August 31, 2014, 02:19:45 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
661
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).


662
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.

663
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.

664
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*.

665
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.

666
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.


667
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.

668
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.

669
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?

670
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!

671
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?

672
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.

673
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.

674
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.

675
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.

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