April 21, 2014, 09:14:27 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 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 46
616
Lenses / Re: 70-200 F4 L IS noise too much
« on: October 17, 2011, 09:17:07 AM »
I bought a used copy of this lens last year and found it so noisy I took it back and got the 70-200mm f/2.8L II which is nearly silent.  In the store, the noise wasn't so noticeable and the sales guy said it was normal for that lens but in a quiet room it sounded terrible to the point I thought it there had to be something wrong with it.

617
EOS Bodies / Re: The irony in it all
« on: October 17, 2011, 12:38:02 AM »
There are a number of things rather fishy with this announcement.

  • Why would they replace the 1D4 so soon?
  • Why would they combine the 1D + 1Ds lines with an 18 MP camera?

It has been 2 years... not the usual 3 years but it's not like the 1D4 was just released.   Given the performance of the Sony sensors, some technology advances have been achieved and Canon may have their own advances that are ready.  DIGIC5 is also already in production so they may have incentive to stop producing DIGIC4, if so I think we'll see most if not all the DSLRs replaced soon.

"Combining the 1 series" could also mean they're just not going to produce a 1Ds anymore only 1D... possibly Canon will move into MF as the flagship high (40+MP) camera.

618
EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 16, 2011, 11:30:47 PM »
Haven't read through all the comments carefully but has anyone thought that maybe this is in fact a 1D5 and the specs are bang on except for one... it will still be APS-H.   A replacement for the 1Ds3 could follow, be announced simultaneously, or perhaps a new line to replace the flagship studio camera.

In fact, just prior to reading this post, that's what I suggested in the thread on irony.

I haven't been keeping up with reading the posts for a couple of days and as I scanned through all the posts speculating as to why these specs don't make sense it occurred to me that there were a couple of themes... a) resolution is a step back from 1Ds and b) spatial resolution is a step back from 1D4 both of which ring true.  On the assumption the rumour and spec list is not a complete fabrication what 1 change (Occam's Razor) would resolve both issues.  APS-H would do the trick... if so, this spec list fits nicely for a 1D5.

Now that I think about more... a lot of the recent talk on the forum has been that APS-H would be discontinued to the point it may have become assumed to be true so the rumour source and all the comments just assumed it must be FF.

Let's say a new APS-H sensor, even at 18MP, has even better DR, lower noise, and better low-light performance that the 1D4 or 5D2... would it be the perfect sports, wildlife, AND wedding photographer's camera?  16MP maybe wasn't enough for wedding photos but 18MP is closer to the 21MP of the 5D2.

If anything I'm speculating makes sense, this spec list now appeals to a wider market so if Canon could sell it for say $4200 (instead of $5k for the 1D4) would it become the easy choice for working pros over a 5D3... that way Canon can increase the resolution to 30+ MP but keep the AF performance, etc. of 5D3 down to differentiate it and keep it positioned as a landscape, portrait, entry level studio.

Now big question, would they then venture into MF to replace the 1Ds3 as the flagship???

619
EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 16, 2011, 09:59:29 PM »
Haven't read through all the comments carefully but has anyone thought that maybe this is in fact a 1D5 and the specs are bang on except for one... it will still be APS-H.   A replacement for the 1Ds3 could follow, be announced simultaneously, or perhaps a new line to replace the flagship studio camera.

620
EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 14, 2011, 11:26:32 PM »
I get the feeling from that ad that was linked to that we're going to see the entire EOS line upgraded, and if that is the case then the rumor mill has really been starved of credible info.

Sweet!  Let us pray together.  Why not?  Digic5 is ready and manufacturing was already disrupted so good time to retool and release 1D5, 5D3, 6D, and 7D2 all at once.  LOL wishful thinking but it could happen :)

621
EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 14, 2011, 11:23:50 PM »
If these are the new specs, and they're correct, and it's an 18MP FF sensor, then it can ONLY be one of the following:
a) Not the flagship and something better will come later (more likely)

Exactly!




622
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. [CR3]
« on: October 13, 2011, 01:22:31 PM »
On multiple shots per mirror flip, sometimes I have wondered if it would be nice to have focus bracketing if you make the assumption the tracking focus will not be 100% anyway. Perhaps user settable equivalent to a few units of micro-focus adjust either side of nominal, could be done as the tracking is done to minimise the focus travel distance.

Good idea but I wouldn't suggest "either side of normal" because that would have the focus elements moving back and forth very rapidly and would cause a lot of stops and change of direction which is hard on the motors and gears and defeats the purpose of Ai Servo which is predictive as to the direction of movement.  The small adjustment you suggest for the "multiple frames between mirror flips" could just keep moving the focus elements in the same calculated direction until the next time the mirror flips down and the AF sensor can make a new focus measurement.

623
Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L II versus 35mm 1.4L - help!
« on: October 13, 2011, 12:25:48 AM »
Only bad advice retroactively :)  at the time the comment was posted to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 the OP hadn't added the signature line or stated in the post that he was using a 5D2.

Sorry, but the signature was in the first post, which is the reason I didn't ask what body the OP was using (no way to provide meaningful advice on focal length choice without that information).

Well I guess I have to give you a hard time :) all in good fun of course.   The signature line wasn't in the original post (I looked for it at the time) and actually it couldn't have been because it was his 10th post exactly and the forum doesn't allow signature line until after the 10th post.   JR added his signature line a couple posts later and it retro got added to all his posts back to his very first.   However, he did mention the body and lenses he had in an earlier post in another thread so that must be where you remembered it from.... good memory!

624
EOS Bodies / Re: MP/ISO
« on: October 11, 2011, 10:35:42 PM »
Neuro, are you sure it's rigorously correct to say "smaller sensors have more noise regardless of pixel size" (I'm paraphrasing your statements somewhat), "smaller pixels have less sensitivity" (define 'sensitivity'), and that "reducing MP will not substantially reduce noise"?

Take a case of the same camera, same lens but test two sensors of different sizes but same design, same spatial resolution (pixel pitch/size).  The noise is the same, to say otherwise is suggesting that the noise in the centre of any given sensor is higher than that around the edges.  The same image (i.e. same composition) taken by a smaller sensor has to be enlarged more to get any given viewing size and the image will not look as good because there would be less resolution (assuming viewing size is large enough to see the difference) but that is not due to noise in the image... it is due to less resolution which is not the same thing.

Now consider two sensors, one larger than the other, with the same number of pixels.  Camera and lens are still the same.  The smaller sensor has more noise, but not because the "sensor is smaller" per the above but rather because the photosites are smaller and each collects less photons therefore the SNR is higher.   So again, compose each image the same, the frame from the smaller sensor is enlarged more to get the same viewing size but now each image has the same number of pixels.  The image from the smaller sensor has more noise because there is more variation (i.e. noise) from pixel to pixel.

So what about noise-reduction algorithms.  They work better the more information (resolution) there is to work with but megapixels are megapixels.  It doesn't matter whether the data (say 18MP) comes from a FF, APS-C, or smaller sensor.  The algorithms work on "data" and it's irrelevant whether that data came from a larger or smaller sensor.  Again, I'm taking the case here the same scene is imaged on the sensor regardless of size.  The NR algorithms work better but the image starts with more noise... the final image from the sensor with smaller photosites is still noisier and in addition has the NR softening so overall the image quality is worse.

In the case of P&S there is in fact another difference to consider.  The lens is not the same.  It is smaller, has a shorter focal length, smaller aperture (actual size), and usually lower quality than DSLR lenses which in most cases is a significant issue.  For any given f-ratio the aperture is in fact much smaller and that causes greater diffraction AND the higher spatial resolution of the sensor will pick that up to a greater degree.  This is offset somewhat because the image size at the focal plane is smaller but not entirely.  However, this is not "noise" in the context of what we're talking about and results in a general softening of the image rather than visible variation.

A good distinction to make here for folks who might not realise, is that the noise we see in any average to well-lit scene is primarily due to photon noise not due to the electronic noise (read noise) that most people think about when talking about noise.   Photon noise actually increases with increased brightness but only increases as the square root of the number of photons absorbed by the sensor so the SNR of brighter scenes is higher than darker scenes.   Read noise is relatively stable and does not increase with brightness (an exception is blooming but that is well controlled in modern sensors) therefore the SNR due to the read noise is really insignificant for reasonably bright scenes.  The fact that SNR (from photon and read noise) improves with the number of photons absorbed is a valid reason for "expose to the right" although I've read another reason that I don't believe is correct.

If any of the above isn't correct, what am I missing?


625
Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L II versus 35mm 1.4L - help!
« on: October 11, 2011, 10:09:03 PM »
Its all good as I am so passionate about my passion for photography and my equipment, that for better or for worst, I am already sold to Canon L lens...only a matter of time better I get a whole bunch more.   ;)

The 50mm and 85mm f/1.2L primes are out of my price league.  I am stuck with a lousy 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L II ;)   And a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 that is OK.

626
Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L II versus 35mm 1.4L - help!
« on: October 11, 2011, 09:36:16 PM »
Otherwise I'd get the sigma 30 f1.4 Have you looked at that lens? It's a nice lens, half the price but not quite as bright as the canon, but still an awesome lens.

Sorry, but that's bad advice. As indicated in the signature line and in a subsequent response, JR has a 5DII. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a DC lens. While it will mount on a FF camera (unlike EF-S lenses), it has an image circle designed for APS-C that won't even come close to covering a FF sensor.

Only bad advice retroactively :)  at the time the comment was posted to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 the OP hadn't added the signature line or stated in the post that he was using a 5D2.

627
Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L II versus 35mm 1.4L - help!
« on: October 11, 2011, 08:55:08 PM »
The question asked above about what camera you're using, FF or crop, is quite important.  The example images and advice from the other posters seems to be based on experience with a FF.


628
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 06:36:17 PM »
Nikon has to do something to stay ahead of the iPhone in the megapixel race...

Love it.  +1

629
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 11:23:30 AM »
I'm willing to bet it falls over on IQ

Maybe but don't be so sure.  Taking the new Sony sensor as an indication of what's possible the full well saturation is almost as high as some current FF sensors and they got the noise way down leading to very large DR.  A similar design used for a 30-40 MP FF sensor might just result in improved DR, ISO performance, etc. than what we have in FF sensors today.

As I'm digesting Nikon possibly releasing a 36 MP FF sensor, I'm considering Nikon's historical position that they would not sacrifice IQ for resolution.  So the question is have they caved to the MP race or has technology advanced to the point they can offer 36 MP without sacrificing IQ.  I suspect the latter is the case.

630
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?
« on: October 04, 2011, 11:01:00 AM »
More MP?  Bring 'em on, especially for a FF camera.  Not so densly packed that diffraction starts to affect IQ at f/5.6, like the new 24 MP APS-C from Sony, but a 36 MP FF sensot would be just fine.

True but you'd still have the improved resolution wider than tha f-ratio limit and be no worse off narrower.  Besides you only start to resolve it at that limit... I think it's a few more stops before the improvement in sensor resolution is completely offset by resolving the diffraction and we can never do better than a diffraction limited optical system anyway.   Do you know of any paper that attempts to define a sensor spatial-resolution limit above which there is no value from the increased resolution?

Besides, that Sony sensor scaled up to FF would be about 60 MP and not likely we're getting anywhere near that with FF in the foreseeable future.

Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 46