December 22, 2014, 11:29:59 PM

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 - Lee Jay

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 91
1
Your whole smaller pixel produce better ISO performance completely ignores reality.

I posted some reality above, and the smaller pixels just crushed the larger pixels.

2
Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents.  These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.

Those don't compete.

For fixed sensor dimension, higher MP means smaller photo site size which leads to lower signal to noise.

No, it doesn't.  Not for the same sensor area.

I like to use this analogy.

Which way do you get more pizza, when you cut the 15" pizza into 8 slices or 12?

Smaller pixels tend to do better for a very easy to understand reason - larger pixels do nothing but block-average when compared to smaller pixels, and block averaging is a very primitive and poor way to reduce noise.  Modern NR algorithms are far more efficient than that.

Everything is the same between these two - focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, lighting, location, processing (from raw), final image size, sensor generation, performance per unit of area, everything.  Everything except pixel size.  The pixels on the left are 16 times smaller than those on the right.  So, which has better detail-to-noise ratio?


3
Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents.  These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.

Those don't compete.

For fixed sensor dimension, higher MP means smaller photo site size which leads to lower signal to noise.

No, it doesn't.  Not for the same sensor area.

I like to use this analogy.

Which way do you get more pizza, when you cut the 15" pizza into 8 slices or 12?

4
EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: Today at 04:22:37 PM »
I'm not remotely interested in any of those lenses or in either an M of any sort or a full-frame mirrorless of any sort.

I'm interested in full-frame dSLR offerings.

The path of least resistance to me seems to be 6DII = full-frame 70D and 5DIV = full-frame 7DII.

If they can come up with something better than those, have at it.  I'm watching for something to pair up with the 7D2 I'll likely buy next year.

5
Well the one thing the poll tells us is that the 'DRoners' are an insignificant bunch because DR votes are in very last place by a good margin  ;).

The problem is, "better dynamic range" is meaningless.  I think base ISO DR is a relatively meaningless pursuit but I want "better dynamic range" at high ISO where DR is necessarily far more limited.  So, should I vote for that one or not?  I voted not because it doesn't specify what it means.

6
I'd love to see Canon support the new DNG spec.

It includes arbitrary downsampling and both lossless and lossy compressed raw files.

The raw files are much closer to raw than Canon's sraw and mraw files, which have white balance baked in.

The lossy compressed full-res DNGs are way better than mraws, and they're smaller as well.  Having the option to arbitrarily downsample and then lossy compress raw files, while still retaining almost everything that's wonderful about raw, would be a major advantage over shooting JPEGs.

7
I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) ...
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's totally wrong.

8
Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents.  These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.

Those don't compete.
For a specific technology I think they do at least a little.

For example you can compare Sony 7, 7R and 7S.

For ISOs in the 4 and 5 digits, I think smaller pixels do better, all else being equal.

Where people go wrong is they compare different size pixels all at 1:1.  That's not fair.  They should be compared at the same final size.  In that case, smaller pixels generally win, and win easily.

9
Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents.  These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.

Those don't compete.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 06:18:33 AM »
@Tuglea - I want a cup of coffee and the 7DII won't brew one for me.  Therefore, it fails to meet MY needs and it's a crappy camera.  So I guess we agree.

 ::) ::) ::)

I didn't say the 7D2 was a bad camera, I said that it was a disappointing camera because it is 2012 technology, but was released in 2014 when the world has moved on.

The camera you described would be utterly unable to shoot about 90% of the shots I shoot.  And your hands must be as small as a child's if the 7D2 is too big.  My hands are positively tiny and the 7D2 is a perfect fit.  My T2i is way too small and the new mirrorlless cameras are generally much worse.

The world hasn't moved on - my hands are the same size they were two years ago and my targets aren't getting any slower.  In fact, they're getting faster.  We just have more cameras available now that are uncomfortable to use and are incapable of capturing fast moving targets, while also having horrible battery life and lousy supporting systems.

I expect the 7D2 to be my crop camera for the next 10 years.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Most wanted new features for 5D Mark IV
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:47:08 PM »
Better high ISO performance and dramatically lower fixed pattern noise are on the top of my list, but not part of the poll.

Low ISO performance is already good enough.

I do want dual pixel focusing.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:37:15 AM »
Why would a photographer shoot in-camera HDR at ISO 6400?

To preserve highlights in a dark but harshly lit environment.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:52:02 AM »
If you don't want to upgrade to ff Imo the 7d2 is defiently worth the upgrade.

Full-frame is not always an upgrade.  I've had both crop and full-frame cameras for nearly a decade now, and each is better at some things.

Full-frame is better in low light and produces naturally sharper images when you are not focal length limited.

Crop cameras tend to be faster and produce superior images when you are focal length limited.

I see myself owning one of each for the foreseeable future.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:11:09 AM »
i really like the 7dii for the af, buffer, and speed but it does make me a bit irritated to think about how canon could put the 6d sensor in the 7dii body, sell it for  $1800...

Yeah, and I bet you're irritated that Chevy didn't put a Big Block V8 into the Camero instead of that piddly little 3.6L V6 and sell it for the price of a Cruze, too.  Because that would be just so feasible...   ::)

it is not like the analogy you are referring to which would be physically difficult and expensive to produce. the sensor in the 6d is not expensive and it would not be difficult to put it in a 7dii body.

 to me its greed. i don't mind paying a fair price for a product but i don't like getting ripped off.

I'd rather have the 7DII than the 6D sensor in the 7DII - by far.  One of my main reasons for wanting this camera is that I'm often left with 100% crops for my final image on my 20D (even at 400mm) and I want more pixels on the target.  The 6D sensor would leave me with fewer pixels, not more.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:52:55 AM »
Uhh, the 'conclusion'

"Ultimately I can’t recommend this camera. Canon sports shooters with a big lens investment would be better served investing in a used 1D Mark IV which will outperform this camera both in terms of image quality and performance, and everyone else should consider a D750 (or a D4s if you can afford it). Sure you’ll get less frames per second on the Nikon, but nearly all of them will be in focus and you’ll have killer image quality too!"

Whoever this guy is, he probably flunked second grade a few times.

I looked into switching to Nikon once.  Selling my Canon lenses and buying similar Nikon ones was going to cost me $8,000 and get me lenses that were worse than what I already have with one exception.  They were also bigger and heavier.

The very last Canon camera I'd buy if I weren't going to buy a 7DII would be a 1DIV.  I hate the 1D bodies (too big, lousy ergonomics, don't like the non-removable grip) and I want a high pixel density camera.  The 1DIV is a failure on both counts.  I'd buy a 70D or a 60D before a 1DIV.

Having compared raw and JPEG test images, feature set and cost, I'd say the 7DII is the best crop camera on the market for shooting any sort of action, and second place is the 70D.

This guy is just too dumb to get it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 91