August 31, 2014, 04:24:00 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 5 ... 57
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:39:16 PM »

Do you see a detail difference between these two?  They were shot with the same aperture diameter.


What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?

First image is with a 20D @ 280mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, ISO400
Second image is with a T2i @ 560mm, f/11, 1/20s, ISO200

I wouldn't count on the EXIF data as the teleconverter stacks were different and only the first one reports.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:09:59 PM »
I still say it's possible that it's the 70D sensor and new technology (better performance) at the same time.  This is because it's possible that DIGIC 6 will reduce read noise from the same sensor compared to DIGIC 5+ in the 70D.

The ISO range is reportedly the same as on the 70D, which doesn't bode well.
I really hope that I'm wrong, though :(.

Well, I wouldn't expect the approach I mentioned to provide a full 1-stop improvement so maybe it's just a little better but not enough for an expanded range.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:47:41 AM »
Hey, I am going on a unicorn photo expedition in January, I need that slightly-better-than-70D high-ISO noise performance.   8)

Bigger pixels give more electron capacity per pixel (say, 4 micron pixel has 30,000 maximum capacity, 7 micro pixel has 100,000 maximum capacity). So, say you have 14-bit ADC, that's roughly 16,000 levels of electrons, or about 2 electrons per level for the 4 micron pixel and 6 electrons per level for the 7 micron pixel. Say you have 30 electrons worth of noise. Noise takes up the first 15 levels for the 4 micron pixel and the first 5 levels for the 7 micron pixel. That's why bigger pixels, all other things being equal, result in less perceptible noise.

Perceptible, perhaps, but it's also a smaller file.  Reduce the large file to the smaller file's resolution, applying noise reduction as needed to keep the same final sharpness, and you'll usually find that the smaller pixels have less noise.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:25:16 AM »
The good news is that if it is a totally new sensor, it may be much better than the 70d and it will have better high ISO noise at 20.2 than 24 mp. Im all for a smaller sensor in aps-c. Truthfully, I wish it was closer to 12 or 16. We'd have a killer crop camera!
I'd be happier with a 16 megapixel sensor without dual pixel AF. Do not get me wrong. For the intended use of 7D Mark II (mini 1DX) the most important thing is a big improvement in noise above ISO 1600.

Same here if it means larger pixels that let more light in. Just look at Canon's prosumer camcorders which work on that very concept.

Saying bigger pixels let more light in is like saying cutting a 15 inch pizza into 6 slices instead of 8 gets you more pizza.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:53:56 AM »
both images were ... from the same area of the sensor.

Which is the reach-limited scenario, no?

Yes...and that's the scenario where smaller pixels help.

Look, given the same aperture, reducing pixel size and increasing focal length do the same thing.  That's why in the astro community, people usually talk about image scale (arc seconds per pixel) rather than focal length.  Want a smaller image scale?  Use smaller pixels or use a Barlow (teleconverter).  Same thing except the Barlow might be less than perfect optically.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:50:14 AM »

Do you see a detail difference between these two?  They were shot with the same aperture diameter.


What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?

18MP crop sensor versus 8.2MP crop sensor.  Both were 1 stop down from wide open.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:49:46 AM »
Surely up sampling to beyond 100% isn't an accurate comparison is it ? Unless you were going to enlarge the final image beyond 100%. I'd rather see the 20D reduced 37% to match. Also what happened with sharpening ? The 5D required a fair amount, more than the 20D if memory serves me, but it was a long time ago now.

The 5D image is smaller, therefore it has fewer pixels, therefore it has less resolution.  This is a fair comparison as both images were shot in raw and both images were processed using the same tools and settings and are shown at the same final size from the same area of the sensor.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:25:37 AM »
In real world, practical usage most of the 'reach advantage' evaporates, and at high ISO there no advantage at all.

And that's total baloney as well.

Do you think that teleconverters are useless?  Do you think a 100-400L has no "reach" advantage over a 70-200/2.8?  All those keep aperture the same, and just change the effective size of the image.  Longer focal lengths at the same aperture (not f-stop) and smaller pixels do exactly the same thing.

Do you see a detail difference between these two?  They were shot with the same aperture diameter.



39
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:54:36 AM »
They are not controlled tests of the metrics I asked for, are they? I said hand held and with AF, show me some controlled tests that demonstrate a clear advantage in resolution to the 7D against a 5D MkII or MkIII cropped that used AF and was hand held.

Hand held with AF is not controlled (though, both of these were with AF).  However, I could have done these handheld as I could have frozen them with flash.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:51:20 AM »
Wrong.  I went full-frame, and I kept my APS-c camera for its advantages in high pixel density and fast frame rates over the full-frame.

Of course, the latter is not a general 'crop factor advantage'.  You can get higher frame rates for lower cost, and as I've stated, lower cost is the main advantage of crop sensors.

Okay, I don't personally consider the 1-series as a viable option because of the body style, so I'm only comparing to the bodies I'd actually consider using (6D and 5DIII).

41
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:50:23 AM »
I still say it's possible that it's the 70D sensor and new technology (better performance) at the same time.  This is because it's possible that DIGIC 6 will reduce read noise from the same sensor compared to DIGIC 5+ in the 70D.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:26:57 AM »
What our information doesn’t specify is whether or not it’s the identical sensor to the EOS 70D.

From the other post, "The sensor does have new technology".

How can you stand by what you said and contradict it at the same time?

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 08:58:28 AM »
I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests.  You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.
So lets see some your many "controlled tests"...

Same focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, shooting position, subject, lighting, and processing.

Smaller pixels on top:


Smaller pixels on the left:

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 28, 2014, 08:54:43 AM »
im one of the guys who says "once you go fullframe you never go back".

Wrong.  I went full-frame, and I kept my APS-c camera for its advantages in high pixel density and fast frame rates over the full-frame.  I use both, often together.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:45:32 PM »
Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

I would never have thought to do an UNcontrolled test to validate a hypothesis.

Most everything I shoot is moving - fast.  How would you suggest I shoot identical shots with two cameras of the same subject?  Oh, if the subject isn't moving then the test is trivial, as shooting a stationary subject is no test for AF or handholdability.

So you don't have one set of images or one test to point to demonstrate  your opinion, despite your lofty "No? What about only every test out there?"

That is my point, the "tests" so many of you rest your decisions and opinions on so often are not, actually, tests that demonstrate the results you will get if you use the equipment as most of us do.

I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests.  You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 57