December 17, 2014, 09:38:15 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 103
1321
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mkii at $2,219 on Amazon today (12-7)
« on: December 07, 2011, 02:18:32 PM »
Waiting for it to hit $1799 !  :-X

1322
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]
« on: December 07, 2011, 02:17:44 PM »
Neuro... have you stacked the 1.4 + 2x on the 70-200mkii ?

No, I haven't tried that (yet).  I can, if there's interest.  I've been considering doing a comparison set between 70-200 II with single and stacked TCs, 100-400mm with single TCs, and then cropping everything to the same FoV (equivalent to the longest, i.e. 100-400 + 2x), in decent light (unlike the one time I tried the 100-400+2x), and seeing which gives the best results...

I am very curious... if it is decent, I might just splurge on a TC myself...  ;D

1323
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 IS II Soft at 70mm?
« on: December 07, 2011, 11:35:59 AM »
Hi Peter:

I had the same issue... Take a look at some tests I did at 100mm (similar set-up as yours) with 2 copies of the 70-200f2.8 mk.ii, I got recently:

I am used to the sharp 70-300L, after all the hype of the 70200f28mkii I too got myself a 70-200mk.II, the tests show it is sharp... but not mindblowingly sharp...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2322.msg49510.html#msg49510

Hope this helps.
K

1324
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]
« on: December 07, 2011, 10:05:07 AM »
 Neuro... have you stacked the 1.4 + 2x on the 70-200mkii ?

1325
Funny thing is last night I was up-rezzing my 5D shot (12.8mp) to print a 24" x 20" for framing.

When I upped the print area (canvas size = 24x20 with smooth gradients algorithm), the issue I saw was not blurring of details, rather ugly noise (Pic was taken at 50 ISO ) : I had to use topaz/Nik define to get rid of the noise then unsharp mask in Photoshop, but it turned out pretty good.  Nik define fixed one noise pattern and Topaz the other. Both work a little differently so modest amounts of both fixed my issue without much loss of detail.

The limitation was not the sharpness/ detail, rather noise artifacts. Assuming 12.8mp was good enough for a 24" x 20" print, I'd say 2mp is enough for 4x6, 3mp for 5x7, and 8-12 mp more than ok for 8x10 prints.

1326
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mkII - 7D
« on: December 05, 2011, 02:43:25 PM »
Curious if you use the camera processed jpegs or RAW's from both Cameras? The jpeg rendition of the T2i is better than the older rebels/ xxD's.

1327
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]
« on: December 05, 2011, 02:21:08 PM »
I can hear it now!
"And with this 35 megapixel compact body you only have to point it in the general direction of the target and you can later crop down to a 18 megapixel image, just like the 1DX body!!"

Haha made my day, thanks!  ;D

1328
About 6 years ago, the air conditioning on the roof of the building I was working in had a problem with a bearing. It produced a very high pitch noise that I could hear and gave me a headache but nobody else in the office could (I was the youngest...)

Dare I ask what your thoughts are on 96kHz audio? I've got a few SACDs and the appropriate equipment to deliver 192/96 to the amp and out of the speakers...

Exactly! I suspect that if a 5DX were to have a foveon style sensor with colours arranaged vertically rather than in a horizontal 2x2, we'd find companies doing the Sigma thing and calling a camera with 15MP a 45MP camera.

Dilbert: We live in a world where the youth of today embrace the MP3... so 96kHz was pretty much dead on arrival. The beauty of SACD was not only the 96/192kHz sampling, but the ditching of discrete paralell bits and going for a stream of data. It was just a different way of processing data, not merely an upsampled engine that CD used. I too have a few SACD's lying around, they are not bad,  the pricing killed it as well.

Going back to the topic: Looking at apple/ google, buying off companies seems to be the best way to get Patents... however I suspect the fact that the Fovean did not dazzle people like they expected it to may have something to do with it...

1329
One of the problems with very tiny photosites is the narrow angle of view of each photosite.  Those toward the outer edges have a real issue trying to get light due to the angle of the light rays.   

Does that in any way translate to more vignetting at the corners on the 7D?

1330
If the maximum resolving power of the current L-series lenses is around 45MP for full-frame 35mm cameras then when the MP count exceeds 90MP is when we have too many MP. Why 90? Because at that point we've got enough resolution to properly sample the light and give clear definition to the 45MP worth of detail.

Kind of like how the music on CDs is sampled at 44khz, whereas the human can't hear much over 22k. The higher sampling gives better definition to what can be heard.

I may not be an expert in Digital photography, but I have spent half a lifetime as an Audiophile. If they had designed a "decent" Brick Filter at 22kHz, we would be fine. The issue was not frequency limitations, rather phase shifts caused by the brick filtering at 44.1kHz. Moving out the frequency bandwidth, merely softened the phase shift. PS: Most of us can't hear above 16kHz (maybe we could 20 years ago)   :-\ but in trying to stick to the topic, why not 135mp (each photosite does RGB ) or even 180mp for in Camera 4 to 1 binning?  :)

1332
Lenses / Re: 70-200f2.8 mk.II vs 70-300L sharpness test
« on: December 03, 2011, 09:14:34 PM »
Thanks for the tests!  I will reiterate that using autofocus is not the best way to test lens sharpness, since you're not testing just the lens, but how well the lens is matched to the camera's AF.  Also, an angled ruler is a challenging target for the AF system. So, while I appreciate the efforts, and acknowledge this test has meaning for your camera+lenses, I don't believe the results can be generalized to these lenses as a group, due to the confound of using AF (with no ability to calibrate it).

I understand about generalizing the tests for all lenses.

However, grant me this... if I saw the numbers sharper at the higher or lower end of the scale (lets say 13" or 11" etc, then it would indicated forward or back focus, this is not the case, the lens is correctly focusing at 12"
 
The older 70-200 (1st pic) has a slight back focus, however it is still withing the dof and captures 12" at good sharpness.  The second is centered at 12" meaning it is optimally focussed.

Given that the slanted ruler, an inaccurate focus would be visible either up or below (instead of 12"), thus I still believe, this test is valid for this set of 3 lenses.

The proof is that maximal sharpness is visible between 11.5" to 12" for all lenses.

1333
Lenses / Re: 70-200f2.8 mk.II vs 70-300L sharpness test
« on: December 03, 2011, 05:40:12 PM »
The camera did not move from the tripod, I switched lenses while the camera was latched on to the tripod. I know it did not move. While I can understand what you are referring to, I would like to think that the focal lengths are referenced to the sensor, again which did not change in distance to the ruler.

If you check the exif information in each jpeg, it shows 200mm for each shot (if you care to download the attachments).

1334
Lenses / 70-200f2.8 mk.II vs 70-300L sharpness test
« on: December 03, 2011, 05:07:54 PM »
Did some tests as a result of a discussion on another thread. Comparing the sharpness of the 2 great lenses with the following test conditions: Subject shot = a Ruler placed 45 degrees on the wall and focused on the 12" mark.

Attached are 3 shots; 2 of the 70-200mk.ii (I have 2 copies, the old one is a refurb unit and the new one is a new unit bought from adorama) and the last 1 of the 70-300L

1) ISO = 100
2) F5.6 (favors the 70-200 slightly since it is natively larger aperture)
3) 5D mounted on tripod
4) camera jpeg used: zero PP done except 100% crop .
5) Spot AF at the 12" Mark. Did not MF since I seldom use MF with these 2 lenses; Spot AF relevant for my use.
6) Used various focal lengths but the attachments are for all 3 at 200mm
7) Ruler was vertically placed with top = higher numbers on scale. After cropped I turned the crops 90 degrees clockwise for better viewing.

Conclusion:

1) The 2 copies of the 70-200mk.II are very similar in sharpness and focal length
2) The 70-300L set at 200mm shows a smaller frame compared to the 70-200's not sure which one is accurate the 200's or the 300.
3) The 300 seems slightly sharper than both (though it is a toss) and has a greater DoF at f5.6 than the 200's.

Hope this helps people who are considering both:


1335
Canon General / Re: 15% Off at Canon Refurbished Store
« on: December 02, 2011, 04:37:57 PM »
15% would be an even better bargain if Canon would not slap sales tax on the final invoice value... BH/ Adormama etc are cheaper cause they don't put sales tax on top when shipping to Indiana.

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 103