March 04, 2015, 08:05:36 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 ... 115
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 04:57:15 PM »
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Someday someone needs to explain to me why this myth persists after a decade of things going the other way despite similar basic sensor performance (QE).

It's no myth, it's physics. Did you ever ask yourself why the ISO-Monster A7S has lesser Pixel (12MP) and the 5DS with 53MP looses ISO against the old Model (ISO6400)?

The A7S has a better sensor, not just larger pixels.

The 5DS has the same pixel size as the 7DII, which is limited to ISO 16,000 bases, 51,200 extended.  The fact that the 5DS is limited the way it is, despite the larger sensor (which gives it an inherent 1 1/3 stop advantage), proves that this is just another Canon artificial crippling exercise.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 04:55:11 PM »
However, we can not forget that the 40Mpixel sensor has 4 pixels covering the same area as each of the 10Mpixel pixels and that if you bin those 4 pixels together in post production you end up with very similar performance to the 10Mpixel sensor.

I think this this the main reason the myth persists.

You assume the area of both sensors are the same.

Of course - I'm not comparing full-frame to crop here.

Quote
This may be true in theory, but practically there are microlenses above the pixels/sensors. Please look at the schemes of such an structure. 4 small lenses have not the same area as one lense one the whole area of 4 small pixels. You didn't answer my question anyway. I guess, on purpose.

The microlenses are actually the great equalizer.  They take away a lot of the fill-factor difference cause by constant lithography size and variable pixel pitch.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 04:08:09 PM »
However, we can not forget that the 40Mpixel sensor has 4 pixels covering the same area as each of the 10Mpixel pixels and that if you bin those 4 pixels together in post production you end up with very similar performance to the 10Mpixel sensor.

I think this this the main reason the myth persists.

34
Lenses / Re: understanding "fastness"
« on: February 22, 2015, 03:37:29 PM »
Several ways - vignetting, and transmission losses are the most obvious, but since you don't have the same focal length you don't have the same scene either, and that could make in-camera metering inconsistent between them.

Vignetting will likely be higher on the wide open 70-200 than that stopped down 50L.  Transmission losses will as well because the zoom has many more elements than the prime.

Look up the difference between T-stop and F-stop.

Lee Jay

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 03:22:11 PM »
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Someday someone needs to explain to me why this myth persists after a decade of things going the other way despite similar basic sensor performance (QE).

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 03:18:26 PM »
ISO 100-204,800

Who can tell me why one should use an ISO of 204,800???
These specs does not seem very logic compared what you can get now.

In 2004, I heard the same thing about ISO 3200.
In 2011, I heard the same thing about ISO 12,800.
In 2013, I head the same thing about ISO 25,600.

I've been in plenty of extreme low-light conditions where I could see easily but I couldn't take pictures, even with an f/1.4 prime at ISO 12,800.

I did a little test one time to see what ISO it would take to get a picture about like I could see with my eyes after a full dark adaptation, at the same equivalent shutter speed (about 1/10th).  My eyes can do black and white at an f-stop of about f/3.5 and an ISO of about 2 million when compared with a digital camera.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 02:19:15 PM »
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.

No it doesn't.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:23:41 PM »
And why is a new card format an issue? I use the same cards in the same cameras, every day. Shoot, take card out to edit, put card back in, shoot again. If you're spending £2-£3k on a camera, another £100 odd for a superior format card to go with it seems perfectly reasonable.

They're crazy expensive right now.

A Lexar 64GB Cfast 2.0 card is $352.43.
A Lexar 64GB UDMA 7 CF card is $72.95.
A Lexar 64GB UHS-II SD card is $54.18.

Sorry, that doesn't seem "perfectly reasonable" to me.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:16:04 PM »
I don't want to buy two different bodies with different capabilities where I have to swap the lenses to use each bodys special features. I am very impressed by the 5Ds's but what body to choose? Prices are o.k. but I would easily pay 4000 €/$ if they had made a switchable low pass filter.

You okay with that switchable filter requiring you to partially disassemble the body?

https://support.red.com/entries/100226366-DSMC-Interchangeable-OLPF-System-FAQs#q10

"You will need to use a T6 Torx driver to install and remove a DSMC Interchangeable OLPF and an LED flashlight (or similar) to ensure no debris or contaminants are visible in the optical cavity before inserting an interchangeable OLPF.

NOTE: It is not required, but RED highly recommends performing an OLPF swap in a cleanroom environment."

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:49:25 AM »
"4k video" is 3840x2160.  At a 3:2 aspect ratio, that would be 3840x2560, or 9.83MP.

I doubt they'll go there.

So that leaves either cropping to get 4k, or downsampling to get 4k.

The C100 pixel bins to get 4k.  The way it does it is essentially 2x2 (binning the greens and recording to the red and blue).

That would be 2*(3840x2560) = 7680x5120 or 39.3MP.  I suppose that one could be credible.

Or, they could just do some form of downsampling and/or skipping.  Problem is, downsampling from, say, 18MP to 4k (8.3MP) is pretty computationally intensive, and doing it 30 or 60 times a second uses a lot of power (battery energy).

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:24:15 AM »
ok, so if you want an 18mpx 12fps ff camera then why not just get a 1dx now?

Two reasons - cost and I hate the 1D series bodies, and would never own one for that reason.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:23:19 AM »
This set of specifications makes no sense. It has no logic one 5D Mark iii substitute have only 18 megapixel and at the same time, powerful 12 photos per second.

A true replacement could have 20 megapixel and 8 frames per second.

The difference between 18MP and 20MP is basically undetectable.

43
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:22:34 AM »
It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.   :)

I've been using nothing but Lightroom for post processing since version 1.4 (except for compositing).

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 10:45:42 AM »
This sounds pretty aggressive for Canon.

But, okay, whatever.  I'm going to hold off until the (hopefully) fall announcement before I decide what to do.

45
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 20, 2015, 01:39:20 PM »
But, if we don't make efforts to correct it then surely we all end up reading crap? Like 'lens compression' and 'crop camera reach advantage' and the 'necessity for Canon to beat, or at least equal, the DR of Sony otherwise they are dead'.............

BTW, saying the 7DII or 70D doesn't have a reach advantage over the 1Dx is the same as saying the 5DS doesn't have a resolution advantage over the 1DX.  You saying that too?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 115