September 23, 2014, 06:42:34 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: Today at 03:57:02 AM »
Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable?  I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

It all depends on the purpose.  For a small print or a internet photo, you can get away with high ISO's just fine.  However, some want to print large, and the noise becomes visible, or the detail is blurred by NR.

It all depends on the person and his use.

From what I've seen, the 7D MK II is just a tad better than the 70D at high ISO, and about 2 stops behind a FF like the 5D MK III.

I'd print those 6400 files at 18x12 or 13x19 no problem.  I could manage acceptable 12x8s at 12,800.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:57:17 PM »
Trying to figure out what has changed here. The 7DII looks just as unusable at ISO 1600 and 3200 as the 7D and 70D.

Unusable?  I'd call the 7D usable as 6400 and the 7D2 and 70D usable at 12,800 at least.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:13:55 PM »
Has there been any release on what this thing might cost?

4
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 22, 2014, 03:57:52 PM »
EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM

Let me ask you a question.  I've thought about this before.

What if the 100-300/4 were a 100-350/4 or, conversely, the 500/5.6 were a 350/4?  350/4+1.4xTC = 500/5.6, and the new optics Canon has been putting out take teleconverters really, really well.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:41:25 AM »
I know this sounds a little weird, but using my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye has almost totally eliminated my desire for an ultrawide.  I rarely use my 17-40L anymore, and I think this lens is in the same category.  The fish is great optically, and defishing is so easy in Lightroom now that I can do it with no effort when I want a rectilinear image.  Yeah, I lose a lot of pixels when cropping to 15mm or 24mm equivalent (half and three-quarters, respectively) but I rarely find that to be a problem, and I can usually overlap with my standard zoom (starting at 24mm) when I really do need the pixels.

I'm currently considering selling all my lenses but two, and those two are the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the Sigma 15mm fisheye.  I'd be replacing that middle range with either the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC or the rumored Sigma 24-70/2 OS.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MK2 RAW Files
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:11:01 AM »
Ye sorry, that is very hard to believe. the physical size of a full frame sensor gives it at least a 2 stop advantage.

1 1/3 stops, actually.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:56:21 AM »
"A zoom or prime [fixed focal lenght] lens?
Yamaki: Both. Well, we are still studying it. We're not sure we can release it to the market. A new product is quite risky. Sometimes we have to give up in the middle of the development. We were very fortunate to complete the 18-35mm f1.8 design."

This looks to me like they are trying to do the 24-70/2.  It would be new, and it is related to the 18-35/1.8 by being a fast zoom.

8
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot Digital Compact Camera Under Development
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:45:17 AM »
Sounds like an RX10/FZ1000 rival

I wouldn't consider either one of those to be "compact".

The teasing pictures make it look more G-series sized than SX series sized.

9
Thanks ecka for your reply. I must admit I don't really get it. What I don't understand is that a given lens produces an in focus image circle and either a crop or FF sensor is "placed" in that circle, albeit with different numbers/size of pixels and the 2 images are very different. The fact that the 2 sensors are a different size appears irrelevant. The FF will cover more of the image circle than the crop sensor.

Can anyone give me a structured/scientific explanation as to what's happening please... thanks...

The smaller sensor requires greater enlargement for the same final image size.  This means the original must be much sharper for the same final sharpness.

Looked at another way, if you measure lens resolving power in line pairs per picture height, the smaller picture height means less resolving power when you have less picture height.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:33:24 PM »
The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.
Not quite.  Cinema film shot at 24fps appears fluid to the human eye because it's projected at 48fps with each image shown twice -- as distinct from 48fps like Peter Jackson uses with a full 48 images.  If it was actually run at 24fps, you'd have a splitting headache.  Some projectors run at 72 images per second.

Carry on.

Regardless, your ability to see flicker isn't really related to your ability to track high speed subjects in the presence of lag.
No argument.  The effectiveness of a display is affected by refresh rate, input lag, and change response time.  The last is where an OLED EFV would have no issues.  The first two can cause problems.  The likely issue with any EFV would be input lag, if it's not sufficiently low.  Given that the data has to be encoded, moved, and redisplayed, the electronics would need to be very, very fast.

The sensor too.  The theoretical minimum on lag is the shutter period.  In good light this can be very short, but then the frame rate and thus processing pipeline has to keep up.

In low light, the shutter speed can be a major problem.  When you need 1/15th to get an image for the EVF, your lag is going to be that plus any processing overhead.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 10:19:05 PM »
The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.
Not quite.  Cinema film shot at 24fps appears fluid to the human eye because it's projected at 48fps with each image shown twice -- as distinct from 48fps like Peter Jackson uses with a full 48 images.  If it was actually run at 24fps, you'd have a splitting headache.  Some projectors run at 72 images per second.

Carry on.

Regardless, your ability to see flicker isn't really related to your ability to track high speed subjects in the presence of lag.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 08:32:57 PM »

Zero lag.
Zero power usage.
Infinite dynamic range.
Infinite color gamut.
Automatic match between viewfinder illumination and scene illumination.
A total dynamic range (bright sun to night scenes) equal to the scene, which can be about 10-12 stops more than an EVF can manage.

Not to be picky.... but.....

Zero Lag.... not quite... it's about .5 microseconds for the light to travel through the prism.... but that's about a 30 thousandth the time of the best EVF's... for the stuff I deal with at work, .5 microseconds is freakin' slow! :)

Infinite dynamic range and color gamut? That would require travelling through a vacuum... you loose some of each passing through glass and through atmosphere.. It is certainly far superior, but it is not infinite....

Light can go 500 feet in .5 microseconds.  Did you mean .5 nanoseconds?

13
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:34:41 PM »
"closed loop feedback", what ever that means, is irrelevant.

The fact that you don't know what it means also means that you don't understand its relevance.

Quote
The human eye cannot tell the difference above about 24 fps, so a refresh threshold of about 42 ms is enough.

Then tell me why I could not do, with a 25ms lag EVF, what I could do easily with a 0ms OVF.

I know why, but you don't.

Quote
What are the advantages of an optical viewfinder other than a historical attachment to pre-digital cameras?

Zero lag.
Zero power usage.
Infinite dynamic range.
Infinite color gamut.
Automatic match between viewfinder illumination and scene illumination.
A total dynamic range (bright sun to night scenes) equal to the scene, which can be about 10-12 stops more than an EVF can manage.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:30:01 PM »
PS: where did we get the information about the absence if the 3x crop mode from the 7D mk III?

We don't know for sure.  All I know for sure is that the feature is not in the same menu location on the 7DII beta cameras that have been shown in video as it is in the 70D.  This leads me to believe that the feature was removed.

As I said, the fact that it's single-shot focusing in that feature means it's useless to me for most applications I had planned for it.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or 7D MK II
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:06:42 PM »
At 60 fps the eye can no longer tell the difference, which is ~17 ms refresh. As a practical matter your ability to tell a difference will have a threshold a lot higher than that. In other words modern EFVs are more than adequate. Stop looking at EFVs from 10 years ago, and stop looking at the word "EFV" to form you judgment.

This is all simply untrue, and comes from an ignorance of how closed loop feedback systems work.

Quote
Your "dark adaption" of your eyes allows you to see in the dark?

Yes.  Very dark.  The equivalent of ISO 500,000 1/10th.

Quote
Don't make me laugh. Please. A modern camera sensor on the other hand is quite capable of seeing
in the dark, and certainly a lot better than any human eye.
Quote

Only with long exposures.

Quote
Plus, you are still ignoring the fundamental advantage EFVs have over optical, which is the ability to see at the pixel level what the camera actually is seeing (which is fundamentally important because the CAMERA (bolded because you are ignoring this fundamental fact) is recording the image, not your eye). Optical viewfinders are simply incapable of doing that.

Manual focus magnification is the only advantage of EVFs for stills.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65