April 16, 2014, 07:27:45 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 34
241
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 12, 2013, 08:17:57 PM »
I asked no such question at all.

I asked the rhetorical question ... It's rhetorical because no one can answer that conclusively until we get some raw data from this camera.

So...it was a completely pointless thread.  Well, gee, now I know to ignore your posts henceforth.  Lesson learned.

The point was, I was able to push an SL1 JPEG harder and with better results than I've been able to push JPEGs from other Canon cameras.  This very site has suggested that we keep an eye on the performance of the SL1 sensor due to the claim that it's actually a new sensor rather than yet another rehash of the ever-present Canon 18MP 1.6-crop sensor.  I posted an early sample of that.  If you find that pointless, then fine, I suggest you move on or provide some of your own test results from this sensor.

242
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 12, 2013, 07:31:00 PM »
The point is that he asked if the upcoming SL-1 was going to be better than his T2i. 

I asked no such question at all.

I asked the rhetorical question of if the posted push of an SL1 JPEG was, "Better noise processing?  Black point clipping?  Or a genuine reduction of read noise?"  It's rhetorical because no one can answer that conclusively until we get some raw data from this camera.

243
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 12, 2013, 12:00:00 PM »
That was an ISO 100 shot.

Well, I guess one of two things then. Either the shot was not DR limited and the shadows were not deep enough to exhibit the classic Canon banding problems (which seems to be the more plausible), or Canon has definitely done something with that sensor to reduce banding noise. The lower-end Canon DSLRs usually have less anyway, as the ADC runs at a lower frequency...but there is usually some.

Yes...it's going to take raw data to tell for sure, but it looks promising so far.

244
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:11:20 PM »
That was an ISO 100 shot.

245
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 11, 2013, 03:34:06 PM »
It is true, he asked how it would compare to his T2i, not a D800.  A D800 or Nikon was not mentioned by the OP!
Its not going to be much different from his T2i.


Since when has that stopped anyone from bringing up the comparison?   ::)


and when will it stop them  ::)


You guys are off on an irrelevant tangent.  I compared a 5DIII to a D800.  But okay, how about a D7000 to a 60D?

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html

3.1e-

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_60D.html

13.2e-

Still a very big difference in low-ISO read noise, which tends to drive dynamic range at low ISO.

246
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:48:43 PM »
As far as IQ, at low ISO's you are almost certainly not going to notice any difference.


Not true.

Canon's problem has always been very high read noise at low-ISO, limiting dynamic range.  For example, the 5DIII's base-ISO read noise is 33.1e- while the D800's is 2.7e-:

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html

There's a huge difference between 33.1e- and 2.7e- when you have to push the shadows really hard.  I don't run into base ISO dynamic range problems a lot, but I wouldn't mind Canon getting competitive here so that when I did I didn't struggle with the noise produced.

Canon's sensors have always been superior or competitive at high ISO where read noise drops dramatically and performance is dictated by Quantum Efficiency where the 5DIII and D800 are nearly the same at around 50%.

247
EOS Bodies / Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 11, 2013, 11:55:30 AM »
DPReview published some JPEGs from a pre-release camera.  Still, I can't do this with my T2i.  Here I've pushed blacks that were in the neighborhood of 8 counts up to the neighborhood of 140 counts.  I see no sign of banding and very little noise.

What do you think?  Better noise processing?  Black point clipping?  Or a genuine reduction of read noise?  Raw images will settle this, but I haven't seen any yet.

Here's the animated gif:

http://tinyurl.com/dxr747l

248
Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: March 27, 2013, 01:13:12 PM »
Hopefully, 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III + 7D II and its f/8 AF sensors are all designed to work together perfectly from the start.  I've only been asking for this since about 2006 or so.  Now they'll finally make it, and it'll be unaffordable!

249
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: March 13, 2013, 03:56:33 PM »
If either of these two lenses were under $5,000 I might care.  As it is, no way.

250
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 08:24:31 PM »
We’re told at least one variation of the camera being developed has an integrated grip, really making it a “Baby EOS-1D X”.

That would instantly make it a non-starter for me, as the integrated grip is the main reason the 1-series is so entirely uninteresting to me.  I rarely need it, I have little hands, and it has to fit in my current bag or I won't buy it no matter what its specifications or performance.

251
You missed my point entirely.   I'll spell it out.

You can cut the pixel linear dimension by a factor of four (giving you four time the resolving power), use NR to reduce the per-pixel noise to parity and still be left with twice as much resolving power.

252
Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).
Hmm, ok. But in the general discussion, noise increases when pixels get smaller (at Hi-ISO).

Yeah, but that's a myth.

It is only a "myth" assuming images are always compared on a size-normal basis. That is certainly a valid way to compare, and the only normalized way to compare. However...assuming one buys a higher resolution camera for the purposes of using it for its native resolution, rather than downscaled to something smaller...the increased noise of a higher density sensor is no myth.

Smaller pixels have a lower cap on charge. Lower charge means higher gain. Higher gain means that for any given illumination level photon shot noise is exacerbated by amplification, which results in higher noise at native size.

Amplification has nothing to do with it and well capacity only matters at base ISO.  And it's still a myth anyway as cutting pixel size by a factor of 16 (area) still allows double the resolving power at lower per-pixel noise in the final image because noise reduction software is so much better than spatial block averaging which is all bigger pixels do.

253
Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).
Hmm, ok. But in the general discussion, noise increases when pixels get smaller (at Hi-ISO).

Yeah, but that's a myth.

254
So if I get this right, Canon is taking a full frame sensor, and ENLARGING the pixels on it 7.5 times, and then market it as the best ISO performer on the market? DUH!

Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments.  Read the text.  They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).

255
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 24, 2013, 02:33:36 PM »

As long as smartphone cameras are permanently stuck around 28mm, I and many others that are even slightly interested in photography will continue to use compact cameras instead.  I keep a compact in the same pocket as my Galaxy S3 and never use the camera on the phone.

People are lining up to pay big-bux for the Sony RX1 with a permanently attached 28mm f/2.0 lens ;)

Which is only slightly less useless than a cell phone.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 34