September 16, 2014, 01:54:21 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 - caruser

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
76
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores
« on: October 11, 2012, 07:50:56 AM »
Oh, it's about DXOMark.

Comfortable chair? Check!

Beverages and snacks? Check!

Let the flaming begin, I'm ready ;-)

77
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: October 04, 2012, 03:37:53 AM »
Why is 14 a hard limit ? I understand that it's impossible to represent more than 2^14 different intensities but that's not what dynamic range is. DR is log2(saturation point) - log2( blackpoint). Why can't this be greater than the number of bits in the ADC converter ?

It could with a nonlinear ADC, except that almost all IC-based ADCs are linear.  So, while the analog DR is the delta between the full well capacity and the noise floor (in e-), a 14-bit ADC maps signal at the noise floor to 0 and signal at full well capacity to 16,383, binning intermediate e- values incrementally, subject to quantization error.

You have the response (possibly nonlinear of the ADC). What about the response of the sensor itself to light ? Must this always be exactly linear ?

Also, if I pool four adjacent signals into one supersize pixel, how many bits do I have in my new "superpixel" ? Do I not have 56 bits ?

That would be too easy, no, when merging 4 pixels you gain (at best) two more bits, because 4 is 2^2 (where the exponent is the one we're interested in). Think about it, you have 4 times a value from 0 to X, so the combination gives you a value from 0 to X*4, which is two additional bits, not X^4 or whatever you need to go to 56 bits! Said differently, you can't multiply the bits by 4 when you multiply the pixels by 4 because the pixels are on a linear, and the bits on a logarithmic scale.

78
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:44:05 AM »
I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR

I dream of the day I can get the same output out of my camera as to what I see in the viewfinder.

Technology today should enable multiple sensors for highlights and shadows and midtones combined in real time.

Even if the camera did 3fps and have 7MP (approx. 4K resolution) I would
Buy one.

It's about time cameras start "seeing" what we see...

multiple sensors? around $20K up.   :D  It will only be available for those who really gets a lot of money through photography or those very rich pampered guys.  Well, we can dream...

Have a single sensor, but with a mask that drops a few stops on every other pixel, i.e. they've got sunglasses on. Combine the pixels and off you go. It would just drop the resolution of your sensor by 1/2, so if you combine it with a higher pixel sensor overall (46mp), then you'd stay par with today with increased DR. I should patent that idea (probably already been done)

Fuji has built sensors with alternating larger and smaller pixels for higher dynamic range.

79
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:07:39 AM »
Yes! Yes! Yes!

Now 28 or 32 would have been enough, but I'll take 46, too ;-)

80
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: September 21, 2012, 08:44:45 AM »
I would rather have a 10-600 f/2 perfectly alligned for an APS-C, weighing not more than 500 gram, which has perfect image quality, no vingetting or CA at all, fully sharp wide open, and is delivered as a kit lens.

Sold seperately for under $1000.

Likelyness it is going to happen? About the same as other suggestions made here  :D
You forgot it also needs to be a pancake :-)
You also forgot that it has to have IS, tilt, shift and macro capabilities too  ;D
Wouldn't buy, no soft focus!

81
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR
« on: September 20, 2012, 11:17:13 AM »
Well, two years later we're gonna have 6Dm2 with multi-cross focus points.

Am I not the only who would prefer a DSLR with e.g. 7 dual-cross type AF-points over one with 1 dual-cross and 42 or so f/5.6 lines?

82
Lenses / Re: When are Canon going to revise the aged 20mm F2.8 ?
« on: August 27, 2012, 10:02:45 AM »
I'd be content with F2.8 as long as it was really good and sharp overall.

+1

Hopefully it would be cheaper than the Zeiss 21mm, but not too much worse (corner performance).

83
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 11:19:44 AM »

... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block

If that was their main motivation to buy a new camera then I'm not feeling with them.

84
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk
« on: August 20, 2012, 03:31:02 AM »
Announcing the whole line mid-year for the following year would be so much better for the consumer...it works that way for the auto industry!

That sounds like an interesting comparison, we are so used to secrecy from companies like Canon or Apple, but on the other hand car makers don't seem to suffer it being known more than a year in advance when a replacement is due, and even other tech companies like Intel have reasonably well known road maps and schedules. So why?

85
I'm waiting most eagerly for one, together with a 135L it'll replace my 70-200 f/4 IS.

86
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 23, 2012, 04:45:16 AM »
Good point about the flash!

I think it's an interesting prospect for existing EOS users as a tiny second body that shoots good video.

The price is a bit high though, in particular the 200 for a mechanical adapter. With such a camera I would also like to get an FD adapter and go raiding local camera shops for cheap lenses ;-)

87
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 02:36:56 AM »
I would be interested in seeing side by side comparison shots to see what provides better quality.

Since they seem to use the same sensor I wouldn't expect any great differences...

88
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 23, 2012, 02:30:13 AM »
Anybody going to get one to try out?  It's fairly cheap, $799.

You forgot the $199 for the EF adapter that most people on this forum would probably want to include!

89
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« on: July 22, 2012, 10:04:33 AM »
If it's reasonably cheap I can see myself getting one with the 22mm and the EF-adapter to fill the gap between phone and DSLR. Otherwise I'll just get the 40mm for the DSLR ;-)

90
EOS Bodies / Modular design
« on: July 22, 2012, 08:25:49 AM »
Computers have been pretty modular for a while, cars are becoming more modular over time, even houses etc...

Why is nobody coming forth with a more modular approach to DSLRs? It seems that Canikon etc. are all stuck in the 20th century regarding certain ideas:

- Make AA filter BTO (build to order) (only D800E does this)
- Make Bayer filter BTO (only Leica M9 does this)
- Make two or three APS-C and FF bodies with different builds, then offer two or three sensors for each.

Suppose Canon had an 18 and 28 MP FF sensor, I could choose a 5D3 with 18MP and 7fps or 28MP and 4fps or a 1DX with 18MP and 12fps or 28MP and 8fps, or something like that.

If they then stopped holding back on software-only features, intentionally crippled firmware and atrocious usability issues it would be really great!

So what I'm wondering, are there technical reasons against this, or is it just the capitalist reality biting us (i.e. we get the worst possible product instead of the best possible, where worst possible is defined as just good enough to make us want to upgrade, and just good enough to keep up with the competition, but no really innovative steps forward unless absolutely forced to by outside pressure).

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9