August 23, 2014, 11:38:18 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 - Canon-F1

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 48
EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review
« on: March 28, 2012, 01:36:58 PM »
FYI, I just received my 5D3 and like most of you, love my gear, but 80% of my focus is still on technique, plus my choice is easy since my glass is Canon.

I have yet to hear one world renowned photographer tout one brand over another, BECAUSE THEY GET IT!

well this is a forum about the technical, gear related, side of photography... what do you expect?

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review
« on: March 28, 2012, 01:26:32 PM »
he watermarks productshots clearly taken by the manufacturer with his tag.
something i would never do.

and he is to blame that many beginners crank up the saturation to redicilous amounts.

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review
« on: March 28, 2012, 12:23:57 PM »
ken "support my growing family" rockwell has some nice opinions.
and every day they change.  :D

it depends on what article you read if image stabilization, tripods, film, more megapixel etc. is either useless or the best thing since sliced bread.

i bet in 2 month he will write how great the 5D MK3 AF is.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D800 Pictures - IQ
« on: March 28, 2012, 03:51:07 AM »
i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.

im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....

EOS Bodies / Re: Women will hate D800 *full size image*
« on: March 28, 2012, 03:49:24 AM »
i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.

im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....

why is no mod moving this thread?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 24, 2012, 03:56:58 PM »
well you must understand the DXO scores and how to interpret them.. that is for sure.
unfortunately 90% who look at the scores have no clue at all at what they are looking.  ::)

that is why i have posted the link.

but i guess the 90% are to lazy to read it.....

Dynamic Range corresponds to the ratio between the highest brightness a camera can capture [..] and the lowest brightness [..] when noise is [as strong as the actual signal].

Photographers run out of Dynamic Range once in a while: usually in terms of "burnt" or "clipped" highlights. What DxOMark measures is more subtle: if you make an exposure series, what quality level will the best image have? In photographer-speak, what shadow noise do you get if you do an ideal "expose to the right" exposure. A high Dynamic Range sensor is good, but chances are that you can't print or even view this without special software. The Landscape/Sport/Portrait terms can easily confuse people who take this literally. I am tempted to interpret the 3 metrics as Dynamic Range (as DxO does), Luminance Noise (instead of Low-Light), and Chroma Noise (instead of Color Sensitivity). Those are quantities you find more often in reviews

Here are the problems as I see them. First, DPReview does not consistently apply a noise threshold. So when a DR test hits the 2% luminance threshold before it hits the noise threshold, there is actually more DR available from the sensor and JPEG image and you can actually use it if you bring the in-camera JPEG into Photoshop. In these cases, the reader doesn't get a DR test from DPReview. The reader gets a nice accurate report on the camera's tone curve instead. If the test hits the noise threshold and that is used as the cuttoff point instead, you do have a somewhat reasonable standard of comparison. But that only seems to happen on the high ISO tests, and you have to look carefully at the graphs to determine which tests hit a noise threshold and which ones don't. The noise threshold is a "standard" that isn't always applied. Probably all of the DSLR based lower ISO tests are under-reporting the actual DR because they all hit a tone curve dictated luminance threshold before they hit the noise threshold.

If you want a good indication of DR, you should develop the camera's raw files using no sharpening, no noise reduction, and preferably no gamma correction. Then you can analyze the image using a program that will measure the response and measure the noise. There is no need to concern yourself with luminance levels as a threshold. Those values are completely manipulatable. Testing using a basic linear develope raw like this isn't a perfect solution. [8-13-2010 - A better test is to use the raw data without demosaicing it. In such a test you would simply test only red, blue or green pixels and they would have no processing at all.] Everybody doesn't have the same idea of what is or isn't an acceptable level of noise. Furthermore, noise that measures the same doesn't always look the same. But doing DR tests this way will be far better and have far fewer variables than anything being done by online review sites right now [8-13-2010 - with the possible exception of dxomark testing]. What we have now is a jumbled mess of sorta-sometimes-maybe-right test results.

in the end... i guess you have no clue at all at what noise level you have measured?
and i don´t mean this offensive.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 24, 2012, 03:25:27 PM »
I have personally checked DxO's dynamic range results for 3 bodies (10D, 20D, 7D) against a Stouffer transmission step wedge in essentially the same test that is performed at

well it´s open to discussion if THAT is the right way to measure DR.

but there is enough pro and contra talk about it on the web already.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 24, 2012, 03:04:29 PM »
3.) Since the pixel pitch is similar to the 7D, it also means that the DLA is at around f/8 which is something people don't seem to think about with this camera.

what means you will have all the benefits below f8 and no real negative effects above f8.
it´s not as if the 36mp sensor will fall under the resolution of, lets say, a 21mp sensor at a given aperture.

it´s just that the sweetspot is at a more open aperture.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 24, 2012, 02:34:37 PM »
sony/nikon seem to backup those who say SNR is independent from pixelsize.

canon on the other side says 22mp are the optimum for SNR and MP with current technology.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 24, 2012, 02:19:56 PM »
which contradicts everything ever said about the disadvantages of high mp sensors. If they'd put in a 22mp sensor too, the big leap forward would be much more obvious because dr/noise would make the Canon sensors look like a past generation.

logic dictates it is either one or the other... but not both.   

if pixelsize has no influence then a 22mp sensor will not be better.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 23, 2012, 07:36:14 PM »
i don´t know if i shall congratulate sony or nikon.

i had my doubts... i admit it.
but the sensor seems to be very good.

EOS Bodies / Re: dpreview and the 5DmkIII
« on: March 23, 2012, 09:24:47 AM »
i call that bullsh*t.. sorry. :)

sure everyone has personal preferences.
but not everyone on the planet is a fanboy.

you simply can not do it right with all the conspiracy freaks on the internet.. they see things and schemes everywhere.   ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III sensor the same as 5D Mark II?
« on: March 23, 2012, 08:20:19 AM »

"The slight bump in megapixels correlates EXACTLY with the differences in pixel size between the two cameras...thanks for pointing that out...I wasn't aware of it, but that actually helps confirm my point.
(the sensor is 36x24mm in both cameras...the pixel size is 6.25µm in mk3 and 6.4µm in mk2)"

i think the guy is a real genius!!

a 10x10mm sensor has 100 pixels.  pixel size 1 mm^2

another 10x10mm sensor has 400 pixels. pixel size 0,5 mm^2

suprise suprise... the megapixels correlates EXACTLY with the differences in pixel size.

but he says it´s the SAME sensor.. so the pixels have to be.. well the same size.

i think we have a new nobelprize candidate....     ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D MkIII instructions - Rant !!
« on: March 16, 2012, 11:13:09 AM »
Please forgive this rant but there are times when I find instruction manuals so annoying!  I understand there needs to be a section of 'get out' sentences for the terminally stupid for legal reasons, but this time I think that Canon believes the 5D MkIII will be bought by the mentally deficient.

Page 36

On turns the  camera on !

'Off' turns the camera off & it will not operate!  (How many people would expect it to continue working after it's switched off?)  There's even a diagram of how to turn it on & off.

Page 39

A whole page dedicated to how to change a lens.  What are people doing buying a camera like this if they don't even know how to change a lens??

Page 40

An entire page about how to zoom a lens! and how to then detach it again (Obviously they're too dim to reverse the attachment instructions)

Page 41

How to attach a lens hood ! (for goodness sake if you can't work this out you shouldn't be allowed out alone!)

Page 42

The image stabiliser a whole page which basically amounts to turn it on & take a picture!

Page 43

How to hold a camera (because you're obviously not clever enough to work it out)

Page 44

How to press the shutter release (sheesh!)

Sorry for the rant, but this is supposed to be a 'high performance' professional digital camera, it just insults the intelligence of users to tell us these things, and wastes our time having to plough through them.

who cares?
some have more then enough money to buy a 5D MK3 but never touched a DSLR camera.

well i guess you just love to complain.

no manual = bad... manual = bad.... S___ i guess the world is a ugly place for some people.

Health & safety are incredibly important issues for photographers, cabling & electrics in studios are risks to be aware of, and outdoors there are far too many Utube clips of photographers walking backwards to compose shots, and falling down flights of stairs, or into water features, all things we should all be aware of, but the level of these instructions are frankly insulting.

not canons fault.
fat and dumb americans will sue you for everything.

there is no idea stupid enough (or embarrassing) for a lawsuite in america.

you can´t dry a cat in a microwave?? ...well someone has to tell me that......
well that is an urban legend.. but these are not:

In 1992, a seventy-nine year old Albuquerque woman (Stella Liebeck) bought a coffee from a McDonald’s drive through. Her grandson was driving and he parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to the drink. She put the cup between her knees and pulled the lid toward her – inevitably the coffee spilt in her lap. She sued McDonald’s for negligence because she claimed the coffee was too hot to be safe. Unbelievably the jury found that McDonald’s was eighty percent responsible for the incident and they awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages. But it gets worse: they awarded her $2.7 million punitive damages! The decision was appealed and the two parties ultimately ended up settling out of court for a sum less than $600,000

In Michigan, a 27 year-old man was involved in a rear-end collision. He only suffered minor injuries. Four years later he changed his mind and sued the owners of the truck that hit him. He now claimed that the accident caused his sexual relations with his wife to deteriorate and he was unable to maintain their sex life. The crash had changed his personality forever, he said, and in fact, the collision had turned him into a homosexual. He left his wife, moved in with his parents, began hanging out in gay bars, and became a fervent reader of gay literature. So, he got rear-ended and then he got rear-ended. He won his case and was awarded $200,000 dollars. The jury threw in $25,000 thousand for the wife

The winner of the 2007 True Stella Award: Roy L. Pearson Jr. The 57-year-old Administrative Law Judge from Washington DC claims that a dry cleaner lost a pair of his pants, so he sued the mom-and-pop business for $65,462,500. That's right: more than $65 million for one pair of pants. Representing himself, Judge Pearson cried in court over the loss of his pants, whining that there certainly isn't a more compelling case in the District archives. But the Superior Court judge wasn't moved: he called the case "vexatious litigation", scolded Judge Pearson for his "bad faith", and awarded damages to the dry cleaners. But Pearson didn't take no for an answer: he's appealing the decision. And he has plenty of time on his hands, since he was dismissed from his job. Last we heard, Pearson's appeal is still pending.

Barbara Connors of Medfield, Mass. Connors was riding in a car driven by her 70-year-old(!) son-in-law when they crashed into the Connecticut River, and Connors sank with the car. Rescue divers arrived within minutes and got her out alive, but Connors suffered brain damage from her near-drowning. Sue the driver? Sure, we guess that's reasonable. But she also sued the brave rescue workers who risked their lives to save hers.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Distagon 15 f/2.8 ZE Official
« on: March 16, 2012, 10:46:46 AM »
what no complaining about the price?
what´s up with you guys?

i guess not many want such a lens but can not afford it.. other then the 5D MK3 that many want and can not afford?   ;)

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 48