September 16, 2014, 10:06:14 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 - vscd

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
are you still glad when you're pushing out the shadows in post processing knowing that you've spent a fortune on buying a great camera with almost the same sensor as the previous model?
It's not the same sensor, you gained a lot more ISO-performance. Canon had just another approach for their new sensors. While Nikon (=Sony) tried to improve the dynamic range and resolution, Canon was into the ISO-direction the last few years. The next step for Canon will be the DR again, I guess.

>Doesn't canon sensors need improvements?
They did, but not in your wanted direction. They invented the DPAF on the 70D for example... an invention which easily catches a lot of engineers. As a company you have ressources for innovation, but you have to choose your next steps. A DR of maybe 11.5-12 stops should be enough for the moment, ISO 1600 wasn't at that time.

>I don't care who makes it, i care on doing my job better.
Your job depends on 1 or 2 stops of DR? Did you try to use HDR or gradient Filters? I know that a better sensor can save a lot of work, but I can't imagine that there are unresolveable jobs for a 1DX/5D3.

Don't complain if canon re-sells the same sensor in the next model with USB3 and 4k as a new feature which is useless for photographers.
I'm not too lucky with Canon in the last few years, but remember that there was a tsunami, a radioactive fallout (especially for canon-locations) and a cut down power-support for companies. Let them come out with a new performance next year and everyone is happy again. Sigma is a good example for that.

By the way, canon is still selling more bodies than anyone else... they make something right, I think. And their sensors aren't oily  ;D

- faster SD card slot
- dual SD (get rid of that ancient and expensive CF)

Your position. Hopefully they won't do that.

- and yes.. MORE DR please.. kill that banding in the shadows, buy sensors from Sony for Christ sake as nikon does.
- more mp like 40mp (and 20mp mRAW) that those great lenses such as 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 can handle!

Why do you need a Canon, just grab the latest Nikon with your fancy Toshiba/Sony/Whatsoever-Sensor and get lucky. I don't understand why you bought a 5DM3 when everything inside is wrong for you, even the Memorycard.

You'll get an equally good 24-70 or 70-200@Nikon. And who needs 40MPixel? Get a Pano-tool. Understand it. Use it.

P.S. I'm glad that there are companies out there who invent their own sensors, like Sigma or Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 07:24:48 PM »
Do you have some negative experience you'd like to share about the latest Fuji X system?

Hmm, I just had one for 2 weeks... and was surprised about the quality. No, I like the Fuji-System, especially the X100S. I use Fuji since my GX680 and my first roll of Velvia. But I don't like the people, who go to the new system and nag on every older DSLR they see. Why can't they live in coexistance? Why do we all need mirrorless boxes? Why electronic viewfinders? Why do they have to masturbate with their 56mm 1.2 under my nose after they sold their Canon 60D, where they never bought any decent lense to compare with? Of course a new formula of 2014 can perform better than a 85 f1.8, especially for 3 times the price. An OTUS would outrule the Fuji in any point... at another 3 times higher price.

But if you ask...

I don't like the feel of the (X-T1) camera with a longer lense, I need a massive grip. The best one was on my Zenza Bronica ETRSi, the worst on my Merrill DP3. Why should I use a camera with a top-heavy lense attached to it? I fully adore the X100S, the X100S is coherent in itself. The X-T1 is a compromise for me. I don't need a cropped sensor in a smaller body for some nearly uncountable weight-advantage. I use a 1D or 5D for serious pictures and a X100S for street photography. The mirrorless system is a nice step into the right direction, but for MFT or APS-C, only. For Fullframe-Cameras, with natually bigger lightcircles and lenses the whole concept is bully. No one needs a Body in a size of a rear end cover. It's the same horseplay as my 40mm Pancake looks on my EOS-1N HS. It doesn't fit nor makes it sense  ;)

Those are theoretical numbers. Remember the downhill after the Canon 60D got a SD-Card Slot, they never catched up again to his predecessor with CF-Card (Canon 50D). On the Cards I always read high Transferrates, but on the field the CF-Cards never let me down. The SD-Cards did. And they are too fragile.

I think a CFast could be a new standard, but it would be nice if I could use my old Cards in the same slot, too.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 05:29:26 PM »
Hmm, I just see repeated marketingslogans... but let's check some points...

>Autofocus can be much more accurate and work even with small aperture lenses.
Wrong. The more accurate AF is just because you use contrast based Focus, you can do this with DSLRs, too. It's called liveview. On the 70D even in Dual-AF.

>They can be made smaller lighter, and shock resistant.
Lighter is true, smaller... maybe, with the given limits and a new design. Shock resistant? I guess a 1DX is more shockresistant than any Fuji. Where do you get such claims?
>They use fewer moving parts, and will be more reliable
The mirror-based technology is grown up since more than a half century. Photographs felt in vietnam, got shocked by earthquakes or took every sport-activity you could imagine. Do you really think it's the weak spot of a camera? Especially with semipro business or amateur? Why is there a shuttercount but no count for a mirrorlifetime? Right, even the shutter dies before a mirror does. And the shutter is still there, most likely a cheap one.
>The complex moving mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, viewfinder, AF sensor, and light sensor cost quite a bit, so mirrorless is potentially a lot less expensive.
Calculate again with the required EVF.

Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image  sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...

First of all, the 56mm 1.2 *has* CA, even they're quite decent. But if you read my text again, you will note that you get problem in the wideangle-area. I don't think 56mm are wideangled.

It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.

Not a problem of the mirrorbox. You can do this with any DSLR, too. A DLSR with Mirror open *is* a mirrorless. The only difference is a blacked out viewfinder, but you could compensate this the same way the mirrorless does (EVF/LV).

Mirrorless has only advantages

I think people are just repeated the Sh*t they read in the magazines. This is just another pig, chases through the village. I'm not of yesterday or want to nag on anyone in this forum, but please open up your mind and think for yourself. Compare the new trends with the translucent mirror of Sony/Canon or Rangefinders. They all prayed their advantages and they truly have. But always see what's the *real* benefit of it. I just see the advantages in weight and maybe the size if you create a new camera with full take of the advantages.

Remember, the size has sideeffects. The accus are small and you carry 2 or 3 of em with you (300 pics CIPA with a Fuji-XT1  is a darned cheek). And if you want a nice handling you make it bigger with a vertical grip. Then count your bag-weight again.

The cam is a tool, not more. If a mirrorless does it for you, you should take it. For me, I'm not convinced. Not after I thought twice.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 12:09:10 PM »
Mirrorless is a trend, it has no (kicking) advantages in itself. On theory the bodies could be build smaller... practically the bodies of existing systems won't get small as the focal flange is the same. So, you need at least a new bayonett and lense-system which is causing you a lot of problems for existing accessoires.

So, as a photocompany you could invest in a new lens-system, let's say a mirrorless EF like the EF-M, but with fullframe lenses possible. The advantage is to get your lenses more closer to the sensor... yepp, nice idea, but what about refraction of light? You have to get the ray mostly straight to the sensor. Sony somewhat shows us that they failed on the A7/A7R.    Maybe shaped sensors will be a solution.

So, what are the drawbacks of mirrorless? You aren't able to use the camera if turned off in most cases... so you rely on live view which drains your battery and heats up the sensor. The formfactor of a smaller body is something which I like on holydays but hate while working serious. You may laugh, but a Fuji is to small for me...      you don't have back/frontfocus. On this point I'm in, but you have liveview on actual DSLRs, too.

Don't believe the hype. It's a nice idea for smaller Crop-Sensors with new bayonetts... but nothing for a serious fullframe-cam, except a fixed lense (like the Sony RX-1). Even the framerate is nothing to be concerned 'bout, anymore. For me, the work with an optical viewfinder is still the best choice, even good EVF have something like a "DriveByWire". You won't see this on the photo, but for me the future is a mirror/EVF Combination. I would like to see the data projected to the mirror if i need them.

The Fuji-Cams are nice indeed. Fuji prooved for ages that they're capable of doing the finest hardware around, but on the other hand... the fanboys are getting booring. Yepp, the 56mm 1.2 is a hell of a lense, but creating a standard-prime around that focal length with a APS-C lightcircle... is not really that hard. Even not with that pricetag given. Creating a 85mm 1.2 is somewhat harder. And stopped down to the equiv-DOF (@f1.8), the Canonlense should be competing.

The roadmap sounds plausible for me. Just expand the schedule to the future and a new 5DM4 is right in time. The 1DX should be fine for the moment.. I don't think that the new 1D will arive before the 5D.

I wouldn't mind to get down to 16 or 18 MPixel again, just with 2 Stops more dynamic. The new Sony A7S is the right direction in my opinion, if it wouldn't be Sony ;)

As I don't work with DPP, because the results are less accurate than with DXO, I don't care too much about the new Version 4. But if you want to test the programm just grab a serialnumber from the net (be creative with the google image search or read exifs) and try it out for yourself. It really blocks RAW_Files from other Cams like my 5D, but you can easily find a lot of 1DX-CR2's on the net to evaluate the new features. JPEGs (even from nonsupported cams) are useable, too.

I don't see too much new features for the masses, allthough I didn't used the programm excessive. The workflow is indeed better, but this is just the way a tool should work in 2014. Nothing special to see, I think.

Edit:   And they don't support a lot of my old lenses, again ;(

Hey Tamron or Zeiss, If you can read this...  1:2.9 is no Macro. Mkay?  8)

Ok, Sigma made the "Best" Superzoom of em all... but 9 MPixel Resolution @DXO? This lense isn't even able to serve a old Canon 60D or even a 50D? People who buy this kind of gear should head to the Sony RX1, they get a far better and smaller System @f2.8

No offence.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: April 03, 2014, 01:52:17 PM »
You can clearly see that the D800E has at least twice the real-world "resolution" (read that as spatial resolution or resolving power, not width and height image dimensions) as the SD1.

The only thing I clearly see, are the both corners you mentioned. Yepp, the line is smaller and more accurate, but that's the only sweet spots for the Nikon, the 98% percent of the (for me) important picture is in the center, where the D800E just compounds every wire with each other into a heap-meshup . Try to find the one diagonal wire in the lower center. It's not visible and it's not visible in the Pentax 645D (!) eighter. The Sigma shows it clearly... for me the results are by far better than the Nikon. Maybe we talk at cross-purposes, but if that's not resolution or sharpness or spatial whatever than may it be. Whatever it is, I like it. I want it. I want it THAT way. The only thing I could admit is that the lense of the nikon was limited, as not even the Zeiss OTUS is able to serve the Nikon to the fullest (29MP was counted @DXO). I think you don't want to see, what I see  (or vice versa) ::)     But let me say, those Sigma FoveOn Pictures are available with my Pocket DP3M, too. You just don't need the ultra-highpriced lenses, you can do this with the Kitzoom (17-55 2.8) of a SD1 or with a 50mm 2.8 @DP3M.

I rarely use my DP3M, I'm mostly a Canon 5D kind of guy (yes, the first one, on purpose)... and the other time I often use my Zenza Bronica ETRSi (645 mediumformat, analoque). But if I decide to go out with a tripod and shoot landscapes, nothing came close to the foveon. And I borrow sometimes a Nikon D800 (sadly without "E") from a friend of mine. They can't match the pictures and the tests were with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART. So this shouldn't be the weak point of the system.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: April 03, 2014, 04:46:27 AM »
>I'm surprised how good LR is with LOCA/CA...

Of course, this is another fine tool for those tasks. I also use LR5 for some specific pictures, but I don't like the workflow. I hate to import every picture into a tool, just to see a JPG of my RAW.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: April 03, 2014, 04:39:14 AM »
I really like to interchange information with you on this objective way, but I think you're to bent to think on your decisions, you once made. I know what you're talking about and I mostly agree, but there is more than just theory... there is practice use. Even if we get out the AA-Filter of the formula, which we always did (because we choosed the D800E to compare) and we think of an optimal lense (which are rarely seen!) to serve a D800E... the result is something you have to explain after all. So I took the time, went to and got both RAW-Files, from the Nikon D800E ( and from the SD1M (

Your misunderstanding. Every bayer pixel may have only one color, but regardless of color, every pixel receives "light". This is why the spatial resolution of a bayer sensor is so high, and why a D800 is capable of resolving so much detail. If you convert a bayer sensor's data to monochrome, you effectively have just the full detail luminance.

I take you literally, ok? I converted the NikonFile with CaptureOne7 to a stock b/w TIFF and the SigmaFile with SigmaPhotoPro5.5 to a b/w TIFF, too. So, here are the results (as png, to loose no pixelinformation):


Sigma SD1:

Sigma SD1, (normal) resized to fit the Nikonsize:

There are no tricks, no JPG Artefacts, no Color, no catch. You can repeat this by your own. Now, if you speak scientifically (as you apparently like), your theory has to get prooved. One counter evidence prooves a theory wrong, you know... this is my try. Explain the results as we speak from a 15MP against a 38MP. In my humble opinion the Sigma clearly outperforms the Nikon, and this is not just a pixelpeeping Testchart, this is my daily experience. I don't speak about the disadvantages (AF, HighISO, Accu...), they are all clear and bespoken.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: April 02, 2014, 06:47:13 AM »
[...]this lens has really bad LOCA that's difficult to fix in post[...]

Did you try DXO Optics? I have no problem with LOCA/CA after developing it in this Raw-tool. Sometimes, if they're really harsh I also use RawTherapy for manually optimze some pictures... but normally all optical problems are gone after a stock conversion., this is no advert. But in the beginning I also thought the OOC-JPG is the final picture... but hell, there is so much more to get of your pictures. Especially with the 85LII.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: April 02, 2014, 06:35:17 AM »
I'd be happy with a moderately-decent, powered 24-105 f/2.8 (FF equiv) cinema lens, made to match the C100. Get both for $5000 each, and that would be a great indie doc base kit at $10,000.

Is that really too much to ask?

Unfortunately, probably. The closest thing (26-120mm f2.8 equivalent) weighs 15lbs and costs $90,000.

Remember, "Super 35mm" is APS-C, only... it just sounds like fullframe. So this isn't even something close to compare.  8)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12