December 19, 2014, 08:06:13 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 - dtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 57
211
Eh. Not so in practice, you just getting more crappy detail of the crappy part of the lens by adding more MP. However moving to a bigger format with more MP, now that adds real detail gains.

You didn't specify which part. But in practice I can...for example...clearly see the difference between a 70-200 f/4L and f/4L IS on an 18 MP crop sensor. Which means they will show a similar difference at >40 MP FF.

There are actually plenty of lenses out there that can satisfy a 50 MP sensor.

212
Prints are certainly the area that gains the most, especially if you print really large.

You have to print very large to see any gain at all today. In print at 24" I would say there is no real difference between the 5D3, A7, A7R, or D800. You might occasionally spot some small difference with your nose on the print, but most subject matter simply won't show it.

We greatly overestimate our ability to discern detail at a normal viewing distance, even those of us with 20/15 and 20/10 vision. It's really humbling to produce two big prints (19" or 24"), same subject, taken with a modern and an older sensor (say 10 vs. 18 MP), ask people if there's any difference, and have 9/10 say no  :(

I'm not against more MP, I'm just realistic about their impact. A 24 >> 50 MP jump will probably be visible in a 36" print or larger. But 24 >> 36 or 36 >> 50? Meh. The magic number seems to be a 50% gain on each axis.

Quote
For one, it could pretty much eliminate the reach gap between APS-C parts and FF, assuming you could maintain a high frame rate (and we know that's possible...Canon achieved 9.5fps at 120mp.) You could crop any part of a 50mp frame, and have the same kind of reach as a 20-24mp APS-C camera.

True.

Quote
Second, even if you aren't printing, downsampling 50mp means your images sharpen right up without any actual sharpening. Just the act of averaging more information into less space improves your IQ. You could get away with less NR and no sharpening at all when scaling for wallpaper and web sizes.

True, but not much of an issue for the cameras we're talking about.

Quote
Third, 4k screens are going to become more common, and eventually common place, within the next few years. At native size (unscaled...currently some browsers scale images along with text DPI), to keep images looking like 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 prints on screen, they will need a lot more pixels than they currently do. That enhances the second point...starting with more pixels, you can downsample to those relative sizes for native display on a high DPI or 4k screen and still have the benefits of increased sharpness/lower noise.

A fair point though, again, I don't think it matters too much for this class of cameras.

213
You said it is always lower than the weakest component.  So therefore, the weakest component has to be a hard limit on resolution.  Perhaps increasing the resolution of another component causes the system resolution to asymptotically approach the weakest components resolution?

Essentially yes. By "hard limit" I meant that you can't say a 120 lpmm sensor is useless because of a 100 lpmm lens. You're never going to actually achieve 100 lpmm with the system, but pushing up the sensor resolution actually does get you closer even if the sensor is already >100.

I have the formula in a text book some where...I think  ???

214
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:50:10 AM »
Doesn't quoting the Princess Bride invoke Godwin's Law?

They were Nazis, Dude?

Oh, come on, they were threatening an underexposure test! Are we gonna split hairs here? Am I wrong?   ;D

215
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 08:38:08 AM »
Here's a challenge to anyone who feel they know their stuff: 
Meet me at a local brasserie.  I'll bring the stack of prints.  You bring your deep knowledge of "how things really are."  As I share my prints you tell me which camera and which lens made which image.

"All right. Where is the Exmor? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both mount and frame, and find out who is right... and who is dead."

"But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the Exmor into his own print or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the Exmor into his own print, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of me."

"You've made your decision then?"

"Not remotely. Because Exmor comes from Sony, as everyone knows, and Sony is entirely peopled with marketeers, and marketeers are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the print in front of you."

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."


I haven't checked this thread since my last post. Decided to go ahead and see what was on the last page. Thank you Neuro, I needed the laughs  ;D

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a lens debate in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sony when shadows are on the line! Ahahahaha, ahahahaha, ahahaha" -- thud

"Who are you?"

"I am no photographer to be trifled with, that is all you ever need know."

"To think -- all that time it was your print that was Exmor."

"They were both Canon. I spent the last few years building up an exposure technique immune to shadow noise."
  ;D

216
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:44:27 AM »
Well I guess it is the day of the anti-climatic announcement since there's no announcement yet  >:(

Once again...Sony press releases have more DR (dynamic rumors) then Canon's!!!

217
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:43:03 AM »
When people want to talk about it who are you to tell them not to?

I never said you shouldn't be able to talk about it.

Quote
Ok when it´s every thread then there is maybe a little problem.

Exactly  ;D

Quote
I am Canon user and i want to talk about it!

Question: does this mean you would like to discuss real world differences and therefore could produce RAW files as I described? Or does it mean you want a 100 page thread where people talk talk talk about imagined differences or differences never seen in the real world?  ;)

218
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:38:19 AM »
Or maybe you should be banned?
Just so.. because i think that´s ok?

Maybe you could get a sense of humor?  ;)

219
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:34:24 AM »
Yeah yeah whatever makes you sleep better.

Horse laugh.

Quote
But what about the T-shirt? Has it to be pink or is rose ok too?

Smokescreen.

Quote
Canon sensors are as good as Sonys.. everyone is wrong except Canon fanboys.

Straw men. (Nobody has ever claimed either.)

And you wonder why I made that post  ::)

220
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:32:13 AM »

You see a lot of threads being started by Canon fans claiming Exmor sucks or something???  ???

No of course not, why should they lie?

Check overhead...the point just flew by  ;D

This board has a problem with people hijacking every popular thread to discuss Exmor shadow noise. The requirements for reasonable real world examples would a) chill all the extravagant claims and fantasy on the topic, and b) force the trolls to do some work meaning they would stop hijacking every thread.

221
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:27:15 AM »
at this point I would like to see a new forum rule.

...

* Failure to comply results in ... Ban.

OMG, you are the Canon police. I knew it  8).

Now where did my badge go...???  ;D

Quote
Over the years, the DxO overall scores for Nikon crop cameras have improved from 61 (D80) to 83 (D7100).
For the same period of time, Canon has improved from 62 (20D) to 68 (70D).
So, it's a 21-point improvement for Nikon vs 6 points for Canon (and it's the exact same story for FF cameras as well).

Quoting DxO should be an automatic lifetime ban for anyone on any forum at any time  ;D

You know what? Same for Tony Northrup.

Pretty harsh considering I would only give verbal warnings for quoting Ken Rockwell  ;D  ;D  ;D

222
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:22:41 AM »
Was done a thousand times on the web already.

What's up with people and reading comprehension today???  ???

I'm aware of two, and both violated this (at least): * Any converted examples (JPEGs) for forum display must include at least one pair where standard RAW converter settings are applied to each, and this pair must clearly illustrate the issue being complained about.

Turning all NR off is NOT standard.

223
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:19:48 AM »
However, I find it really funny, that you intuitively think that only claims of Canon sensor tech being inferior constitutes "trolling" and would need to be censored...

You see a lot of threads being started by Canon fans claiming Exmor sucks or something???  ???

224
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 07:17:13 AM »
Would you (or others you believe would ascribe to this philosophy) also be willing to supply said raw files from your new 7D2, 5D4, or whatever comes along, shot as required with a lens cap on, in a totally darkened environment

Real world scene...properly exposed..."lens cap on, totally darkened environment."

Wow. Just...wow  ;D

225
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 02:43:23 AM »
Be careful. Saying things like that on these forums is likely to brine the Ire of the Canonites down upon you. ;P

Ire? No. But at this point I would like to see a new forum rule. Before complaining about a Canon sensor vs. any other sensor on the market, one must post RAW files in accordance with the following:

* Scene must be real world and not a contrived test scene.

* Both cameras must be shot at the same time under the same lighting conditions.

* Exposure must be optimal and correct for each sensor (which means it may or may not be the same for each sensor).

* Any converted examples (JPEGs) for forum display must include at least one pair where standard RAW converter settings are applied to each, and this pair must clearly illustrate the issue being complained about.

* The RAW files with full EXIF must be provided for download so that others may offer corrections and advice.

* Failure to comply results in either a locked thread with the reason given (i.e. "This is thread is locked because the author underexposed a black cat in a coal mine and then pushed the exposure 5+ stops in ACR with no NR"), or a deleted thread with a warning to the offender. Repeated attempts? Ban.

This would instantly kill 99% of the trolling, fantasy, and worthless chatter on the subject. But someone with legitimate testing and insight could start an interesting conversation grounded in reality.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 57