March 04, 2015, 11:40:10 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 - tortilla

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
If we're talking about two cameras, both with 18MP of digital perfection, then presuming each has a lens up to the demands of the sensor, there will be no difference.

Eh, no.

Not even close.

Camera A has a square sensor, 1" x 1". Camera B has a square sensor, 2" x 2". Both cameras have a 1024-by-1024 pixel array, for a grand total of one megapickle. Both sensors are digital nirvana, counting photons at the very limit of what quantum mechanics allows.

Each of camera B's pixels can gather four times as many photons as camera A's pixels. Camera B has two stops more dynamic range and the gradients it captures are two stops smoother, with two stops less pixelation. Make a 2" x 2" print from both, and the one from camera B will show two stops more detail and appear that much sharper.

Sure, but you are not always dynamic range limited, for instance in a studio or in a foggy landscape situation. The only difference will be that camera B's sensor needs four times less exposure (and even that doesn't matter when using lighting or a tripod).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D5200 review
« on: January 21, 2013, 05:17:00 AM »
Very interesting, because the D5200 has a Toshiba sensor and not Sony like the D600/D800. So if there are at least two manufacturers that can build such good sensors, Canon will likely be able to come up with such sensors too in the future. I think they finally will, otherwise they would have already begun to buy third-party sensors like Nikon does.

Once again, all else is clearly not always equal. If all you've got is a 300mm lens and you want to shoot the full disc of the moon, yes, of course, you're going to get better results from that lens with a 7D than a 5DIII. But the guy next to you with a 5DIII and a 1200mm f/5.6 is going to get an image of the moon that puts yours with your 7D to shame.

300 mm vs. 1200 mm... so now we're talking about lenses, not sensors anymore?   :)

But I agree with you, when comparing FF vs crop it's not only about resolution. It's also about dynamic range, noise, cost, weight etc.

There are certain situations where a crop delivers higher resolution than a FF with the same lens (even disregarding DoF, AF and the corners). Roger M. Clark has nice shots of the moon with the 5D2 and the 7D that show this:

Nice work, but have a look at center crop APS-C 24 mm, how come that f9 is sharper than f5.6?

You already mentioned DoF on your site:
Add to that the fact that for a given depth of field you're closing down the iris further on your full frame lens (and this helps sharpness too) and I think the result will be pretty much general.
When you want large DoF than we're talking about f/8 (APS-C) and f/11 (FF) or so. IMO closing down even further makes the image actually softer, due to diffraction and lens design.

I'm just jealous I can't afford the 85L, but can get the exact same shot with my 70-200 L f/4....
Actually, you CAN'T get the exact same shot.  There's a reason he has the photography job he does and you, well...

You seem to be very sure of yourself (which is probably a success recipe for a pro photog) but if you write something like this, would you please care to enlighten us why 85L@f7.1 != 70-200/x@f.71 ?
Probably not - DxO Mark measures only f/5.6 and f/8  :)

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

If I'd have to take portraits all day long I would also take a portrait lens, and not a zoom that is slower, heavier, more expensive and has other trade offs. IS is a plus, but obviously Souza uses lighting, so it doesn't matter here.

That said, I'm even jealous of your gear...  ;)

The DR difference gets a lot of hype way, way, more than is justified considering the relatively narrow range of image cases that it really brings benefit to.

Sure, if I would only do studio work with controlled lighting I wouldn't care. But when doing architecure and landscape I quite often loose details in the shadows or even have to overexposure (even at ISO 100).

If DR is a hype than resolution and sensor size are overhyped too. Maybe they really are - but I'm a pixelpeeper and love details in larger prints.

I haven't seen anyone post this sort of thing yet for the 6D/D600 pair but the results will not differ substantially from the 5DIII/D800 in the DR department.  One of the better summaries in this regard was this one (it has been kicked around a lot – I would be surprised if you haven’t seen it before):
Thanks, seems like that the D800 has a way better sensor (for my needs), even though the differences will propably not be that huge after post processing. Still, I have again this feeling that Nikon might denoise the raw dara in camera. If this was true, it would mean that the D800 could be even better, if it would allow more noise in raw and leave the denoising to me in post processing.

Anyway, regarding the D600 vs 6d it's still an open race for me, since the D600 doen't have this huge resolution advantage like the D800.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 vs 6D AF in low light
« on: January 19, 2013, 04:56:49 AM »
Most of my photography with the 5D3 is in low light and I find the focusing to be excellent, at least as good as any other camera I've used in the past 10 years.  And most Canon flashes have a built-in autofocus assist light, so I don't know why anyone would need a laser assist.

When shooting low key portraits, models don't like it to be dazzled by the assist flash.

The DR reputation comes from specific testing done to measure the DR of the camera by DxO (and others).  The results are valid, the DR is indeed there but it does not always show up in actual photographs.  If you want to see the effect of the DR in a real photograph, you will need a scenario specifically set up to demonstrate the DR differences.  There are plenty of them out there and I am sure now that the question has been broached (again) the measurebator crowd will be more than happy to oblige with ample examples.

I would be happy if someone would do so, because up to now I haven't seen test images that let me compare D600 and 6D regarding dynamic range and resolution at the same time (aside from the new dpreview images).

As for DxO: I'am convinced they indeed found that the D600 has less noise in lower tone levels - but what about resolution there? I'm afraid that the raw data might be denoised in camera just to get good sensor test results.

Well, I added focus bracketing to get my name is on the dev list :-p ... all I can say is that ml has been running on my 60d for 1.5 years now w/o problems and the ml is also bare of any severe issues that cannot be resolved by removing the battery.

Hey, that's cool! That's a feature I miss most on canon cameras. I will give it a try when a stable version for the 7D will be released.

I don't want to sound like a canon fanboy, but IQ doesn't seem to be worse than that of the D600 at all. Even the low tone values in the shadows are on the same level with the nikon. So how did the D600 get the reputation of its high dynamic range?

EOS Bodies / Re: New Rebel T4i vs 60d/7D
« on: January 18, 2013, 11:01:29 AM »
I will say one feature I would like in my 60 d is micro auto focus adjustment.

One of Canon's worst marketing decisions to protect the 7d by crippling the 60d firmware and proof that Canon goes to any lengths to differentiate their lineup at the expense of consistent camera packages.
Actually it was rather one of their smartest marketing decisions, because the missing AFMA is the reason why people spent more money and take the 7d instead of the 60d (at least I did).

To the OP: The XSi is a fine camera - as long as you don't do large prints of landscape and architecture I recommend to keep it and wait for the rebel T5i, it is expected to get a new sensor.

EOS Bodies / Re: It's the 15th!
« on: January 16, 2013, 11:07:09 AM »
I understand that maybe optics is could not be significantly improved, however, it is a shame to produce APS-C sensors when all cameras can easily accomodate FF and even larger sensors!!!
It's rather a shame that you haven't yet noticed that many manufacturer already do sell cameras with FF sensors, Canon was the first of them to do so. Why bother about that cameras with smaller sensors are still being produced? They have their advantages (cost, weight etc.) - you don't need to buy them.

Canon EOS 7D is 4 year old model!!!!!
It's 3 years actually.

I really hope that times will come when FF sensor will be used even in entry level DSLRs and we will not see such criples as 6D, which has even worse AF than 4 year old 7D!!!!
Maybe you are too negative... you complain about the 7D because it's APS-C and about the 6D because it doesn't have the 7D's AF. I think what you really want is a 5D3.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5