October 21, 2014, 06:37:45 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 - Wrathwilde

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
121
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Technical Report
« on: January 30, 2012, 10:49:42 AM »
That was actually pretty shockingly uninformative.

Quite.  "We wanted to make a new camera.  We wanted to make it good."  Earthshatteringly insightful...

Now, now, play nice. After all it was posted in the Canon Museum. If you want excitingly new (and suspect) information, you'll have to wait until Canon marketing releases their white paper - "Alien technology, Area 51, and the 1D X: The Truth is Out There."

122
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2012, 09:17:09 AM »
I must write to Canon and tell them that they made a mistake in reducing the mpd from 21 to 18 as it will reduce the performance below that of the 5DII.

I will tell them that they should be looking to a 46 mps ff and all their high iso/low noise issues will go away

I applaud you sir, a good laugh was had. But why limit it to 46 mps ff, obviously more is better, the more pixels you have... the more light you can gather, right? So I'm thinking tell Canon to shoot for the moon - 1,800MP Full Frame, if the 1D X can hit 204,000 ISO at 18MP, then a 1,800MP full frame sensor should be able to hit 20,400,000 ISO. The DR would be amazing too, because everybody knows that image quality goes up across the board when you increase the megapixels.

 The trade offs in MP/ISO/DR up until now have just been a conspiracy to increase sales by leap frogging the competition. Canon, Sony and Nikon are all sitting on the perfect High Megapixel, HDR, million ISO sensor... with no noise, all these tradeoffs are just inside jokes they're playing on their customers.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

123
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2012, 08:41:55 AM »
The 7D outperforms the 5Dmk2 at high ISO image quality per area sensor.
A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

You keep saying that, where's your proof? I think it's clear that the 7D gave up ISO performance to hit the DR numbers it did. DxO labs is probably the most respected independent lab out there, and their tests show that the 7D is not even close to the 5DII in ISO quality.

Again, the 5DII hits 1815 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D is only able to hit 854 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D does a decent job, but it in no way "outperforms" the 5DII in ISO quality.

So show me the proof, or I write you off as a troll.

And, no, at best a 46mp FF sensor based on the 7D would perform at the level of the 7D, possibly more noise issues cropping up from the larger size. It would still be subpar to the image quality of the 5DII in every category. The trade off might be ok for you, but some of us actually want better quality at high ISO, and a 7D equivalent FF sensor doesn't cut it.

Sensor Scores          5DII         7D     Bold type denotes winner in each category

Over all Score           79            66

Color Depth (bits)     23.7        22

Dynamic Range       11.9        11.7

Low Light ISO          1815        854

Edit - to include other DxOMark scores for the 5DII and 7D

124
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2012, 08:09:33 AM »

Donny you're out of your element!

Unless there is some tremendous new breakthrough that negates the laws of physics... you only get to pick two. 

If you want amazing DR and ISO performance then you have to sacrifice Resolution. 

If you want high ISO and Resolution then your DR is really going to suffer. 

No, no it does not have to.
The 7D actually has BETTER DR per area of sensor than the 5D2 by a little bit....

From what I've read on DxOMark the 5DII beats the 7D in DR at every ISO level with a final score of 11.9 vs the 7D's 11.7. 

What did the 7D give up to achieve it's higher pixel count per square mm while maintaining a high DR, oh yeah ISO quality. Look at the DxOMark Sports Score, this is their criteria...

"Sports Score is based on Low-Light ISO performance (values in ISO index). Low-Light ISO indicates the highest ISO sensitivity to which your camera can be set while maintaining a high quality, low-noise image (based on a Signal-to-Noise-Ratio [SNR] of 30dB, a dynamic range of 9EVs and a color depth of 18bits)."

The 5DII reached 1815 ISO before falling below that quality threshold. The 7D only reached 854 ISO before falling below the same quality threshold.

So yes, the 7D did manage to get close to the 5DII's DR levels and upped the resolution per square mm, but it came at the expense of ISO performance. 

I will admit the diffraction limit example wasn't the best... but it was the best I could find in the limited time I had  before heading off to watch the Pro Bowl.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

Also where are you getting the info that some P&S have a better signal to noise than DSLR? I haven't run across that yet. Not saying that it's not true, but what good is it if the rest of image quality isn't there?

125
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 29, 2012, 06:34:21 PM »
I have no understanding what so ever for those who wants better dynamics and ISO performance but not higher resolution when it's clearly better with the better dynamics, ISO performance AND higher resolution. You must be stupid if you want 2 of 3 improvements instead of all 3.

Donny you're out of your element!

Unless there is some tremendous new breakthrough that negates the laws of physics... you only get to pick two. 

If you want amazing DR and ISO performance then you have to sacrifice Resolution. 

If you want high ISO and Resolution then your DR is really going to suffer. 

If you want DR and Resolution then you're going to have to take a hit on ISO. 

Sure we would like all three, but until we can negate the laws of physics in regards to CMOS sensors, you only get to pick two priorities, or a compromising balance of all three, and that's exactly what the 1D X supposedly is, the sweet spot between all three.

I suggest you read up on how CMOS sensors actually work, there are actually physical limits to the photon collecting ability. But the gist is... the smaller the pixel, the less light it will take in, and consequently a lower ISO.

Sensor Technology - http://dpbestflow.org/camera/sensor 

Fundamentals of Image Sensor Technology - http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse567-11/ftp/imgsens/index.html


See for yourself that higher resolution can cause diffraction that actually lessens the image quality...

126
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 29, 2012, 09:28:58 AM »

-  I also expect we won't see any more than a doubling of the ISO speed, probably up to 12,800, but much more usable and probably software limited just to keep it from eating into the 1D X sales. Hopefully we'll see a nice jump in the DR too. But expect the 1D X to trounce the 5DMK3 when it comes to low light and DR performance, even if Canon has to kneecap the upper ISO select-ability of the 5DMK3 to do so. I don't think Canon will let the selectable ISO be anywhere near the 51,200 of the 1D X, even if the noise levels for the two look identical up to 12,800... the 5DMK3 will just not have anything higher available.

I don't think so, Canon has never once intentionally crippled sensor performance.

You misunderstand me, I'm not talking about crippling sensor performance, I'm sure it will be phenomenal, it's just they will impose a limit to the selectable ISO. Who knows it may even remain exactly where it is for select-ability, just that the resulting images will all be much more useable.

And yes Canon has crippled performance of cameras by not including a robust firmware. See the following link. The 300D has the same sensor as the 10D, but the 300D was firmware limited to 1600 ISO and the 10D to 3200 ISO. A firmware hack was all that was needed to reclaim the 3200 ISO on the 300D, and other functions that had been left out.

 http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/digital_rebel_firmware_hack.html

127
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 28, 2012, 08:25:47 PM »
- I can see these specs being accurate if the 5DMK3 is released at $3500-$4000.

- They could pull off using the 61 point auto-focus, no reason not to... but the 100,000 pixel RGB metering will be absent, as will all the features that come with it, like the intelligent tracking and spot metering using the active AF points. So the 1D X will still be well ahead of the 5DMK3 when it comes to mission critical action shots, and evaluative metering.

-  I also expect we won't see any more than a doubling of the ISO speed, probably up to 12,800, but much more usable and probably software limited just to keep it from eating into the 1D X sales. Hopefully we'll see a nice jump in the DR too. But expect the 1D X to trounce the 5DMK3 when it comes to low light and DR performance, even if Canon has to kneecap the upper ISO select-ability of the 5DMK3 to do so. I don't think Canon will let the selectable ISO be anywhere near the 51,200 of the 1D X, even if the noise levels for the two look identical up to 12,800... the 5DMK3 will just not have anything higher available.

128
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Brief Specs? [CR1]
« on: January 27, 2012, 03:42:50 AM »
Why not - the cheap 7D has dual processors??

Exactly, and It wouldn't surprise me if the 5DMK2 is actually cheaper for Canon to build than the 7D. I know there are fewer sensors per wafer in production, but I seriously doubt they cost Canon more than a few dollars more per chip than the 7D's sensor, and by every other measure the 7D is a better built camera. So either it's a wash in cost to produce, or, more likely, the 7D actually costs Canon more per camera.

129
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Brief Specs? [CR1]
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:32:37 PM »
I have to say, I did not expect 7.5 FPS. I think I'll buy one... maybe two.

If you buy two you could get 15 fps, you just need to practice your framing by feel instead of by sight. And if they're $3K a piece you'll save $800 and get 1 fps over the 1D X.

130
Portrait / Re: Costumes and other
« on: January 26, 2012, 06:32:26 PM »
Canon T90, Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8, Kodak MAX 400. The model refused to pose, insisted that I take the pictures while she danced, manual focus.

131
Portrait / Re: Black and White portraits
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:49:40 AM »
Old School B&W - Canon T90, Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8, T-MAX P3200

132
Site Information / Re: a thank you letter to Canon Rumors
« on: January 18, 2012, 03:25:58 PM »
By the way, if you don't like SOPA, you really aren't going to like what it coming in the sales tax arena.  Within the next two years, there is a strong likelihood that so-called tax-free online shopping is coming to an end.

  Really, I have no problem with internet sales being taxed. I welcome it, it would make bookkeeping for the business so much simpler. To claim we are against SOPA because we want everything free is missing the point of the protest entirely. It's not about a support of piracy, it's about due process of law. We've already seen corporations abuse the process of take down notices for works they do not hold the rights to, expanding that to entire sites without going through the process of determining that (1) The people requesting the take down are actually the right holders, and (2) That the sites failed to take down said content when requested to do so. The way SOPA/PIPA is written, it's the equivalent of me having you thrown in prison because I wrote to the police that you "broke the law"... then telling you that if you want to get out of prison that you have to prove that you didn't break the law. You get no trial, no jury, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. In the mean time we get to have all the payment networks block any financial transactions with you, or they could be in violation by aiding your "criminal" undertakings. 

  So yes, I do have a problem with corporations being able to take down entire websites with a simple "good faith" claim of infringement. If a site is infringing then let them send a take down notice for the offending material, if the site refuses to take down the material then let it be fought out in court. If the complaint is valid, then let a court order be issued to have the site taken down, and hey, guess what, we already have laws to do that, it's just that companies, and governments, don't want to have to bother with the legal process, they want the power to terminate sites on their word alone.

133
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]
« on: January 17, 2012, 10:37:08 AM »
mkII represent a designation for a new lens in its current "configuration" which includes IS.  So for the 24-70, if it does not have IS, it will be called 24-70 f2.8L II.  If it does have IS it will be called 24-70mm f2.8L IS.
Hope this helps...Jacques

I see, I was under the impression that if the II was after the IS on Canon lenses referred to the IS generation instead of the a combined IS/Lens generation. Probably from an article I read on a IS II lens where they mentioned it was a second generation IS system and I (erroneously) equated that the II after the IS was a reference to the 2nd generation IS system.


 Still confusing on Canons part from a end users perspective, in that if they were up to an IS IV lens and they then produced a lens that had never had IS before and marked it as just an IS, the average consumer will likely think it's an obsolete design - (IS) vs (IS IV), as canon doesn't exactly go out of their way to let you know the original release dates on their lenses.

(Hell, I've been Canon Only since 1985 and I had it wrong, chances are the average consumer will too.)

134
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]
« on: January 17, 2012, 12:13:45 AM »
<strong>Here we go again</strong> [...] the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II.
Indeed ;)  I'll just point out I think CR Guy is being funny with this, as we've already discussed the apparent wrongness of the "IS II" specification when the current lens is not IS so the IS II moniker would be erroneous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the II designation has anything to do with whether a lens had IS previously, but what generation of IS technology Canon is using for the lens. You wouldn't call the DIGIC 5 processor a DIGIC 1 just because it's going in an all new camera body, the same holds true for for the IS, it's Canon's 2nd generation IS system... even if it's the first appearance in this particular lens.

135
EOS Bodies / Re: When will Canon 1D-X release?
« on: January 06, 2012, 05:53:17 AM »
At 2:30, he said "4799 available on Feb 16!!!"

£4799 refers to price in british pounds, not quantity available. Which would put the british price about $648 above the US price of $6800. I seem to recall reading that Canon is aiming at 10,000 units per month for the 1D x. 

 I imagine that Canon could have several thousand ready for an advance launch if they felt like pushing up the date to steal Nikon's thunder.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10