August 01, 2014, 06:33:45 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 46
196
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.

197
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.

198
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.


199
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.

200
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.

201
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.

202
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.

203
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.

204
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

205
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.

206
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.


207
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:34:14 PM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones

Large sensors out-perform small sensors.  Small pixels out-perform large pixels as long as you don't get so small that the smaller pixels are too small for the manufacturing technology making them.

The 70D, even with 40MP out-performs the 7D with 18MP.  The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

The idea that small pixels are somehow bad is long, long out-of-date.

208
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:30:38 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

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.

209
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:44:04 AM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

210
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:31:27 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 46