March 06, 2015, 05:02:22 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 - Meh

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
1
EOS Bodies / Re: More About the EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:52:38 AM »
I can't seem to find the logic as to why people complain about certain things.

We have options for everyone. Why is it when a new option comes along people act like they are being forced to buy it at gunpoint for something it is not intended?

When 7D2 was released, people complained it didn't have a flippy touch screen and wifi. Does the 70D not exist?

When the 11-24 was rumored, people complained it is too wide, too slow, and doesn't take filters. So no other fast UWA lens exists that takes filters?

I really hope people's lives are not so boring and miserable that they feel the need to just constantly complain. These companies are giving us amazing options for little or no profit. I swear some people would complain about a free sandwich because it wasn't slice at the angle they prefer.  :)

I bet if we took someone from 1990 and brought them ahead in time, they would be dumbfounded, and eager to slap some people around for their perceived "first world problems." Back then, digital photography was a fantasy. Today, it is better than anyone could have ever imagined.

You must be new to the Internet... it's what people do 'round these parts  ;D

2
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 05:29:26 PM »
what so many people seem to forget is that Sony sensors work better at low ISO and canon sensors work best at high ISO. Nobody is best across the board. I think it would be a step backwards for the industry to just pick one.


Look at the DR difference between Sony and Canon at High ISO (rather modest, I mean what, like barely 1/4 stop worse than the 6D? and actually like at least a 1/4 stop of more better than 5D3) and at Low ISO (huge):
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___975_836_795

Look at the SNR (Sony actually ahead at High ISO, if anything, although it's basically all within the margin of error and nobody will notice any differences on this plot even if the data is exact anyway):
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___975_836_795

So....

The downsampling in the DxO testing methodology may have something to do with that.  Roger Clarke has for years, if I understand it correctly, stated that Canon sensors are the best for low-light, astro-photography and he recently called the 7D2 sensor a game changer for astro and it had something do with an advancement in dark current at high-iso (I'll go find his post later if I have time, I don't recall the details and I could be wrong).  Regardless of the details, it's perfectly plausible that whatever advancement Canon has made with the 7D2, dual-pixel AF, and possibly other tech that we don't know about has given them enough to do a cross-licensing deal with Sony.  If they had just wanted to use Sony sensors without something to trade it may have been too expensive or they may have had to give up control of other sensor design.  Bottom line is that if this rumour is true it very likely is only happening now because Canon finally has something that Sony also wants.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:55:57 AM »
If that really was Canon's strategy for products to be announced in the near future, why wouldn't they have already put such a sensor into the recently released 7D II?

If this is all true which is yet to be seen, negotiations with Sony on cross-licensing patents may have been going on for quite some time, maybe even for the past two years that wouldn't be unusual.  Meanwhile the 7D2 was long overdue so Canon released it with what they had knowing they will then release a "5Ds" with a 50+ MP sensor that's even better.  There are any number of scenarios that could explain it.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:48:27 AM »
This does not make sense to me.
Canon has just put out the 7D2 sensor, which scaled down to FF gives the 53-56MP wanted.
If Canon wanted to put a Sony Sensor on the High MP FF it would put a cut version (same pixel size) on he 7D2.
Or else the 7D2 would be outdated very soon.

If Canon is truly about to launch a camera with a sensor that uses Sony tech the two companies would have been in negotiations for quite some time.  Canon's new tech in the 7D2 sensor along with the dual-pixel AF is very likely all part of the patent trade.   Canon R&D would have certainly tried to get around Sony's patents so they obviously did not succeed but made other advancements that they could finally bargain with.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:37:53 AM »
This makes a lot of sense and I had a similar conversation with a friend a few weeks ago after the first rumors of a Sony sensor but my speculation was more along the lines of advancements made in the 7D2 sensor.  My thought was that Canon may have been trying unsuccessfully to improve low-ISO noise  (Canon sensors were way behind Sony sensors for noise at ISO 100 which limits DR) but didn't want to straight-up use Sony sensors.  Advancements made in the 7D2 sensor and also dual-pixel AF may have finally given Canon some patents to trade with Sony so that they don't get hosed on cost.

If this is true... Sony and Canon team up on sensors.... and now Canon has the best of the Sony tech and vice-versa... is Nikon about to die?  Without the low-ISO noise advantage on the sensor does Nikon have any selling point left?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: The Canon EOS 7D Mark II Jumps Out of a Plane
« on: November 06, 2014, 09:59:35 PM »
They could have cut out the first half of the video.

I think that pretty much any DSLR today could have taken these images.  I did not see any thing special that the 7D2 provided.

At f/2?  The subject distance is changing rapidly as the divers move around and the diver shooting the video moves closer and further away from the group.  This test was really about how well the AF would work under these conditions.  The video shooter said he's tried a lot of cameras and none were very useful shooting at wide apertures.  He said the 5D3 was good but that the 7D2 was even better.  Presumably the 1DX or the Nikon D4S would be great too but those are even larger and heavier which would be an issue strapped to your head whilst skydiving.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:49:05 AM »
Oh you guys.  So much sarcasm and passive-aggressiveness.  Keep it up, it's great!

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 05, 2014, 05:05:42 PM »
Over the past week or so as I've watched this video being posted and shared with comments like "Zack nails it" or "Zack finally settles the crop debate"... etc. etc.  I've been very tempted to post a rant here and there... not because the overriding message that APS-C sensors are very good or that the Fuji cameras are very good... the fact is they are very good and produce exceptional image quality.  Part of what bothers me is the factually incorrect analysis and his generalized statement that the difference between APS-C and FF is "negligible" when the fact is that there is a measurable difference between the two.  For a well lit scene with only a few stops of dynamic range an iPhone has excellent image quality, otherwise it kinda sucks.  Zack's video is way oversimplified... it's a sliver of a conditionally true statement and therefore pretty much useless.  The other part that bother's me is his use of extended comparison... by putting even larger and even smaller objects beside the two you are actually comparing makes them look relatively similar in size and we humans are generally bad at absolute comparisons... we are much better at relative comparisons so what we "see" is that the APS-C and FF look about the same when compared to the really big and the really small.  But that is scientifically invalid method of analysis.  The visual distortion does not change the fact that the FF sensor is 2.5X larger than the APS-C and has significant and measurable differences in a number of performance parameters.  Sure, under certain conditions the differences may not be within the ability of a human being to see it or any particular person may not care...  but so what, not seeing or not caring does not change the physics and the facts.  But taking those specific cases and uses that as evidence to make a general conclusion is faulty logic.  That might not be Zack's fault per se... he is not a physicist or sensor technology expert.  On the other hand, the guy is making money off blogging, teaching, writing, and possibly from sponsorship by Fuji.  He is purposely entering the "sensor size debate" with a "humorous and endearing sensor size doesn't matter" video in order to get people to watch his video... it's a tried and true trick of marketing... tell people what they want to hear and in a way they can relate to it and they will buy what you be selling... in droves.  And what is Zack selling... video views, blog posts, teaching, and Fuji cameras.  I'm not buying.  Except that I did because I watched the video and wrote this post.  Arghhhhh.

9
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition
« on: June 29, 2014, 01:08:10 PM »
"export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"

Blasphemy!  If Thou intend to further edit in PS then Thou shalt export in a lossless format!  Be this the proclamation!

Your grammar is worse than blasphemous: Thou intendest, not Thou intend; to edit further, not to further edit (no split infinitives are to be found in the works of Shakespeare, Spenser, Pope, or Dryden, or in the King James Version of the Bible).

Fair enough  :P

Good sport! And I agree that for serious editing lossless is better, but I usually do minor stuff in PS.

No worries.  Great jab back at me :D

10
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition
« on: June 29, 2014, 01:07:01 PM »
"export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"

Blasphemy!  If Thou intend to further edit in PS then Thou shalt export in a lossless format!  Be this the proclamation!

DXO is not really a full featured editor, but it does a excellent job of converting the raw image, and doing NR.  Uploads to sites like Smug Mug were not supported when I tried it, it does not have a full featured print module, and a lot more.
Lightroom has a lot more tools that can be used to actually edit the image, and in particular, a often overlooked organizer.  Once you get 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands of images, you will need to be able to find the ones you want.

Definitely.  I was just joking around that AlanF said he exported from DxO as a JPEG (lossy compression) and then reopened in PS for further editing.

11
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition
« on: June 29, 2014, 12:03:49 PM »
"export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"

Blasphemy!  If Thou intend to further edit in PS then Thou shalt export in a lossless format!  Be this the proclamation!

Your grammar is worse than blasphemous: Thou intendest, not Thou intend; to edit further, not to further edit (no split infinitives are to be found in the works of Shakespeare, Spenser, Pope, or Dryden, or in the King James Version of the Bible).

Fair enough  :P

12
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:46:41 AM »
"export DxO as a jpeg and then open with PS"

Blasphemy!  If Thou intend to further edit in PS then Thou shalt export in a lossless format!  Be this the proclamation!

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 02:26:11 PM »
Does the comment from Northlight that the patent doesn't show any pixel structure make sense?  If it's a layered (Foven type) sensor then there wouldn't be any "pixel structure" per se.
I was referring to there being no details of the internal structure of the light sensitive regions, or positions of wiring interconnects and the like.

Compare it, for example, to the Canon patent drawing I linked earlier.  This one is very much a block diagram - although I like the assorted boxes and stuff on the underside, to suggest a BSI sensor...

Ah ok, got what you mean now.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 01:41:40 PM »
the blue pixels would register the blue photons and the red pixels would register the red photons just like our eyes do.

No, sensels seperate wavelengths relatively sharp via filters, while L- cone cells are still somewhat sensitve to short wavelengths; akin to the spectral response of a Foveon sensor.
Take a sample of cobalt violet for example, light reflected of it as no spike in the red band, it absorbs red light about as good as black.

Technically true, the response curves of our cone cells do not have sharp cut-offs but please define "somewhat sensitive to short wavelengths"... if by that you mean "close to zero" then you are right.  If you observe short wavelength light your L cones register a tiny response but the response in the S cone would be orders of magnitude higher and your brain would register that as blue light.   Similarly incident light that is green would cause a response in all cones almost equally but your brain knows that is green, rather than white because of the relative responses to blue and red components.

Our brains have to be more complex to deal with the overlap and larger range of response patterns but that still does not mean our eyes, or a sensor, would be confused by UV light.... your eye simply will not see UV light as purple... our visual perception of "visible purple" is NOT the observation of near UV light.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 12:59:18 PM »

"Red/blue blend" and "shorter wavelength than blue" doesn't quite jive... can you explain further what you mean?

"now the violet hues the camera mistakes for blue"

Except that the human eye works in a similar way as an RGB sensor so your eye would make the same "mistake" and therefore it wouldn't be a mistake relative to our vision.

I believe (I'm no expert) the fact that humans perceive a mix of red and blue to be "visible purple" is not the same thing as observing light of a "violet" wavelength.   If you look at an object and see it as purple it actually is preferentially reflecting red and blue wavelengths of light.  Therefore an RGB sensor would not be confused by that... the blue pixels would register the blue photons and the red pixels would register the red photons just like our eyes do.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48