February 28, 2015, 07:43:53 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 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 48
661
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 30, 2011, 11:02:50 AM »
It's a good lens  :P

662
EOS Bodies / Re: Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina
« on: September 30, 2011, 12:13:36 AM »
I think the 7D will make it all the way through 2012 and into 2013. What is there to improve on the camera?

What?

- Better sensor with lower read noise at lower ISOs (more dynamic range)
- Flexible video crop modes (it's embarrassing that the last two Rebels are both superior here)
- Reasonable autofocus performance in video mode
- Fast, reliable f/8 autofocus sensors

I have no comment on the video features but about the sensor and autofocus...

My understanding is that the read noise in almost all modern CCD and CMOS image sensors is about as low as it's going to get but there may still be a little improvement to be had (e.g. the 1D4 sensor and the latest Sony sensors in Nikon D7000 and Sony A77) so we'll almost certainly see this in the all the next Canon sensors.  However, the increase in DR due to the lower read noise is being offset by increasing resolution (smaller pixels) so overall we might see at most another stop of DR in the next 7D but maybe not.

f/8 autofocus is possible but what's left to differentiate the 7D2 from the 1D4/5?

663
if it were just the gear and nothing else all you would need to be a good photographer is a deep pocket.  The Nikon Fb status is rather ignorant...

I kind of felt that way when I first read it but the Nikon FB post didn't say that and I don't think it's what was meant.  It said the photographer is only as good as the equipment.  In other words, no matter how good the photographer is, if the gear is inadequate in some way then there will be limits to what he/she can accomplish.  I think that's a true statement.  It doesn't mean the photographer doesn't matter, or that you can't take a great shot with camera phone, or a compact, or a kit lens, etc. but only that the photographer will be limited by the equipment.   

Now being from Nikon of course what they would like people to do is buy more and better gear but that's the business the business they're in so I suppose we should forgive them their obviously self-serving statements.  Maybe it comes across as an offensive, ignorant, irritating statement because it's from Nikon and we feel like they're trying to sell us something we don't really need.

Isn't it always true that we are limited by equipment?  No matter how good you are you can't take a picture that the gear is incapable of capturing.  Sports photography is almost impossible with a P&S and it's pretty tough to take candid street photography if you're walking around with a 1D4 and 300mm lens.

664
EOS Bodies / Re: No 5DmkII successor in 2011...
« on: September 29, 2011, 02:40:18 PM »
One more angle on that...

We don't know yet how much better the 5D3 is going to be over the 5D2...  customers who buy the 5D2 from them now and have the chance to return it for the 5D3 might decide the improvements in the 5D3 are not worth the extra dough.

665
EOS Bodies / Re: No 5DmkII successor in 2011...
« on: September 29, 2011, 02:37:55 PM »
ForceFlow is right on the money.

I wonder if the fine print of the offer says the customer has to buy a 5D3 from them within a certain time of becoming available?  If so, they're being very clever and it might be win win for them... if the 5D3 isn't announced they just made a sale  If it does get announced, they'd take back the 5D2 and sell a 5D3 which would, at full introduction pricing, have a higher profit for the store than the current price of 5D2.  They'd probably be able to sell 5D2 used for not much less than new and overall they make money in either scenario.

666
EOS Bodies / Re: No 5D Mark III on Novemeber 3 [CR2]
« on: September 29, 2011, 02:33:43 PM »
Now here is something interesting. There is a major dealer in Germany (ac-foto.com) who gives a full refund on 5DII’s that will be bought right now, if Canon announces a 5DIII before 31st. of December. So when the company wouldn`t be sure, that there will be no announcement, I don’t think they would offer that deal.

I wouldn't say they'd to be certain... it's a calculated risk to drive sales in the here and now.  Does the fine print of that guarantee say the customer has to buy a 5D3 by a certain date to get the refund of the 5D2? 

If so, they're being very clever and it might be it might be win win for them... if the 5D3 isn't announced they just made a sale  If it does get announced, they'd take back the 5D2 and sell a 5D3 which would, at full introduction pricing, have a higher profit for the store than the current price of 5D2.  They'd probably be able to sell 5D2 used for not much less than new and overall they make money in either scenario.

667
I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.

I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.

Maybe an unscrupulous sales person talked him into it.  But nothing wrong with buying a 7D as a first DSLR... for example a parent who walks into a camera shop and wants a camera to take decent pictures of kids playing sports... it would be fair/honest for the salesperson to offer a 7D as an appropriate body I think.

Now the 85/1.2L might be inappropriate to recommend to a beginner.  But hey if a customer walks into a shop and demands to buy it the salesperson aint gonna say no, but if it was recommended or pushed on a customer that's just mean and greedy... why... because he sold the wrong body, 7D is for sports and salesperson knows the customer will have to come back and get a 5D2 the next week to make the best use of the 85 f/1.2 for portraits :)





668
rubbish... I bet you... A 600D with the kit lense in the hand of a good photographer will result in much(!!!) better photos than a 1D with an L lense in the hand of someone who never touched a SLR

You're statement is true but I don't think that's what the Nikon FB post is saying.  While you're suggesting two different photographers each with different equipment the statement from Nikon is comparing one photographer using different equipment... the implication being higher versus lower quality equipment in the hands of the same person  Question then is if any given photographer would take better pictures with better equipment.  I don't think that's necessarily true... depends whether the photographer or the equipment is the limiting factor (i.e. the weakest link).  If the person has never used anything other than a camera phone they might not even be able to turn a DSLR on and attach the lens so they won't get a picture at all.  In the hands of a pro, it might be fair to say that a he/she will almost always get a better picture with a better camera and lens (better meaning better suited to the type of picture being taken of course).


669
Canon General / Re: This & That - What Others are Saying
« on: September 28, 2011, 01:26:29 PM »
Sorry for the Dumb question, but what is considered the Quarter #2.  April-June?

Yes.  April-June.

670
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only person who isn't interested in a 5d mkIII?
« on: September 28, 2011, 09:46:36 AM »
i take my images and not the camera... so not fussed at all about a mk3.....  i want a lighter mirrorless model, beyond that, no fussed

Very true, but what if the next generation offers you some ability to do something your current camera does not.  I'm no saying the 5D3 will do that but what if.  You are still you so a better tool can only be an improvement, not worse.

I doubt the 5D3 will be anything more than an incremental improvement over the 5D2.  A little more DR in line with what we've seen from the recent Sony sensors, a bit less noise a la the 1D4 sensor, AF similar to 7D, Digic5, dual CF, better video codecs, some ergo changes, etc.  But those are all great things, whether worth an upgrade from a 5D2 is personal preference.

671
EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only person who isn't interested in a 5d mkIII?
« on: September 28, 2011, 09:38:40 AM »
Millions of people are not interested in a 5D3.  My mother doesn't even know what that is.  For any of us to declare we are not interested in the 5D3 whilst discussing it on this site is *interesting*.

672
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 03:55:55 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.

I should have used some other form of measurement, but I was referring to size of each AF sensor compared from a crop camera to a full frame So in relation IF a sensor in a crop camera covered an area compard to the same sensor in a full frame, all things being equal, would be covering 1.6x more information

By "more information" I assume you mean more pixels over a larger area for each AF point but that would not improve the AF.   

In simplified terms, phase detect AF is just looking for a peak along the strip of pixels that make up the sensor.  It then compares that to the peak along the other strip of pixels (each AF point is actually two sensors) and looks to see if they "match", if not the AF system tells the lens to adjust to the correct focus position (phase detect AF determines this precisely, contrast AF does not which is why it is slower and cannot track focus).

There is no need to have more pixels covering a larger area because the peaks don't move very far between focused and unfocused.

673
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.


674
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.

675
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.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 48