April 17, 2014, 09:34:55 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 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46
646
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 03:13:49 PM »
I'm all for the discovery of the truth, so lets drop the intensity of light debate (even though, all things being equal, the bigger mirror, the more light, even if the center portion that would be collected by a crop sensor may or may not be equal intensities, the extra surrounding information may or may not be enough to affect exposure and light), but lets assume that's all equal... Let's take a 40D and a 5D mark 2 (same AF system)... Assuming the AF points are pretty much in equal or equal like proportion to the frame on the 40D and 5d mark II or at least the individual AF sensor size within the frame, and since the 5D is 1.6x bigger, then that would possibly mean, at least to the layman, that assuming the AF sensor isn't necessarily bigger, but if there were lets say 20 pixels of information per each sensor size on a crop sensor, on a full frame, there would be 36 pixels, hence more information going to the sensor, which allows it to be better in low light, which is the original problem that was in question.  Any debates about this thinking?

Yes.  First, let's just clarify the difference in sensor size so there's no confusion for others.  1.6x refers to the diagonal measurement.  The FF sensor is actually 2.5 times larger in area than the APS-C sensor.

You may realize this but it's not clear from your statements and others may not know.  The AF sensor is completely separate from the image sensor (it's usually at the bottom of DSLR camera bodies) so therefore the relative size, resolution, pixel pitch, etc. between image sensors in various cameras has nothing to do with the AF sensors in all those cameras.  The AF sensors do not need to scale (in terms of size or pixel size) along with the image sensors.

I'm not really sure exactly what you mean by "more information going to the sensor" but that's not really how phase detect AF works.


647
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 02:49:12 PM »
And I wont argue this matter any futher. any single point in a F5.6 exposure (with the same shutter) would be letting in 2x the light in every part of the frame than a F8 exposure... Same with the mirror.

Regarding the aperture, that is a true statement.   But it is not the same with the mirror.   The points of light coming through the lens for a given aperture setting will not be further affected by the size of the mirror.

648
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 02:27:44 PM »
Many correct and incorrect points in all of the above.  And personal experience is what it is, so it could be that the 5D2 does have better at AF in low light situations but perhaps not for the reasons being stated.  Like everything else, there are tradeoffs in designing sensors and the 5D2 might have a larger AF sensor pixels which would have certain trade offs and could be helpful in low light at the expense of precision of the AF system but I'm not sure what those design choices or optimal design is.

Brightness is light per unit area.  If you focus the scene down to a smaller size the light per unit area increases and the image appears brighter.  The 5D2 view finder is a 0.76 magnification while the 7D is 1.0 and this is why the 5D2 viewfinder appears brighter.  It is not because more total light is being collected; that is true but you are also observing a larger angle of view so the light per unit area remains constant.  The brightness of the scene does not increase because you are looking at a bigger scene.

However, this has nothing to do with the AF sensors.  Each AF sensors is only looking at a small area in a few points of the image (9 for 5D2, 19 for 7d, 45 for 1D4).  In other words, it's a small bundle of rays NOT all the rays concentrated to a spot.  It is irrelevant that the image size, field of view, sensor size, or mirror size is different for each camera or that different total amounts of light are collected.

The analogy given about the laser reflecting off the mirror correct... the bundle of rays reflecting off the mirror is the same whether the mirror is the size of dime, a quarter, or a football field.

649
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 11:04:56 AM »
In low light, the 5d Mark II will allow in more light to the focus sensor

What do you mean by this and why do you think that?

650
Canon General / Re: October 26 Event?
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:59:55 AM »
Could mean a lot of things but "A moment captured in time" gives me the sense they are referring to photographs.  "Exactly as you imagined it" gives the sense of being able to get the shots we couldn't get before.  Ooooh this is exciting!

651
EOS Bodies / Re: Price point of a 5Dmk2 replacement
« on: September 26, 2011, 07:35:18 PM »
Neuro, how about income tax on the ten hours consultant work? This will make them 14 probably?
If I'd put my scan along you'd probably see just a huge archi-cerebellum extending to the coronary line :-[.
Anyway, I think for people having the 5d2/1Ds3 a steep price to upgrade needs a significant improvement for justification - so let the 5d3 be expensive...
For 1.6 APC users wanting to jump to FF any price below 3500 is acceptable given the projected time of usage. By the time it gets updated again, 3.5k will look like McDonalds change  :-\

Other than getting into really big lenses or multiple bodies, etc. it's not completely unaffordable... camera gear has a fairly long life span and averaged out it's not that much more than other hobbies... anyone play golf for example?

652
EOS Bodies / Re: Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina
« on: September 26, 2011, 03:15:03 PM »

Fair enough. I agree.  You can do any type of photography you like with any type of equipment you want and get unique and interesting results whether for artistic or technical reasons.  An X100 is great camera with a fantastic sensor.  Leica's are great cameras.  Some nice shots have been taken with an iPhone.  But still I don't understand your statement that you're going to ditch your DLSR for an X100 because Canon won't wake up and realize you want a good small camera.   Maybe I'm missing the point.

Someone named goodmane was the OP who wants to get a Fuji X100. I have no idea what his reasons are.

Me, I'm a tool user who has tools from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Toyo and Yashica. I don't plan on selling any of my Canon cameras, but as long as they aren't building anything new that I want/need, I won't be buying any new Canon equipment. Simple as that.

Sony is making something that I want/need with their light weight NEX mirrorless cameras (with excellent sensors). I prefer small/light cameras with prime lenses for my work. I've been using Sony pro video cameras for years, so there is no stigma attached to Sony for me.

Your right, I failed to notice it was a different person posting.  I apologize for that.

653
EOS Bodies / Re: Price point of a 5Dmk2 replacement
« on: September 26, 2011, 12:44:55 PM »
All of you waiting for a 5DMK2 replacement, if it WAS $3500 would you still get it?

Yes if it's sufficiently better than the 5D2 but that may not turn out to be the case.  Regardless, I doubt it will be priced above the list price of 5D2 which is $2700 I think.

654
EOS Bodies / Re: No 5D Mark III on Novemeber 3 [CR2]
« on: September 26, 2011, 12:19:36 PM »
Is the Date just a coincidence?

3rd of November ... MK III

3rd Anniversary to the day of the release of the video "Reverie" filmed with the 5D MK II?

Any Numerologists??

Love it.

655
EOS Bodies / Re: Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina
« on: September 26, 2011, 12:36:27 AM »

 Are you suggesting you'll be taking studio shots with an X100?  I don't think so.


Terry Richardson did studio work with a Yashica T4 Film P&S. The right tool isn't always a Canon 1Ds, sometimes it's a Fuji X100 or aSony NEX 7.

Fair enough. I agree.  You can do any type of photography you like with any type of equipment you want and get unique and interesting results whether for artistic or technical reasons.  An X100 is great camera with a fantastic sensor.  Leica's are great cameras.  Some nice shots have been taken with an iPhone.  But still I don't understand your statement that you're going to ditch your DLSR for an X100 because Canon won't wake up and realize you want a good small camera.   Maybe I'm missing the point.

656
EOS Bodies / Re: New Processor for EOS line
« on: September 25, 2011, 08:27:50 PM »
I doubt there will be more than one Digic5 processor, too costly to design and manufacture different processors.  But yes, via firmware, some features could be disabled or slowed down but unless Canon has some big surprise for the world, there are no new "magical" image processing techniques that would only be added to the new DSLRs.

As we are talking about Canon, then this is more than sure.

I only find it pity that I'm a Canon product user rather than having shares.

CAJ on New York.  Shares are down from the $52 peak earlier this year and there could be run ahead of the big Hollywood announcements.  I'm not buying though :)

657
EOS Bodies / Re: Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina
« on: September 25, 2011, 08:05:09 PM »
The more I think about this, the less I'm beginning to care! Don't get me wrong I like the Canon products I have but I've pretty much grown tired of waiting for Canon to wake up to the fact I want a good small camera.

Canon cares about what the market wants and what they think they can sell.  Frankly, there's nothing wrong with a company deciding not to enter a particular market segment.  Maybe Canon is getting it right by waiting for everyone else to get it wrong and see where the market goes.  Personally, I don't quite get the interchangeable lens compact segment... it's hot, people are buying them, but is it just a fad?  Canon has the size and depth to wait it out.

I'm very close to ditching my Canon SLR gear and picking up a Fuji X100 and maybe eventually a Leica. I don't like that Canon are being so slow to market, they don't impress me with innovation that I care about any more, that will help me take better family photos, videos and studio shots. I want either an affordable, smallish, superfast, 45 point AF FF SLR with a flash built-in, or a small rangefinder style camera.

If you're thinking of ditching your SLR gear for an X100 or Leica then just do it you probably don't need the SLR for what it is best at.  Two very different products for different photography.  They don't really overlap.  Are you suggesting you'll be taking studio shots with an X100?  I don't think so.

Affordable, small, and pop-up flash... but also superfast and 45 point AF?  Not sure all that goes together... maybe one day, not just yet.

The new Nikon V1 sounds perfect for what you need... get the pink one.  Sorry, just kidding about the pink but seriously given what you said you want (other than the studio work) it just about meets your requirements.


658
EOS Bodies / Re: Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina
« on: September 25, 2011, 12:42:31 PM »
EOS 1D/1Ds
Also, we can expect Canon's new processor to be fast enough to allow for high speed and high resolution at the same time.

To please the current APS-H shooters, I could imagine Canon offering an APS-H crop-mode


I think your first statement above is correct and makes APS-H mode unnecessary... the 16MP APS-H sensor size was a compromise between pixel density, large enough pixels to get good SNR, and ability to process at 10fps.  The Sony A77 is processing 12fps at 24MP so that should give us an indication that DIGIC5 or dual DIGIC5 should be able to process 10fps at about 28MP (the APS-H sensor scaled up to FF) or higher.  So the only reason to implement crop mode now would be to achieve something like 20fps which probably isn't necessary but could be nice to have I suppose (not that there's any reason to think they could get the mirror up to that speed).

In a top line camera that can sell for top dollar, they can put in a huge buffer to give as many shots as they want at full resolution 10-12 fps.

659
a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.

Yep, the 24-105mm is a terribly SOFT lens.  Here's an example with a 100% crop below, to show just how soft...


Neuro, why must you constantly rain on all the whiners' parade with your persistent dose of reality?  :)   Similar to what I said in another post, it's amazing at how quick folks are to decry any particular piece of equipment as bad.  Does anyone seriously think any L lens is actually soft, poor build quality, slow, distorted, etc. in absolute terms... each lens may have it's less than optimal performance at particular aperture or at one end of the zoom range or even be overall less sharp relative to some other lens that was designed for different purposes but the differences are not huge, certainly not "good" and "bad".

660
EOS Bodies / Re: Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina
« on: September 25, 2011, 10:27:45 AM »

O/T but this attitude irritates me. I know everyone here will be a gear/tech freak, but that doesent make low end camera's "crappy" This shot for example was taken with an 1000d and 18-55 kit lens... and was highly commended in the prestigous wildlife photographer of the year award.


That's right, and great photo by the way.  Please realize that most people on this forum do know that great photos can be taken with "crappy" cameras.  Very cool photos can be taken with camera phones which most people, including pro photographers, carry around with them.  Most gearheads on this site also have a P&S but probably a pretty good one rather than a crappy one :)

You do touch on a good point.  There is a tendency to begin referring to anything less than the best available or even an ideal soon-to-be-announced camera to be "crappy".  The 7D has been called crappy.  The 5D2 focus has been called crappy.  Etc.  Well, that's just not true in absolute terms... comparatively, there might be some other camera that does a slightly better job at a particular feature but suddenly it's as if there's a night and day difference.  The Sony sensor in the Nikon D7000 had an extra stop of DR at low ISO and suddenly every other camera out there is crap, outdated, etc.  Nonsense.

To be fair, there are many pundits on here for focusing on real world image quality so there's a balance in the discussions.  No one feature or attribute is the best in all situations.  That's not to say each new feature or attribute isn't important.  They all are under certain situations.  Sports shooters need high frame rates, landscape photographers do not.  Everyone can benefit from higher DR at times but not every scene has even 10 stops of DR and in fact some photos look better with less DR so the photographer will clip the shadow details in photoshop to get more contrast and many other examples.

Gear is good.  Technology is good.  And it's cool when camera manufacturers give us something that hasn't been possible in the past.  Every camera has it's use from an iPhone all the way to a 1D4 and medium format.  Film is good so is digital... they each have different benefits and limitations.

It's fun.  No need for anyone to be offended or irritated except if anyone is rude or disrespectful to others and those trolls know who they are.  :)


Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46