December 20, 2014, 09:11:18 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 ... 90
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 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.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 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.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: Today at 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.

4
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:28:32 PM »
It's late, and I'm tired, so I don't entirely trust my results here.  However, if I'm right, this will explain these results.

The theoretical maximums, simply caused by diffraction, are 1555 lp/ph for f/5.6 and 2199 lp/ph for f/4.

So, the reason the 100-400L improved less is that there's less room to improve between the old one and the diffraction limit than there was for the old 400/4DO which has a higher diffraction limit due to its faster f-stop.

In fact, the result for the 100-400L II is just 1% less than what I'd calculate from a perfect f/5.6 lens behind an AA filter.  And that 1% number is based on a rule-of-thumb for the AA filter that itself is less accurate than 1%.

5
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:33:35 PM »
This one seems to focus more accurately and faster, have lower CA and flare, retain nearly full sharpness when the IS elements are not centered, have better handling, and have dramatically better IS.

Those are all solutions to the exact problems I had with the original (which I own at work).  The original has pretty good optical performance under ideal conditions.  This one is taken with the original with stacked 1.4x TCs on a Rebel T2i.



The new one will give people the ability to get slightly better resolution with lower CA and flare, and to get that performance far more often in the real world.  It also seems to take almost no hit at all from a 1.4x, which is pretty amazing.

I asked for it many times before, and now Canon has delivered the ultimate handheld reach system - the 7DII + 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III.

6
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:17:40 PM »
Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here's an interesting one.  This is the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III versus the new 100-400L IS II + 1.4x TC III both 1/3 of a stop down.  The 70-200+2x is sharper in the middle but softer on the edges.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

7
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 19, 2014, 01:22:12 PM »

My 100-400 was very sharp.  I think a key criterion for the MkII will be performance with the 1.4xIII, given the availability of f/8 AF on multiple bodies including the 7DII.  The MkI didn't take a TC well.

Yeah, it did.  But the new one is quite a bit better, especially off-axis.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2

8
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:24:09 AM »
I think apart from a rotating zoom (to which people seem to have mixed feelings) the usability with the TCs as confirmed by the MTFs, a reliable and more powerful IS, along with the much improved IQ is a sufficiently good reason for the widespread welcome this lens is getting.

Seems like the only thing missing is the much improved IQ.  Roger's initial, cursory tests over at the rental place indicate it's only around 4% sharper on average.  Of course there are other IQ considerations like flare, CA, distortion, contrast, color reproduction, etc., but 4% better sharpness isn't exactly a slam dunk.   ???

To be clear, I'm looking forward to getting this guy and I want to love the heck out of every aspect of it.  But 4% pales in comparison to the 40% improvement of the 400 DO II over its predecessor.

As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop).  The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 10:10:20 PM »

Yes tiny pixels = miserable ISO performance. 


Small sensors do, small pixels are helpful, not hurtful.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 09:44:38 PM »
remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.

You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.

That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.

You're off the rails.  Just making the sensor bigger - with the same sized pixels - will improve high ISO performance by 1 1/3 stops.

Oh, and in-general, smaller pixels perform better at all ISOs than larger ones.  The only exception is very extreme high-ISOs.
:)
I wonder how the sarcasm impaired will act?

Huh?

11
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 09:24:18 PM »
remember folks..... we are talking about a FF camera with the same pixel size as the 7D2. It will have very similar IQ to the 7D2. It will have very similar ISO performance to the 7D2.

You can't have the megapixel count of tiny pixels and the performance of large pixels. You can have one or the other... or a compromise. You can't have both. The 6D, 5D3, and 1DX will be superior in low light.

That's why I think it will be a new series, not an update of an existing series.

You're off the rails.  Just making the sensor bigger - with the same sized pixels - will improve high ISO performance by 1 1/3 stops.

Oh, and in-general, smaller pixels perform better at all ISOs than larger ones.  The only exception is very extreme high-ISOs.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 09:57:05 AM »
Thank you very much for the links (especially the first two).

I have found the following interesting link:

http://www.canonwatch.com/eos-5d-mark-iii-hacked-anti-aliasing-filter-removed-more-sharpness/

Wow - what a horrid test.  They lighting is entirely different between the two shots.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 09:56:20 AM »
A question: Is it possible that the loss of sharpness by AA filter to be counteracted by the use of slightly increased sharpening? If that is so we can have the best of 2 worlds. Unless some very fine detail is lost completely at capture time...

You need a different type of sharpening to compensate for the roll off of the AA filter prior to the Nyquist limit.  But, yes, very little is actually lost that can't be recovered.  On the other hand, the aliasing from the lack of an AA filter cannot be removed in post processing.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 18, 2014, 08:26:20 AM »
Some one earlier wrote:
No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices).  Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.
[/quote]

Do you use cameras with and without the AA filters?  I shoot the D800, 5DIII, D800E, D810 and the D7100.  In ALL cases, for my most detailed landscape work at low ISO, the cameras without the AA filter produce superior IQ Images to ones that have the AA filter and I have the large prints (3 feet by 2 feet average size) to prove it.
[/quote]

I've seen tons of shots from AA-less cameras from owners who were showing them to me to prove their superior IQ.  The shots are always crunchy and covered top to bottom with artifacts.  Some people just don't see those artifacts while to others they are obvious and nasty.  Generally the first group is obsessed with sharpness.

I'm very sensitive to that crunchy artifact filled look, and absolute sharpness means very little to me.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 08:05:04 PM »
Enlighten us!  I'm always willing to learn something new, as long as it isn't arguing over word meanings.

His calculations assume there's no AA filter, no Bayer mask, and that the pixels are all infinitely small.  His limit calculator assumes (I think) MTF50 is a reasonable cutoff.  Most people would choose MTF9 or smaller.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 90