October 31, 2014, 12:57:09 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 - UrbanVoyeur

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 28, 2012, 12:31:05 AM »
Would it be too much to ask that this beast ship with built in Wi-fi and GPS?

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:47:32 AM »
Since they are calling it the 3D maybe it will have eye control focus!  (dreaming)

18
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 19, 2012, 06:16:30 PM »
Apologists and bashers. So few realists. Sigh.

The Nikon line using Sony sensors has a consistent, measurable, but modest advantage in DR, color depth and ISO sensitivity over the current crop of Canon sensors at all price points. That cannot be denied. DXOMark and several other sites have shown this.

I'm NOT entirely convinced that these factors alone will result in appreciable difference in image quality under most conditions.

However, when combined with the additional megapixels which DO make difference in cropping and enlargement for publication, the Nikon line has an advantage for now.

I am firmly convinced that if Canon could produce a comparable line of sensors  - same DR, ISO color depth, at the same or higher MP  - for the same price as their current line, they WOULD. They cannot. So this Canon line is the best they can do for right now. Hopefully in the next couple of years they will catch up.

In the meantime, they have been making significant strides in lens quality, so they are not sitting on their hands.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?
« on: September 19, 2012, 07:57:55 AM »
You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

That wouldn't work out, you'd just have a ton more hot pixels and I've never heard of a manufacturer calling poorly made 22MP sensors that have 2 million dead pixels a 20MP sensor. And just think, they list the image dimensions, how do you get that change with random dead pixels here and there throughout?

In sensor production, it is not all or nothing when it comes to pixels. Yes, there are dead pixels and hot pixels, but that's not what I'm talking about.  More common problems are noisy pixels, non-linear pixels and low ISO pixels.  Very often these can be corrected using the average value of a group of adjacent pixels, rather than rely on just that one.  Or by comparing them to nearby pixels and using an offset. Sometimes the only solution is to ignore the output. Typically, these problem pixels are not uniformly distributed - they tend to cluster, while the rest of the pixels may be perfect.

Since you can't use a sensor that is high res everywhere except the lower right corner where the problem pixels are, any solution must be applied uniformly to the whole sensors. Even if it means ignoring or averaging the output of perfectly good pixels.

Each sensor produced is tested and the response of each pixel measured. If a model of averaging, offsetting or ignoring problem pixels is found that will produce a lower resolution but perfectly performing sensor, the model is a applied and the sensor is used at the lower MP count. This is how many small, compact camera sensors are produced. I also think it is where the SLR AF sensor come from.

It is not necessary to apply the same correction model to every problem pixel on a given sensor as long as you end up with a uniform distribution of good pixel clusters. On a single sensor, there may be a mix of non-linear pixels, noisy pixels and  pixels that only respond at high or low light levels. As long as the corrections gives results in a consistent and uniform pitch, say groups of 2, 3 or 4 pixels, it can be tailored to correct each problem separately.  Various correction models can be tested mathematically to find the optimal solution - cleanest output, highest MP count. The results are stored in sensor correction array map that is ROM on the chip.

This method has limitations. Too many problem pixels in one area or across the sensor, and all correction models fail - the sensor is discarded. But is is quite possible to start with a sensor that won't pass at 24 MP but with correction, will work at 12 MP. Or start with 40 MP and get 20 MP. Not all the corrections are simple averaging, so the relationship between  the starting point and ending point is not always a factor of 2 or 3.

20
Canon General / Re: Canon EOS 6D Preorders
« on: September 18, 2012, 11:28:11 AM »
6D is $2100 but the 5D Mk3 is available as low as $2800?  For $700 more I could get a more capable (but still overpriced) camera?  No thanks 6D.  At $1500-$1700, yes but not at $2100.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?
« on: September 18, 2012, 08:23:16 AM »
so a canon 22 MP sensor is a high MP sensor compared to sonys 30+ pixel sensor.. no that makes sense.  :D
Sorry for my poor communication skills. I am NOT saying that at all. 

I think that Canon has trouble producing high MP FF sensors (30-40 MP) and that yet another FF camera (6D) in the 20 MP range is evidence. I think the Canon yields from the 30-40 MP die that are usable at full resolution are extremely low.  If they could produce a higher than 20 MP FF sensor at this price point would. So far it is too expensive to market the Canon 30-40 MP sensor. Sony appears to have overcome this problem, as seen in the new Nikon and Sony FF's.

Quote
You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.
not possible because of the pixel pitch.

Then perhaps it is from their 30-40 MP sensor die. I don' think Canon would go through the trouble of developing an new interim 20 MP die when they are so close with the 30-40 MP die. It makes more sense to use those rejects.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?
« on: September 17, 2012, 10:43:19 PM »
high MP fullframe sensors... high compared to what?  ;)
Compared to the 30+ MP senors from Sony.

so they decided to put money in R&D to produce yet another FF sensor instead of using the 5D MK2 sensor?
if it is a new developed sensor and not some camouflaged 5D MK2 sensor.

You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

This sensor could also be the "failures" or less than top performers from the yet to be announced 36-40 MP FF sensor die that Canon has been working on. This makes more sense given the large pitch which could be the result of nearest neighbor averaging.  If that's the case, then Canon should be ready with a 36-40 MP camera before summer 2013.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sensor... why?
« on: September 17, 2012, 10:39:57 AM »
I think it is quite simple - this is the best Canon can do at this price point. I believe Canon is still struggling with the production yields of is high MP full frame sensors.

This 20 MP full frame could very well be the same sensor as in the 5D, but produced to less exacting standards, by either grouping/averaging or ignoring under-performing pixels. It is a common practice in sensor production. Sony does the same with its FF sensors.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:42:28 PM »
Looking at the intended target group of "consumers, P&S upgraders", Canon made a major mistake to not include the following items in the EOS-M:
* pop-up flash
* fully articulated screen
* WiFi and GPS
* "Direct Facebook Button"

Inclusion of these features would have made the EOS-M the clear "king of consumer-grade compact system cameras". Instead, the EOS-M is still "lacking" in some ways ... just like all other CSCs currently on the market ... but more expensive than most. This will limit sales and keep Canon from reaching a commanding market position in the CSC segment any time soon.
+1
I wholeheartedly agree!

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:40:10 PM »
Funny, more than once I've heard the comment  in Canon Rumors that an articulating screen is nothing more than a gimmick (I completely disagree with that comment).  Now Canon comes out with a consumer level camera WITHOUT an articulating screen and it's called a stripped down cell phone in part because it lacks what others here call a gimmick.  Seems Canon cannot do anything right.
Canon apologists will always justify whatever Canon does.  I make constant use of articulating screens when I have one.  To make the GX with an articulating screen (which I own) and M without one is silly. Making the S100 with GPS and the M without is equally stupid.

And lately, for me, Canon has done very little right in my book.

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 26, 2012, 12:21:50 AM »
How can you say an interchangeable lens camera is no more versatile than a camera phone that cannot change lenses?  Can you add an external flash to a camera phone?  I have a droid X and can tell you it takes lousy photos and forget it if they move.
Canon had a chance to do the extraordinary and once again settled for the ordinary. 

I realize that the camera has interchangeable lenses and hot shoe. And those are nice things. But without an articulated screen, there's only one way to hand hold it and almost no way to steady it without a tripod or monopod. Which makes it the equivalent of smart phone with extra lenses. A very front heavy smart phone.

Oh wait, smart phones have built in GPS and a built in flash. I guess the M is stripped, not equipped.

Canon needs help.

27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 24, 2012, 08:47:58 AM »
Remember these are being aimed at people that are coming from Phones as their primary source of camera.
If it is no more versatile than a camera phone than what is the point.

Its a limitation that people learnt to deal with.
You're apologizing for a design failure. I prefer better designs, especially when the add on cost is trivial.


Do the average users really need over 18MP?
remember the 1100D is still only 12MP so for these users this is a considerable jump. Plus 18MP means consumers can get away with relatively small capacity SD cards. You start bumping that up to 22,24 or heaven forbid 36MP and the large file sizes and future storage issues give average consumers a reason to buy the other model.
You're justifying and apologizing for a failure of Canon technology. Cannon is behind in sensor technology. they need to catch up.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 09:36:14 PM »
Three places canon missed it:
 - No built in GPS
Trivial extra cost. The GPS accessory shown is almost as big as the camera.

 - View screen does not swivel or tilt
We are supposed to hold this camera away from body to shoot. If the screen does not swivel or tilt it can only be used at eye level - not waist level, over head or off center.

- 18 MP
Really? I guess Canon's problems producing higher MP sensors at a reasonable price are greater than I thought.

Oh well.

29
What's really amazing is that somehow some people rate 1fps difference more precious than 36MP and 14.5 stops of dynamic range... Wow...
I find it amazing too.
I guess for some it is a big deal. For others, I think they will justify anything Canon puts out.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: This should be more than a rumour
« on: May 27, 2012, 09:13:31 AM »
Great ideas. Yes to both pin and GPS locator.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6