, but if I chose this approach, I'd end up shooting from ISO 200 to 3200, and I wouldn't want that.

Your original comment was 'useless for fast-moving subjects in fast-changing light.'  Useless to you would have been a better way to phrase it.  Birds in flight consitiute such a subject that I commonly shoot.  The minimum shutter speed is generally 1/1600 s to freeze wing motion, allowing relatively little flexibility in shutter speed (2.33 stops before hitting 1/8000 s).  Likewise, one generally needs at least f/6.3 to f/8 for sufficient DoF, further limiting flexibility (often the lens is f/5.6 anyway – 600/4 + 1.4x – and stopping down too far isn't wise).  Given that, neither Av nor Tv are really ideal for that situation (although usable on a 1-series body, where it's possible to set min/max for both aperture and shutter speed...and assign them to a C# user setting).  But for BIF, M mode with Auto ISO is pretty close to ideal.

36
Lenses / Re: What do you do with lens cases?
« on: July 25, 2014, 06:20:53 PM »
I keep the canon cases tucked away in the original lens box.  They are valuable when it comes time to resell a lens, having them increases the resale value by more than what the pouch is worth.

Me, too.

37
The 24L + BH-40 LR may be the best choice.  Personally, I have the TQC-14 + BH-30 LR for travel (in the RRS quiver bag it fits within my Storm im2500 carryon hard case), and I have the TVC-33 + BH-55 LR for near home, which I often use with the PG-02 LLR gimbal instead of ballhead (the leveling base with clamp makes swapping a breeze), to support my 600/4L IS II.

38
Canon General / Re: Canon at Photokina
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:00:34 PM »
Looks like a 70D based on the port covers.  I'd think a 7DII would have a PC port, right?

</bubble burst>

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:37:48 PM »
Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....

Could I suggest the following layout.....

Add C1-5, and I'd be happy. :D
Even better!

Wow....that would make it essentially useless for fast-moving subjects in fast-changing light.

M mode with Auto ISO is great for fast-moving subjects in fast-changing light!  You pick the shutter speed to freeze or show motion, the aperture to give you the DoF you need, and the camera picks ISO for a metered exposure.  On the 1D X, you can bias the metered exposure by setting EC.

40
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:46:57 AM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort, and given their history and "black box" methods, questioning their statements and veracity is certainly within reason.  DxO has been guilty of a variety of falsehoods on their website.  They have corrected (without acknowledging their errors), others remain.

You seem to be going out of your way to argue the point, are you suggesting that DxO is infallible?

41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 07:52:21 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.

Read the quote on DxO's web page:

"Here is a sample of some of our clients."

It doesn't say that those listed are DxO's only customers. It also doesn't say those listed are the top ten DSC manufacturers. It just says that they are *some* of DxO's customers. So Canon could well be a customer of DxO and if they were, then the statement on DxO's webpage is still true.

Yes, I can read and comprehend, a skill some lack.  Perhaps you should read my post again to confirm for yourself that I did not indicate that DxO's statement is false, only that it could be...  You might also note that I listed that possibility second, not first.

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to them, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 04:06:30 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.

43
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 04:04:41 AM »
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.

True.  DxO is a service provider, and as the saying goes, the customer is always right.

44
Lenses / Re: Ditching the Primes - Advice/Opinions Needed
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:28:15 AM »
The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II are my two most frequently used lenses for my three kids.

45
CL - You can hit the lottery and find a real buyer and boom, cash in hand. otherwise, it's a terror. people just suck.

I have now, successfully sold most of my stuff on CL; the direct benefit is zero comeback if the sale goes through.   ...I've been surprised the rest of the time how very nice people are.

 +1

Sold my 16-35/2.8L II today to a CL buyer, went fine as usual.

I've met quite a few nice, interesting people.  I did have 'comeback' of sorts, one time.  I listed a lens, and got an email from someone to whom I'd previously sold a lens (I use similar language in my posts)...he ended up buying the second lens as well.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 896