April 17, 2014, 11:59:39 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 4 ... 34
16
If we follow your "logic" the original Rebel (6 MP) doesn’t have the same  35 mm equivalent focal length as the T2i (18 MP) because it has 1/3 of the T2i’s megapixels...
I’m sorry, but megapixels are not a factor in focal length equivalence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_equivalent_focal_length


Fine.  Call it whatever you want.  This was the SX50 at 215mm versus the T2i at 560mm.  The image scale (angle subtended by each pixel) was very nearly identical between the shots.

Or, if you prefer, this was the T2i at 560mm cropped to match the field of view of the SX50 at 1,200mm equivalent.  Same thing.

The point is, the SX50 at the long end held its own against a Canon full-frame L-zoom telephoto used at virtually its maximum resolving power.  Not bad for a $450 camera/lens combination with a 50x zoom range.

17
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G17 Coming in May? [CR1]
« on: March 30, 2014, 12:14:49 PM »
24-200mm f/1.4-2.0 lens
New 1″ Sensor

I'll believe THAT when I see it!

18
i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end.


Check this out.  This is a T2i+100-400L+1.4xTC III versus an SX50.  These are 100% crops from more than 800 meters away.




A T2i has a 1.6 crop factor so a 100-400L @400mm will get you to 1.6 x 400 = 640mm.
Combine that with the 1.4x TCIII and you get 640 x 1.4 = 896mm
No where near 1200mm so these 2 photos cant both be 100% crops @1200mm equivalent
You need another 1.4 extender to get to 1200mm with the T2i


Yes, they can, and they are.  The T2i is 18MP versus the 12MP of the SX50.


Let's do the math.  400mm * 1.414 * 1.62 crop * (5184px/4000px) = 1183mm equivalent.

19
i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end.


Check this out.  This is a T2i+100-400L+1.4xTC III versus an SX50.  These are 100% crops from more than 800 meters away.




A T2i has a 1.6 crop factor so a 100-400L @400mm will get you to 1.6 x 400 = 640mm.
Combine that with the 1.4x TCIII and you get 640 x 1.4 = 896mm
No where near 1200mm so these 2 photos cant both be 100% crops @1200mm equivalent
You need another 1.4 extender to get to 1200mm with the T2i


Yes, they can, and they are.  The T2i is 18MP versus the 12MP of the SX50.

20
ok, 2000mm got my attention, but I don't know much about these cameras... so, a question to someone who does...

how would a picture from SX60 at 2000mm compare to lets say 6D + lets say Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, cropped to the same frame?

thank you

Look a few posts up.

21
I'm interested in this camera as a lower-cost, wider focal-length range camcorder with an EVF.  Camcorders tend to have wide focal length ranges OR EVFs, but not both, and the ones with EVFs start at around twice the likely price of this camera.

22
i had a fuji superzoom bridge and it looked just bad at the long end.


Check this out.  This is a T2i+100-400L+1.4xTC III versus an SX50.  These are 100% crops from more than 800 meters away.


23
It needs IS and thus this one needs to be discontinued.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. You are welcome to not buy the lens. In the 24-70mm focal range with the subjects I shoot with the lens, my shutter speeds are either fast enough to obviate the need for IS, or I'm shooting landscapes from a tripod.  A blanket statement that the lens needs to be discontinued because it lacks image stabilization is just plain silly.

I don't get why anyone would declare that this lens needs to be discontinued, just because it lacks IS, when Canon has a long and successful history selling 70-200 zooms, both with and without IS, side by side. Just add a 24-70 f/2.8L IS to the lineup!

I'm on my 2nd 24-105, which -- despite its faults -- will serve my purposes until a 24-xx f/2.8L IS is released. (I have some very sharp primes within the FL range for critical work.) IS is just so useful to me, that I probably won't buy any more non-IS glass.

Fine.  Just add one with IS.  It'll push this one down in price over time.

Regardless, I'm after the rumored Sigma 24-70/2 OS.

24
Shouldn't be more than $899.  In fact, I'd probably still buy the Tamron for $1,299 even if the Canon were $899.

It needs IS and thus this one needs to be discontinued.
Ignorance is bliss  ::) and you obviously do not own the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... I have owned both the lenses (Canon 24-70 L II & the Tamron 24-70 VC) ... granted that Tamron is great value for money but the Canon is made of superior optics ... anyone who thinks that the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II should be no more than $899 is extremely unintelligent.

Let me put it another way.  As when I bought it, I'd rather have the 24-105/4L IS I have now than a brand new 24-70/2.8 II, even if they were the same price.  And I could buy a new 24-105 for under $1,000.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 isn't enough for fast-moving subjects.  But the difference between IS and no IS (3-4 stops) is a huge difference in image quality when you are light-limited (ISO 3200 versus ISO 400, for example).  When I need speed, I use my 35/1.4, and often even that isn't fast enough.

I'd guess they eliminated 2/3 of their potential customers when they decided to go without IS on the new 24-70.

25
Shouldn't be more than $899.  In fact, I'd probably still buy the Tamron for $1,299 even if the Canon were $899.

It needs IS and thus this one needs to be discontinued.

26
Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:52:03 PM »
I've decided to wait and see what Canon does with the 100-400L replacement.  It's way, way, way long overdue and I'm pretty happy with my 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xTC III combo.

27
Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 06, 2014, 09:20:42 AM »
I sure wish someone would test this thing on a high-pixel-density sensor like the 7D or 70D, instead of the full-frame cameras.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:24:11 PM »
The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.


Yes, that G15 is really beating the pants off the 1D X in terms of DR.  Wait, I'm wrong.  For a minute there, I thought DR was like golf where lower numbers were better.  Oops.   ::)


1Dx:  11.2 stops at base ISO:  http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html
G15:  11.5 stops at base ISO:  http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html

29
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:22:29 PM »
When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win,....
Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Quote
in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.

Try to stay on topic.  We're talking about smaller pixels, not larger sensors.

Quote
The images above actually prove my point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier.

My point was that smaller pixels on the same size sensor, make better images, even in noise performance.  And my image does show that.

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point.[/quote]

The right-column is at the same output magnification too - and the smaller pixels have obliterated the large pixels.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:29:57 PM »
And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.


Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size.


And it works way better when there is more detail in the original.

Quote
You can't bring software into the hardware equation here.


Sure I can.  The entire process, from optics to processing, works together to produce the final image.

Quote
Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.


Then why not have just one enormous pixel?

Quote
As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels.


Not necessarily, but usually.

Quote
But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances.


Virtually every circumstance.

Quote
Smaller pixels will always outresolve larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels.


Nope.

Quote
Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X.


The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels.  If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 34