October 23, 2014, 09:31:18 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 ... 75
196
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV announcement on March 2015 or later
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:29:49 AM »
I can't think of a reason to believe the 5DIV will be anything more than a full-frame version of the 7DII with the popup flash removed and a somewhat slower frame rate.  But maybe Canon will surprise us with some new sensor technology or 4k or something else.

197
Lenses / Re: Hands-on With the Canon EF 400 f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:06:07 AM »
Am I the only one that thinks making the tripod foot non-removable almost totally defeats the purpose of this lens, which is to make it very light and easily handholdable?  If I were in the market for a lens like this, this one simple thing would be a show-stopper for me.  I keep the tripod ring off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-400L unless I'm actually using it on a tripod for exactly this reason - handholding comfort.  It even looks really uncomfortable to hold in the video with the foot in his palm.

198
Lenses / Re: 100-400mm and more DO lenses confirmed
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:16:26 PM »
Re: 100-400L

"It's definitely on the boards for replacement."

Geee...ya think?  The replacement was late 8 years ago!

199
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:54:16 PM »
I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine with a 70D took some test shots and I don't think the 70D performance at 1600 is all that much better than my 7D. If so, Canon needs some magic in that "low light sensitivity" improvement to the 20.2 Mpixel sensor to make the 7Dii worthwhile, IMO. Without a usable 1600 (or higher) ISO, I'm thinking I wasted all this time waiting for the 7Dii and maybe the 5Diii is the answer.
I'm definitely NOT pre-ordering.

That's only the answer if you can either get closer, or use a bigger lens (500/4 versus 300/4, 300/2.8 versus 200/2.8, etc.).  If neither is the case, most likely the camera with the smaller pixels will win.

Exactly, only I'm looking at the 800/4 vs my 5004 and that's an EXPENSIVE proposition.
I was hoping that Canon would come up with something that matched the EXMOR process, which would give me a usable 1600.

There is no 800/4.  If you compare the 800/5.6 on full-frame versus the 500/4 on crop, there won't be that much of a difference in noise in the final images.  The full-frame camera will be a stop or so better, but shooting at a stop slower shutter speed.

200
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:38:00 PM »
I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine with a 70D took some test shots and I don't think the 70D performance at 1600 is all that much better than my 7D. If so, Canon needs some magic in that "low light sensitivity" improvement to the 20.2 Mpixel sensor to make the 7Dii worthwhile, IMO. Without a usable 1600 (or higher) ISO, I'm thinking I wasted all this time waiting for the 7Dii and maybe the 5Diii is the answer.
I'm definitely NOT pre-ordering.

That's only the answer if you can either get closer, or use a bigger lens (500/4 versus 300/4, 300/2.8 versus 200/2.8, etc.).  If neither is the case, most likely the camera with the smaller pixels will win.

201
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:19:45 PM »
Those digital zoom things on the rebels had simply dreadful false color artifacting/moire.

Baloney.  It's just a 1:1 pixel crop - almost no moire at all, and in fact much less than in regular video modes.

The 70D has it, and no moire is one advantage often sited.

One thing I'd really love is the ability to smoothly zoom from 1x to 3x "digital zoom" which would greatly increase the zoom range of a zoom lens, or add a usable zoom range to a prime.  The 18-135STM, for example, would go from 29-216 to 29-621.

The false color artifacting comes from debayering, not downsampling. And it's very hard to suppress in the absence of downsampling. This (along with dynamic range extension) is why 1:1 pixel video cameras are rare. It was awful on the Rebels, I imagine it's also awful on the 70D, but everyone studiously avoids running chart tests on video cameras because the news is usually so grim.

Well, I've used it on my Rebel many times, and it's always been quite solid.  I've also looked at many samples of it from the 70D, and the same is true.

202
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:21:04 PM »
Those digital zoom things on the rebels had simply dreadful false color artifacting/moire.

Baloney.  It's just a 1:1 pixel crop - almost no moire at all, and in fact much less than in regular video modes.

The 70D has it, and no moire is one advantage often sited.

One thing I'd really love is the ability to smoothly zoom from 1x to 3x "digital zoom" which would greatly increase the zoom range of a zoom lens, or add a usable zoom range to a prime.  The 18-135STM, for example, would go from 29-216 to 29-621.

203
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:22:54 PM »
I'm concerned that they have dropped the 70D's highly-useful 3x "digital zoom" mode for video.  It doesn't appear in the menu shown on the B&H preview.  That feature needs not only to be included, but improved.

204
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 02:14:17 PM »
Totally agree. I understand being disappointed about the rumors, as it seemed as if were the same, but now that the information is out there... ??? I guess some people like to ignore the facts and continue arguing their case.

People are complaining that it probably isn't different enough.  They want on-sensor A-to-D and dramatically (factor of 4-8 or so) reduced low-ISO read noise which would provide up to 2-3 stops more base ISO dynamic range.

Personally, I don't care that much about low ISO DR, but reduced noise from any source is always a good thing.

It's likely that this sensor has similar base ISO DR to all previous Canon sensors.  I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think that's unlikely.

205
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 01:26:19 PM »
If your not shooting action, or are reach limited then FF sensors are just better for the obvious reasons.

Better, but costlier.  But, yeah, if you don't need all this power, a 6D is probably better at just flat producing images.

206
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:44:48 PM »
That last bit about automatically switching the AF point...that sounds like the new tracking feature from Sony's AF system. If it does the same thing, then I'm impressed. You would then be able to manually choose a single AF point for getting the initial lock...but the sensor will still use all the AF points to track the subject. THAT is pretty kick-ass...

How is that not what the 5DIII can do now, albeit without tracking data input from the metering sensor?

From what I understand, that's a fairly key difference between the 5DIII and the 1DX.

207
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:36:00 PM »
I still don't expect it to fix Canon's noise issues...

As for base ISO DR, how about this.  It can do +/- 5 stops of bracketing for up to 7 exposures, and it can do 7 exposures in 6 tenths of a second.  That's a pretty fast HDR which would probably work for all but fast moving subjects, and it would give you up to around 22 stops of DR.

208
So, the same old same old 70D sensor?

No, it is not - stated clearly in multiple places.  New, more sensitive photo diodes, more transmissive Bayer dyes, and the possibility of better A-to-D and processing.  Scott Kelby said in his video that it produces the cleanest high ISO images he's ever seen from a crop sensor dSLR.  Now, given his past, that might be hyperbole, but since he's unquestionably used the 70D, that means this one should be better.

209
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:58:49 AM »
So, umm... what's special about this upgrade?

This is *exactly* the baby 1DX people have been asking for - fast, great focusing, but at a low price, in a small size, and with a high pixel density.  Call it a 1DX with built-in non-removable optically-perfect 1.6x teleconverter for 1/4 the price of a 1DX.

210


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

Convolution.

Ask yourself this question.  Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?

The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.

Why do you want that?  So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.

Same thing with lenses.  How does the lens perform by itself?  You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.

If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.

Convolution allows you to avoid that.

1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.

If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.

Precisely.

Precisely virtually zero practical value.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's of no value to people who do.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 75