Messages

61

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 03:59:40 PM »

This thread is just silly.  There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.

Which is why, upon reflection, I asked for some evidence from the OP.  I wonder if he can produce some...   

Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning?  Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.   

62

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:08:19 AM »

I am amazed that so many posters here are trying to recommend to the OP to keep the 5D3 which is so much more expensive and way in excess of his needs. Too many users in this forum are gear heads. The gentleman stated that he couldn't tell the difference with his test shots. He knows enough about photography to understand the impact of lighting and lenses on the results. And I am sure he understand the differences with features etc. His main concern was IQ! Yet he was expecting something different - its a real eyeopener if you ask me.  We assume that everyone has the desire to pixel peep and find the most discernible difference while forgetting that photography is an art and a pastime not something to keep our wallets empty. I say to the OP to SEND BACK THE 5D3 and stick with what works for a little money and go from there. Later down the road if you want the performance or 61 focus points etc you could buy the 5DMk4 or something better. In the end i think this guy knows something that us gearheads dont!

Oh bollocks.  Nobody is assuming anything rather expressing why he may not have seen much difference in image quality in his test shots and the comments are bang on.  The OP said he's a pensioner but didn't get caught up in cost and, afterall, he is in a position to order two new bodies to try out and says he will buy more lenses.  It seems perhaps that image quality is his primary concern rather than cost and in that context he should keep the 5D3 or as another comment suggested, return both and get a 6D.

There are many aspects to image quality and most are not about pixel peeping or editing.  Noise is a biggie and in the well-lit daytime conditions that the OP did the test shots there will be very little noise in any image even from an iPhone.  Images at dusk, dawn, night, or indoors will be a different story.  Or images with deep shadow regions.

63

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Why does Canon release 17 new powershot cameras per YEAR?

« on: January 29, 2013, 09:32:42 PM »

Now, imagine (difficult as it may be for some of the affluent posters here) that you have a severely limited budget

Hey, who you callin' affluent... take that back!

64

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Why does Canon release 17 new powershot cameras per YEAR?

« on: January 29, 2013, 07:45:52 PM »

They sell far more power shot cameras as DSLR's.  That might be the reason.  Dollar wise, they GET more dollars from DSLR's, but they sell far more Power shots.
Its also a matter of hogging shelf space in the big box stores.  When a company that makes fewer models,their cameras tend to get lost among the many Canon models, buyers are then much more likely to buy Canon.
Why do bread companies make hundreds of different brands with the same bread inside ... same reason, marketing!  And... It works!!

Yep, it does!   Additionally in the P&S market they are selling to a very broad range of consumers who have varied tastes and budgets.  Some want a simple camera, some want features.  Some want the ones designed to look a bit like DSLRs, others like the thin models.  Some want pink.  None of them know how big the sensor is.

65

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - The Workhorse?

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:27:36 PM »

1DX... overall, it's pretty darn nice.

Yep, pretty darn nice.

66

Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?

« on: January 27, 2013, 07:52:19 PM »

Oh boy, here we go!

67

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 50

« on: January 23, 2013, 09:18:39 AM »

So, your actual answer to my question is, "No, I will not admit that I am wrong."

Why would he, he now has his "special case" to yammer on about to avoid dealing with his mistakes.  The most entertaining part is that the special case was suggested by someone else as a possible explanation for what he meant and now he adopts it like it's what he was talking about all along.

ETTR ... Expose To The Right
YMMV ... Your Mileage May Vary

TMBSITT ... Too Much BS In This Thread

I trust I don't need to spell out what BS means...   

You should have mentioned.... Too much NPD in this thread

68

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear

« on: January 22, 2013, 10:54:13 PM »

Size does matter!

69

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 09:49:02 PM »

what is it you are wondering about?
And let me tell you that my english is not the best  in the world, but I try.

For one, I asked you what exactly you meant by "the APS-C lens has to be better than the FF lens"?

I followedd that up with a clarifying question asking if you were talking about two different lenses such as one EF-S lens and one EF lens.

70

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 09:26:58 PM »

Some of you are confusing enlargement and sensor resolution.  Do you know who you are?

well it is a optical question and it is hard to get a APS lens that are 1,6 times better than a 24x36mm lens regarding resolution, contrast etc. If  there was one there will  not be any differences results wise between a 24MP APS sensor and a 24Mp 24x36mm sensor and if the signal/noise ratio was the same from the two sensors

What exactly do you mean by an "APS lens that is 1.6 times better than 24x36mm lens"?  Are you talking about two different lenses (e.g. an EF-S lens and an EF lens) or the same lens on different bodies?

Under what circumstances do you suppose the SNR would be the same for an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor that each had the same number of pixels?

please read again what Im saying. I do not suppose anything.I describe parameters who must be alike to compare the different sensors, and what kind of qualities the lens for the APS size must have if we are comparing the two sensor sizes and resolution/contrast.
and please  also read The Suedes answer if you wonder something

I have read your comments and the Suede's comments and I find them confusing.  Hence I asked questions in hopes of being enlightened and all I get is defensiveness and avoidance.

71

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 09:18:18 PM »

Well if I can answer with a question. When you look at your picture at 100% on your computer do you think you are looking at the pixels from your sensor ?

Why would you answer with a question?

Socrates used to.

Socrates gets some leeway.  People who make unclear or unsubstantiated statements aren't generally afforded the luxury of evading questions in that fashion.

72

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 06:26:00 PM »

Well if I can answer with a question. When you look at your picture at 100% on your computer do you think you are looking at the pixels from your sensor ?

Why would you answer with a question?

73

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 05:17:37 PM »

You are not physically enlarging each pixel from your sensor. The pixels are the electronic capture devices. This information is then interpreted by your computer program. Enlarging them to see your picture would be about as useful as enlarging the processor in your computer and having a look at that.

Are you talking about the sensor or the image? 

74

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 04:50:36 PM »

Some of you are confusing enlargement and sensor resolution.  Do you know who you are?

As digital sensor potential resolution is physically defined by pixels, enlargement is indubitably related to sensor resolution.

This is totally different to film, where the image recorded on the film emulsion was physically enlarged to whatever size you were printing. ( or projecting ).

What makes it so different?

75

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here

« on: January 21, 2013, 04:44:22 PM »

Some of you are confusing enlargement and sensor resolution.  Do you know who you are?

well it is a optical question and it is hard to get a APS lens that are 1,6 times better than a 24x36mm lens regarding resolution, contrast etc. If  there was one there will  not be any differences results wise between a 24MP APS sensor and a 24Mp 24x36mm sensor and if the signal/noise ratio was the same from the two sensors

What exactly do you mean by an "APS lens that is 1.6 times better than 24x36mm lens"?  Are you talking about two different lenses (e.g. an EF-S lens and an EF lens) or the same lens on different bodies?

Under what circumstances do you suppose the SNR would be the same for an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor that each had the same number of pixels?