July 25, 2014, 12:21:13 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 - dtaylor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:34:53 AM »
If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison?

Once FF fans turn to "equivalence" arguments the debate has pretty much jumped the shark.

Quote
If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster  and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.

As far as exposure is concerned, an f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens.

DoF cuts both ways. If you want razor thin DoF it's hard to beat FF with a fast prime. But you can just as easily find yourself stopping down FF for sufficient DoF and pushing up ISO where you could shoot wide open with crop, thereby negating the high ISO advantage.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:21:56 AM »
...so will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost"  and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise.
And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses.

I think I've been hearing that crop was bound to disappear since the introduction of the original 5D.

Phones/tablets are not going to deliver any where near the same IQ unless and until there is a revolution in imaging sensor technology. If that happens then FF is going to be in as much trouble as crop.

As for FF at the same price as APS-C / m43, there may be some overlap between high end crop and FF, but FF on the whole is more expensive and will continue to be unless and until there is a revolution in sensor fabrication.

Crop out sells FF by a wide margin and will continue to do so.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:00:57 AM »
There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.

Once you're at high ISO. There's not 2 stops at 100, or 400, or even 800. And for most uses (subject matter + viewing size) crop is perfectly fine to 3200 even if FF is starting to show it's advantage there.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:56:32 AM »
So it's a card trick.

No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?

Quote
That must be why I only reluctantly raised the ISO on my 7D past 800, but will go to ISO 6400 on my 1D X with little concern.

If you can't get good RAW files from a 7D at 1600 and 3200 then you're doing something wrong. That said, by 3200 I would certainly expect a large 1DX print to be discernible from a 7D print. At 800? Not unless you're doing something wrong.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 30, 2014, 05:14:28 PM »
It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.

When it comes to sensors, bigger is better.  I guess physics is scary to some people.  ;)

Granted, smaller might be good enough, depending on the application/output.

People over play this card. With current sensors you're not going to see a difference until about ISO 3200. And that's if you print 20". FF is amazing in low light, but the majority of images are not produced there.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 22, 2014, 05:49:22 AM »
I don't apply NR to my images.

If you use ACR and do not explicitly reduce it to 0, you are using it. With DPP or in camera JPEG it doesn't matter if you choose the lowest setting, some is applied any way. You can get away with truly zero NR in low ISO images that are perfectly exposed, but if you're not taking advantage of it at higher ISOs then you are literally handicapping your output vs. cheaper and older sensors that are optimally post processed.

I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. If you were working with raw files from both cameras, wouldn't the 1DIV give you a cleaner image in the final result because the RAW image itself is cleaner to begin with?

Not necessarily because the relationship between NR and detail is not a simple linear one. If you apply X NR to a RAW file to achieve a certain noise and detail level, you may be able to apply X+Y NR to a more noisy RAW file to end up with the same result. Depends on the gap between sensors, the NR algorithms, the settings you feed those algorithms, and also the image itself.

Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.

I was comparing the IR studio scene and looking at the entire scene.

Quote
Sorry to burst your bubble here D by disproving your theory that the 70D has the same low noise as the 1D IV, but there it is in gray, black, and blue.

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post and still don't realize how pointless and irrelevant unprocessed gray patches are. In the real world making real images 70D IQ is indistinguishable from 1D4 IQ until very high ISOs where it's still fairly close. That's sufficient to answer the question posted by unfocused.

Unless, of course, unfocused will be primarily shooting patches in RAW and converting with NR completely off. In which case he should forget about the 7D2 and 1D4 and buy a Nikon or a Sony.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 20, 2014, 06:09:57 AM »
I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 19, 2014, 07:29:57 AM »
Page after page of theorizing mixed with your typical claims that "crop will never do it."

The 70D is the closest glimpse we have at a future 7D mkII. Looking at the Imaging Resource Comparometer I would say the 1D4 is still a bit better at ISO 6400. Though it doesn't appear to be a difference that would matter at the print sizes normally associated with ISO 6400.

ISO 3200...once you've equalized the viewing size...is a wash. Sneezing while your RAW converter is running will make more of a difference than exists between these two sensors at ISO 3200.

I can't imagine the 7D mkII will have worse IQ then the 70D, so yes, I think it will "come close" to the 1D4 and in fact "match" it at ISO 3200 and below. Possibly even at 6400. Especially true if prints are more important to you then going blind studying 300% magnifications in PS.

9
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:50:24 PM »
You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

It's amazing how people keep saying things like this even though the mirrorless market has failed to materialize in the U.S. and Europe, and is still a side market in Japan.

And this is coming from someone who loves his EOS M, wants to see more EOS M bodies and lenses, and thinks mirrorless in general is underrated by the public.

The DSLR isn't going any where, and Canon's profits will continue to come from brisk Rebel sales.

10
Release the info. All of it. Canon should not be charging for design flaws that fall under warranty.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:36:11 PM »
The M, a timid release of a half hearted product... Canon could easily make something that would blow our minds and set the camera world on fire, they chose not to. Instead they let Ricoh, Fuji and Sony have some moments of glory. Their fear of harming Rebel sales allows these other brands some sort of safety net. For now I guess.

The bummer is that the M didn't miss the mark by much. It's a great camera and gets as much use as any of my DSLRs. I love it for street and travel. Both the 22mm and 18-55 IS are great lenses, especially considering their prices.

Canon stumbled on the original AF algorithms, was timid in the release, was priced too high, and then failed to follow up. If they had fixed the AF sooner, shown some commitment with new lenses, and priced it appropriately for the U.S. market things would have been different.

Now? Who knows. I can't imagine Canon would drop the mount, at least not as long as mirrorless is hot in Asia. But I have no idea if they will ever fully commit to mirrorless and reintroduce it to the U.S. I'm glad I have my M an I'm glad I live in a world where it's easy to order bodies and lenses from overseas.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:25:49 PM »
Too bad the gauntlet has poor battery life, an AF system not suitable for tracking moving subjects, and comes from a company notorious for not delivering long-term support for its own product lines.   ::)

Ummm...were you referring to the A7 or the M?  ;D

13
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 Coming to North America & Europe?
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:23:40 PM »
2. Spot metering. JEEZ Canon, this has been a sore subject for so long, let's get that going already!

It's a LiveView camera. Why do you need anything other then full manual and your eyes?

Seriously. I don't bother with any AE mode or metering pattern on my M. I just spin the dial until the scene is correct on the LCD. It's a wonderful way to work, especially in tricky lighting scenarios. You could claim AE is faster, but I would guess it's not once you count AE failures.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 06:21:02 PM »
I think that "excellent detail and sharpness" is a matter of opinion. I thought my 7D+Sigma 50/1.4 was excellent, until I tried 5D2+50/1.8'II (I hated the build, pentagon aperture and AF noise, but it was SHARP!). FF wins thanks to either bigger pixels or more of them.

I'm going to be blunt because I've shot both combinations (owned both lenses at one time, now just the Sigma): at low ISO and wide apertures, if your final 7D+Sigma file doesn't look better then your final 5D2+NiftyFifty file something is wrong.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:06:44 AM »
This is why I have said (and got pounced on for it), that a future 50+ MP full frame camera, is rarely if ever going to fully resolve detail on all of its pixels on most every lens there is...

I wouldn't "pounce" on you for this, but I would disagree. If we were to scale up current APS-C densities they would equal 45 MP or more on FF. The number of lenses and aperture combinations that yield excellent detail and sharpness on my 7D and M are quite large actually. Granted it's more challenging to hold that across the frame on 35mm, but I don't doubt that a 50 MP FF body would prove excellent with good glass and a tripod or IS. I think we would be looking at 75-100 MP before there would be hardly any lenses or apertures that benefit.

Quote
Here is one of my favorite images that I shot with it.  It's not full size, because I try not to show those.  Camera was the 50D.

Beautiful.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30