April 18, 2014, 12:02:11 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 6 ... 34
46
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 12:38:35 PM »
I've tried it.

Please keep to the parameters of the scenario, i.e. DR of EVF == DR of sensor.

They don't.  That's the whole point.
Quote
The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

It's a low-res version (1024x768 is considered a very high res EVF).

47
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 09:51:47 AM »

The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor.  It's lower by around 6-8 stops.  And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.

For sake of illustration..... let's say the sensor has 12DB of dynamic range and the EVF has 8 stops of dynamic range... The 12DB range of the sensor is then mapped onto the 8DB range of the EVF.... and the viewer can then see it....

The limitation is the capture of data.... once you have it, you can adjust and shift all you want to map up against output devices such as monitors, printers, and EVFs

If any of that were true, the EVF image would look lousy being flat and low contrast.  And the limitation isn't just the capture.  I can adjustexposure to capture the bright 12 stops, the dark 12 stops, or whatever I want.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 09:48:53 AM »
It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

I've tried it.  The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 08:28:58 AM »
The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...

I do not deny that we can see more dynamic range with our eyeballs, but ...

FACT: The sensor has less dynamic range than our eyeballs and therefore also captures less dynamic range in the resulting photograph. Correct? Let's assume so for the question below ...

QUESTION: If the EVF has the same dynamic range of the sensor and thus produces an accurate depiction of what the sensor will capture as the final image, why is it deemed so important to see more dynamic range through the viewfinder even though the sensor won't be capturing all the excess dynamic range anyway?

ASIDE: How are we getting on regarding the discussion about the bigger batteries for mirrorless cameras?

The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor.  It's lower by around 6-8 stops.  And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 15, 2014, 06:54:12 PM »
BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....

It's a challenging target, but I was able to hand-track it at f/21 wide open through my 20D at 4,250mm.


51
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 15, 2014, 06:47:10 PM »
Modern cameras have much better night vision (ISO well above 1000).

What?  You're eyes can go up to the equivalent of on the order of 1 million ISO.  Oh, EVFs ruin your dark adaptation.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 15, 2014, 08:45:22 AM »
One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function?   I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky.  Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.

In a mirrorless system the sensor is active all the time, so you can leverage that to do stuff you cannot do with a DSLR (in mirrored mode), like subject tracking using face recognition, and metering using the light that actually falls on the sensor (no more using the histogram to determine critical exposure), and heaps more because the camera can now effectively "see" what's going on. Obviously all this can be done in LiveView mode, but getting rid of the mirror permanently just simplifies the process.

This also causes a drastic loss of battery life, and the resulting information overload is distracting.  I turn it all of in my EVF cameras and the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF.  There are only two reasons I want a hybrid viewfinder - video and focus assist when using my telescope.

53
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 14, 2014, 10:53:10 PM »
I'm curious if the successor to the SX-50 will have dual-pixel technologies and what the zoom will be.

Very unlikely.  The pixels are too small to be divided in half, at least by Canon with their current fabrication technologies.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 14, 2014, 10:52:00 PM »
When it comes to base ISO (where most people shoot most of their photos),....

?????

16.9% of my SLR shots are at base ISO, 3% fewer than are at ISO 1600.

55
Pricewatch Deals / Re: New Canon EOS, PowerShot & Ring Lite Preorders
« on: February 12, 2014, 09:21:36 PM »
#2 - Ring flash, what size lens does this fit? I know the old one needed an adapter to fit on the 100L... will this?


Maybe this can help you.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/accessories/mr_14ex_ii_macro_ring_lite.do

56
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:33:07 PM »
I'm always amazed that people care about how a camera looks.  It doesn't take pictures of itself.

I could see an ugly man, robot, or senior citizen not caring about how his camera looks, but I'm sure any young, good looking, senstive man wants his camera to be as sexy as he is. lol

How good a product looks plays a big role in what most people buy.  I'm no different and expect my camera and lenses to pretty sexy and modern looking.  Not becuase I think other people will have any sort of appreciation for the contraption in my hand, but becuase I have an eye and appreciate beauty, so natually I buy stuff I am attracted too. 

I am amazed there are people who either have no visual attraction to what they spend their money on, or spend their money on things they are not visually attracted to.  lol

I think anyone that thinks a camera can be beautiful hasn't seen anything beautiful before.

57
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 07:04:10 PM »
Ugly camera - not because its "look" - but because it looks a huge step backward in usability compared to the G1X. No dials and a touch screen?

It has two front control dials.  My guess is that at least one, if not both are programmable.

58
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 11:14:41 AM »
From the pics, it is 12.5mm at its widest. If this were 24mm, then we are looking at a crop factor of 1.92.

Working backwards, you will get the following sensor dimensions:

Diag: 22.5 mm
WxH: 18mm x 13.5mm
Area: 243mm2

This means this sensor is halfway between the old 1.5" and the m43 sensor. i.e. It has about 8% smaller surface area than 1.5" and about 8% bigger area than the m43.

This matches the mpx count as well. The G1X sensor was 14.3mpx. The mark II is about 8% less at about 13.2mpx.

I think it's the same 18.7mm x 14mm sensor, just used as 18.7mm x 12.5mm in 3:2 mode and as a little narrower in 4:3 mode.  So, you're always cropping a few sensor pixels.

59
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 11:12:44 AM »
This camera is horrendous looking but what is the sync speed?

I'm always amazed that people care about how a camera looks.  It doesn't take pictures of itself.

If you like ugly looking expensive niche market P&S slow lensed cameras, be my guest. Just don't expect everyone will agree with you.

It's f/2 at the wide end, which isn't exactly slow, and how does any of this relate to the one topic I mentioned - it's looks?  I just don't see why anyone cares at all for how a camera looks!

60
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:59:33 AM »
This camera is horrendous looking but what is the sync speed?

I'm always amazed that people care about how a camera looks.  It doesn't take pictures of itself.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 34