January 30, 2015, 07:36:09 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 - Meh

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 47
I doubt Canon's leading edge video sensor will be restricted to 1080p.

You doubt it?  Even in the face of the clear fact that this particular sensor is in fact a "Full HD" (1920x1080) video sensor?

This sensor, as they state, is being developed to optimize low light video... as stated Canon "is looking to such future applications for the new sensor as astronomical and natural observation, support for medical research, and use in surveillance and security equipment."

Whatever new technologies they develop for reduced noise readout electronics could potentially be used in future higher resolution video and still sensors, but that's not what this sensor is about.

Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!

Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 10:37:21 PM »
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens.  Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.

Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 06:14:19 PM »
The camera very likely attempts to confirm focus once the lens' focusing element is moved to the predicted focus position.  If, when it attempts to confirm focus, the image is not in focus it will try again.  You can imagine that if the lens was damaged or otherwise not working properly such that it simply can not focus within the acceptable tolerance of the PDAF system, it will hunt.  This is not the iterative process of contrast detect, it is a failure of the lens to achieve focus.

and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

Except that they did provide an explanation, they inspected and determined that the camera had been damaged by the user.   I'm not saying that they are right or wrong in their assessment, but they did tell you why they are denying the warranty claim.

If they took anyone at their word that a product wasn't dropped or otherwise damaged by the owner, it wouldn't be just $100 as you stated, it would be millions because everyone who dropped their camera would send it back and claim "it just suddenly stopped working".

Got news for Canon, they can forget ever getting another dime out of me. As for mom in law, she already switched to Nikon. As for me, I'll switch too when it's time to move the 5D3 body. Already moving out non essential lenses in the collection. I simply will not do business with Canon USA or any other company that pulls this sort of BS.

Hmmmmm, seems like quite a rash response.  You must somehow think that Nikon or any other consumer product company would never deny a warranty claim.  Any company will deny a warranty claim on the slightest evidence of operator error... if not, they constantly be replacing cameras/phones/etc. because ppl drop them all the time even on to carpeted floors where there would be no visible damage.

Software & Accessories / Re: What size RAW should I shoot at?
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:49:16 PM »
Bigger is better

Andrew Scrivani is on Creative Live right now if that's of any interest to anyone.

This is only an illusion of sharpness. The truth is what really matters (the information). Looking at the print from far away only proves that human vision is very limited. At close-up you can see all the information captured by your camera, both sharp and blurry parts. So, sharpness = information. Then from the distance you see much much less information despite that it looks sharper. This kind of sharpness ≠ information. This trick is about the CoC of your eyes, DoF has nothing to do with it.

As I pointed out previously, you appear to be confused about what DoF is.  As neuro just pointed out... DoF is not an objective paramater.  It is entirely subjective by definition.  It is the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus that appears sharp to a human observer.  There are implicit assumptions in the DoF derivation about viewing size, viewing distance, and visual acuity of the observer.

The only truth is that only the plane of focus is sharp.  And it's only maximally sharp not perfectly sharp.  Every plane in front of and behind is less sharp.  How much less sharp depends on a few things.  Whether you can see that it's less sharp depends on how big the print is, how far you are from it, and how good your eye sight is.

For you to say at this point in the thread "that only proves that human vision is very limited" suggests you are still fundamentally missing the point that DoF is in fact a function of the limitations in human vision.

Lenses / Re: Lee Filters for Wideangel
« on: July 17, 2013, 10:35:20 PM »
A little off topic...

How much better are the LEE glass ND filters compared to the resin filters?

Are the LEE lens hoods meant to be an accessory to the foundation kit or are the hoods a separate system?


Shrinking the picture simply makes it's details imperceptible to you.

If I may, can I suggest that this one sentence sums up some of the disagreement in this thread.   DoF is, in fact, a concept that is rooted in human visual perception.  DoF is defined as the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus that appears in focus to a human being.  The calculation requires assumptions regarding human visual acuity, print size, and viewing distance.

I believe, others can correct me if I'm wrong, it is also implicitly assumed that the print size and resolution is such that the individual pixels in the print are too small for the viewer to see them at the assumed print size and viewing distance.  If the pixels are visible then the entire image would not appear sharp.  That is why sensor resolution does not appear in the calculation.

So yes,  print size matters and yes, if you print small enough the entire image would "magically" appear sharp.  "Appear" is the operative word in that statement but it is relevant because "appears sharp" is fundamental to the concept of DoF.  If you also shrunk yourself down, your visual acuity would likely also change so in fact DoF would be the same.

And it is a concept.  It is a defined value based on some reasonable assumptions.  DoF is not something that exists independent of human vision and is not a strictly defined measurement like mass, distance, size, etc.

If you're looking for a physically defined parameter, it exists.  That is focus distance.  The distance from the image plane that is precisely in focus (in practical terms it would be maximally in focus because there is no perfect focus).  And there is only one distance that is maximally in focus... every plane in front of and behind the focus plane is less focused.  If human visual acuity was infinite and the resolution of a print was infinite you would be able to see the tiniest difference in sharpness.  But that's not the case, more than just the exact plane of focus appears sharp and we can define the depth in the image that appears sharp... i.e. Depth of Field.

Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 02:49:26 PM »
Do I even need a 50?

Need?  No.  But want, yes!

Canon General / Re: CPS Canada Shipping
« on: July 08, 2013, 03:53:48 PM »
Had the same thoughts the first time I sent a lens into CPS Canada.  The logic (if it is logical) is that equipment being sent in for repair or service are already damaged or at the very least used and the condition is unknown.  If one could purchase insurance then people could send damaged equipment in for a "cleaning" and then claim the damage was caused during shipping.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to select ISO (tutorial)
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:37:38 PM »
Doesn't the jagged performance shown in
mean that, for the 7D, the base is 100, 125 is pushed from 100, and 160 is pulled from 200?

What it means, as indicated in the notes to the chart, is that there may be a separate amplifier for intermediate ISO values.  That separate amplifier (and where it is in the read-out process, if it's analog or digital, etc.) would appear to add more noise to the signal.  A question we might ponder is why add a separate amplifier if it adds more noise... the answer, of course, is complexity and cost or possibly Canon engineers were just behind but the improvements are in the 1DX so we'll see that trickle down.  The bottom line is that the noise performance is so good now that these differences are negligible except in low-light shooting as others have pointed out.

Software & Accessories / Re: Alternative CC idea
« on: June 23, 2013, 11:16:57 AM »
Unfortunately, no matter how low of a monthly fee you suggest you will never convince the contingent of users who refuse to accept "renting" software.  You see, they believe that they "owned" the software when they bought in the past and could use it forever and ever and ever to infinity and beyond.  They feel that "Adobe owns you" once you sign up to a subscription model because if you ever stop paying you can't access your old PSD files.  And they also fear that once everyone accepts the subscription model Adobe will jack up the prices on us.

NO - what I propose if you lay out $700 for PS, you own a perpetual license.  You pay a monthly support fee rather than an annual or 18 month upgrade fee.  You can stop paying and keep using the s/w just to be back on the support service you need to pay missed months (either in full if short term or at discount if longer).

YES - all the complainers already own CS5/6 and don't want to pay a single dime on a monthly basis until such time as Adobe releases a new version that has new features/improvements that they deem worthy of their dollahs.  Your suggestion is a noble attempt at finding a middle ground but it still means that one has to keep paying monthly to get bug fixes, updates to Camera Raw for new bodies, etc.   

And it wouldn't work for Adobe anyway because everyone would just suspend their monthly account once they felt they had a version that was updated and "working for them".  They wouldn't turn it back on for 12-18-24-36 months when they needed an update.  Under your proposal, the fee they would pay to "catch up" would be less than what Adobe was charging for full version upgrades  (for example $10/month x 18 months x 80% = $144 < $199) so Adobe is worse off.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 47