September 20, 2014, 10:37:44 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 - jrista

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 04:40:30 PM »
Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810...

And that's where any knowledgeable person stops reading. >14 stops...from a linear 14-bit ADC...kind of impossible  ;)
Nope, that's where an unknowledgeable person stops reading, one who doesn't understand the math behind resampling.

Or a person who thinks he understands. How could you get more then 14stops out of a 14bit ADC? No math can solve this. Yes you might interpolate, expect what the value might be, but that is not correct. 14 bits means really only 14 bits max theoretical, and practical it will be lower. There is no logic and no math to find the REAL values outside the sampled values.

It's purely a noise thing. This is in a normalized context. I prefer to know the literal dynamic range of the hardware itself myself as well. That would be DXO's Screen DR measurement, which tells you the per-pixel dynamic range of a given sensor. For cameras with 14-bit ADC units, none of them have a Screen DR above 14 stops.

A normalized context is used to create a comparable basis. Comparing the noise levels of an image with smaller pixels to the noise levels of an image with larger pixels is ignoring the frame size. This is basic equivalence. Sensor size and quantum efficiency are by far the primary factors that affect noise levels in an image. Since a D810 has more total smaller pixels than say a 5D III with fewer total larger pixels, you have to resample the larger image to the same dimensions as the smaller image. By resampling, noise is averaged out, which reduces the per-pixel noise levels. For COMPARISON purposes, this is the only fair way of determining how one camera compares to another. Otherwise your comparing noise produced at a higher frequency with noise produced at a lower frequency...which is basically comparing apples to apples.

Downsampled comparisons have their limitations. For one, they can be misleading as to how much dynamic range on a sensor is actually usable on-scene. If your standing in front of a landscape, and you meter 14.8 stops of DR from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights, you won't be able to capture that scene with a D810. Even though it's 8x12 "normalized" DR is 14.8, the hardware DR is 13.8. Your a full stop short with the D810, and you would either need to use a 1-stop GND to balance the scene DR, or use HDR, to capture the entire thing. Additionally, you won't be able to lift the single shot with the GND by seven stops in post (as would be indicated by a 14.8 stop Print DR number). You would be able to lift it by at most 5.8 stops, however trying to lift even a D810 shot that much is going to encounter read noise. Realistically, you probably have 4-5 stops of shadow lifting ability without unsightly read noise (which in the case of Exmor-based cameras, is pretty much just random color noise, still no banding.)

Sarangiman is talking about the normalized DR values from DXO. Those values are only valid if you assume an 8x12" 300ppi downsamplng target. When a 5D III and D810 are downsampled to that image size, the 5D III has  11.7 stops of DR and the D810 has 14.8 stops of DR (engineering DR...the raw measure from the RMS of noise to the saturation point...whether all of that DR is fully usable depends on too many factors, which completely reduces any comparison to mush. The actual usable range is dependent upon the tools you use to process, the precision of those tools algorithms, your capability at maximizing the effectiveness of those tools, your personal tolerances for noise, there is no real objective measure of "usable dynamic range.")

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: Today at 04:27:54 PM »
These threads pop up occasionally and often sales volume, market share and profits are quoted to try and prove one sensor or camera company is better than the other.

This information is good if you are considering buying Canon stock CAJ but absolutely worthless in determining who has the best camera or sensor.

Possibly right.

However, I was never trying to use market statistics to prove Nikon was selling more, or that their cameras were better period. All I was trying to demonstrate before was that Nikon has closed the gap on Canon's market lead. A gap that used to be very significant, has now shrunk to ~5%.

I think it is just as simplistic to look at past market performance where market shares fluctuated, and assume there weren't very specific reasons for why those market shares fluctuated. What happened in 2006, 2007, 2008, that caused changes in Canon, Nikon, and Sony market share?

I'm looking at data since the end of 2011 (the last year Canon had a huge market share lead). Since then, the 1D X, D4, 5D III, 6D, D800/810, D600/610, A7, A7r, and A7s have all been released. In 2012, the year several very key camera models were released (the year covered by the 2013 financial report I found), Nikon ILC unit sales skyrocketed from a little over 4 million to a little over 6 million. That is 50% growth, in a single year. (I thought it was last year, but it was the year before...which honestly makes more sense given all the camera releases that year.) In the last two years (2013 and 2014), markets have contracted, particularly in the P&S submarkets. Nikon was utterly pummeled there, with over 50% losses to Canon's 30% losses, but they fared much better on the ILC front. Nikon lost a little over 20%, Canon lost a little under 20%.

Today, instead of a 15% differential in market share between Canon and Nikon, according to Hogan's report, there is about a 5% differential. I cannot say for certain why the market changed like that. However I can speculate. I think a reasonable, educated guess at why the market dynamic has shifted is that Nikon has produced some great cameras. They took advantage of better technology, and it seems to have helped their market position. One should expect so. It's quite clear that not everyone cares about getting the best image quality out of their cameras, however I think it's entirely baseless to assume that no one cares about getting the best image quality out of their cameras.

I claimed the market difference between Nikon and Canon had shrunk from the last concrete reports that demonstrated a large differential between the companies. Tom Hogan's report backs up that claim. Maybe it's simply a "restoration of an old market status." Perhaps. I don't think that matters, as I don't think that any market shift, old or recent, happens without cause. I see a strong correlation between the 2012 camera releases and a rapid change in market share for one particular company.

If all that is proof that I'm just dead wrong to some of you, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. My opinion is, Canon is severely lagging behind in the one piece of technology that the photographer themselves cannot control to improve IQ: The sensor. When it comes to focusing, or metering or choosing the right exposure, or camera shake and the use of IQ, or any other factor that affects IQ, the photographer has control. If the photographer knows how to control those things, then they can maximize IQ...but only up to the limitations of the hardware. Canon's hardware has a lot more limitations than their competitors. I believe that is a FACT, backed up by multiple sources of data (so pick whichever one you don't hate). I believe Canon has the technology to improve their sensor IQ, but they don't. I think their, lethargy, in that department DID allow some sales to move to Nikon and Sony models. (I know for a fact that there are a number of people on these forums who have already added other brands or switched entirely.) I think that in the long term, market share dynamics could continue to shift.

That's what I wanted to say when I posted the previous financial thread. It's nothing's rather simple. Since 2012, a major release year for high end DSLRs, market shares have changed. Canon's share has shrunk from around 45% to 40% or less. Nikon's share has grown from less than 30% to as much as 35%. Sony has also gained a few percent. My point, the only real point I wanted to make, is that Canon no longer has a landslide market share position, and I think there is a reason for that. If Nikon doesn't continue to make manufacturing blunders, if Sony can strengthen their A7 series offerings, and if they continue to improve on all fronts (sensor, AF, metering, ergonomics, video features, etc.), then Canon's ultra conservative stance of minimally evolving one or two features at a time on products that have 3-5 year lifespans could result in a dramatic market share shift in the future.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: Today at 04:02:42 PM »
The "norm" I was referring to wasn't that people buy DSLRs for landscape photography in Colorado. The "norm" I was referring to was that people normally buy equipment and use it for a decade without upgrading, and that Lee Jay's patterns of buying and holding equipment don't jive with what I see in the people I know. Either people buy and forget and buy again, or buy and sell and upgrade, or are always chasing the next best thing, or whathaveyou. I know people who have gone from Canon to Nikon to Pentax trying to find the right camera fit for them. I "norm" I was referring to was that the DSLR (well, rather, ILC) market has plenty of room for product churn, as people do and will continue to buy DSLRs, and that it isn't just "pros and enthusiasts" who buy new cameras every few years (unless you simply consider anyone who does buy more than one camera, or buy and sell and upgrade on a regular basis, an enthusiast. In which case, I think there are a whole lot more enthusiasts out there).

Landscape photography was just an example of how commonly I've seen your "average Joe" using a DSLR, instead of a smartphone or P&S, to do a kind of photography that I believe many consider more than just the average snapshoot.

I also do believe it is a fact that Canon sensors are at the back of the pack these days. I believe their noise quality sucks, and that they should do something about it. Not once have I ever said that I believe people should jump ship entirely to Exmor (or even that Exmor alone has better sensor technology...I've  mentioned Toshiba on many occasions, and now Samsung has the first BSI APS-C sensor in their NX1...I'd offer that pretty much ANY other sensor out there is going to produce superior IQ to Canon sensors these days). On the contrary, I have very explicitly stated that I want CANON to produce a high quality sensor that meets the IQ bar of 2014 (and, preferably, beyond, given Canon's long product cycles.)

You guys are so vehemently against anyone saying anything negative about Canon that you readily stoop to twisting peoples words, or handily assuming they said something other than they did, then repeating those assumptions as though they are fact. I'm a Canon fan myself, I'm just sick and tired of their nasty crappy read noise. I literally cannot wait for Canon to produce a better sensor (something I believe they are more than capable of doing)...I really want them to improve their sensor IQ, but I'm done waiting.

I think anyone else who wants better sensor IQ, better shadow quality and shadow falloff, etc. should stop waiting as well. The best way to get Canon to actually do something is to be vocal about your wants, and vote with your pocket book. But you guys? That's just unacceptable to you. Your not going to let some wackjob voice his dissenting opinon on Canon Rumors forums. So, your just going to twist the facts, rewrite words, change the context, and do everything in your power to quash any voice of opposition to Canon's current status-quo regarding their sensor technology.

Fielder does great work. I like it. I also believe that there are other people who do even better work. Fielder recommends only Canon. Many others recommend only Nikon. Some use both. Opinions change as well. Marc Adamus once said Canon made the best landscape camera on the planet when talking about the 5D Mark II. Today, he uses a D800. Andy Rouse? He used to be a big fan of Nikon's D3 cameras. He switched to the 1D X. People change their minds, sometimes as often as product cycles leapfrog the competition. If Canon stays the course, and competitors continue to improve to the point where they have as much a five, maybe even ten stops more dynamic range than think Fielder is going to stay put? (I'd bet no...but, who knows, maybe he's as die-hard a lifetime fan as the people on these forums.)

I believe Canon has fallen behind, and I believe IF (apparently I need to stress that word, IF) they don't do something to compete ON ALL FRONTS (that means everything, AF system, metering and things like iTR, as well as sensor), I believe they run a very high risk of becoming another company like Nokia or Kodak. Companies that sat on lucrative technology patents, did not employ them, kept researching and developing newer and better technology, then suddenly the world shifted. In a matter of years, they went from being the top companies in the world for their respective markets to being barely an afterthought. That's my opinion. It's based on observing companies I liked over the years squander their advantage. I don't like seeing companies do that. I don't like seeing a company like Nokia literally lose a billion dollar industry (and before it happened, people would have argued that Nokia KNEW their industry like the back of their hand...because they did...until it changed. Same could be said of Kodak, or RIM, etc.) I see Canon doing the same thing. Sure, they could know things I don't, and the market is bigger than what I'm familiar with here in the US. But I see trends, I see patterns. Canon develops amazing technology...then sits on it. For years and years sometimes. Why in the world don't we have a 120mp 9fps sensor yet? Computing power has doubled a couple times since the prototype was released. Even if processing power was a problem, Canon has had mRAW and sRAW for some time, which with such a high pixel count could offer a very high quality lossless data format for storing the information in a more manageable size.) Or a kick-ass astrophotography sensor capable of detecting light in 0.1 lux? Where is the really amazing technology Canon HAS developed...did it get sucked into a black hole?

THIS IS MY OPINION. It's not going to change because a bunch of guys on a forum try to bully it out of me. You guys are a pretty sad bunch, stooping to any low level possible to either disprove, debase, emberass or run out of town anyone who has a dissenting opinion. I didn't like Dean's attitude, but he had something different to say, and had some good, concrete evidence to back up his claims (something Mikael never did...all Mikael did was spout anti-Canon hate, something I'm personally not doing, and something a lot of other members of these forums who don't like crummy banded read noise don't generally do even though they also are sick and tired of Canon's crappy sensor IQ. I know now that it isn't about fundamental anti-Canon hate, you guys simply don't like to hear anything about how any other brand might be better at something, or how Canon might not be best, or even not far behind best.)

So what is the deal? You guys cannot tolerate any dissenting opinion, so your just going to do everything in your power to run anyone who has a dissenting opinion out of town? By belittling them, insulting them, or otherwise debasing them? Regardless of how you have to ignore context or twist or ignore words or make unverified assumptions about what someone is saying, and then reformulate peoples claims in your own words? Really disgusting display, guys. Really. I misinterpreted the timeframe for a financial report. Oops. Instead of last year, two years ago, Nikon realized significant growth. That growth had a major impact on the market dynamic...Nikon went from trailing Canon by 15% to a mere 5%. I see that as a significant change in market distribution, which is all I was ever saying when I brought up the financial stuff in the first place. That the difference between Nikon and Canon isn't some gigantic chasm anymore. That the years where Canon lead by a whopping 48% to Nikon's 22% are over. That inroads have been made. That's an opinion, one that I believe is based on concrete information, regardless of whether the shift happened last year or two years ago, it still happened. Is no one entitled to an opinion that doesn't paint Canon in the purest, most beautiful light possible? If there was ever a truer community of unrelenting die-hard posterboy fanboys, I honestly don't know of it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: Today at 01:30:24 PM »
To OP: I think you've got it wrong.


"Sony will be taking design cues from the success of the Canon Cinema series. Will replace FS100. E-mount. 4k. Competitively priced. These will be C100 and C300 killers!!"

Looks like it's Sony that is chasing after Canon, not the other way round.  ;D

Let the war continue ... we get better cameras from both companies!  With the PXW-FS7 on the way (the camera referenced in the link), it's now Canon's turn to step it up.

That's the big question, though. Will Canon step it up? I think with video it's more likely than stills, Canon seems to like video more...but they still have that massive lethargic inertia to overcome to get on the ball with anything...their sensors used in video cameras still suffer the same handicaps vs. Sony video sensors as they do in still cameras.

I thought Canon would have stepped it up by now for still photography sensors. I saw some major improvements in the K-5 and D7000 so many years ago, kind of like how the FS7 has so many improvements over the C100/300. It's been years now, and Canon hasn't done anything about it. They've made some improvements to a couple key features of their cameras, but their sensors, the things ultimately responsible for IQ, haven't changed. Same old sensors they are using now in their Cinema cameras.

I'd love to see Canon step it up...still rather skeptical that they will until it really, REALLY hurts them in the pocketbook.

Eta Carinae is indeed a star in that nebula. The nebula is also often called "The Eta Carinae Nebula" (which so happens to be it's original name), one of a few alternate names to the Carina Nebula officially offered by Wikipedia: I've always called it Eta Carinae nebula myself, and I know other astrophotographers who also call the whole nebula, NGC 3372, "Eta Carinae" or "Eta Carinae Nebula".

Homonculous Nebula is just the planetary nebula of ejected material from the hypergiant star Eta Carinae itself. That's quite small in comparison to the Carina/Eta Carinae Nebula, which is rather vast. It's one of my favorite regions of the sky...I'm rather bummed I cannot see it from were I live (along with the magellanic clouds.)

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 07:04:52 AM »
I guess I am a bit of a purist as well. I don't like to massively modify my images. I like to take photos that represent reality. I prefer less saturated colors (not dull and overly muted, but not ultra vibrant or saturated either), and I prefer things to appear as they were to my own eyes as much as I can. To that end, getting things done in-camera as best as possible is important to me.

Banded read noise makes it tough to achieve that goal. Shadows don't have banded noise, and shadows are rarely as dark in real life as they appear on screen. So, better data is of particular importance to me.

I agree. But when you expose for the shadows (maybe a little overexpose and then pull back in PP) and you filter the highlights (LEE has even 1.2 GNDs, I'm really considering the purchase of both hard and soft, but since one of them would cost me around ~225USD, I'm not very eager about it) or bracket and then use luminance masking or whatever, then you won't have this problem. I agree that not all compositions can be solved this way (although soft GNDs are amazing), but many of them can.

I just did a quick dirty check on rather badly exposed file (6D, ISO 800) and overexposed it +2 EV and even added +50 in shadows sliders. Yes, there is noise, but no pattern, no banding. Is 5D3 really worse? Then I'm glad I don't need the AF of the 5D3 and be happy with my 6D :)

Yeah, 5D III is pretty bad. It's minimally improved over the 5D II at best. The banding might not be quite as bad, but it is still present in a significant way. The frustrating thing about it is that, unlike my 7D, Topaz DeNoise 5's debanding doesn't handle the 5D III banding well at all. With the 7D, set the vertical band separation to 8 pixels, and bam, gone. With the 5D III, it can't seem to find and remove all the bands. Sometimes it actually enhances some and removes others. The random read noise levels are also quite high. While banding is unsightly, it can be cleaned up with effort. The random read noise, however, is what actually eats away at the shadow detail. Your 6D has this too, although a bit less than the 5D III. The random read noise is where things differ hugely between an Exmor and a Canon sensor...Exmor just has FAR less. The 5D III has around 33-35e- worth of read noise, where an Exmor has around 3e-. That's a factor of 10-11.67x least a full order of magnitude. In terms of actual dynamic range, it's closer to two orders of magnitude. The reduction in read noise means that the vast majority of shadows in an Exmor are just random photon shot noise, which is very, very easy to manage.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 05:20:32 AM »
I guess I am a bit of a purist as well. I don't like to massively modify my images. I like to take photos that represent reality. I prefer less saturated colors (not dull and overly muted, but not ultra vibrant or saturated either), and I prefer things to appear as they were to my own eyes as much as I can. To that end, getting things done in-camera as best as possible is important to me.

Banded read noise makes it tough to achieve that goal. Shadows don't have banded noise, and shadows are rarely as dark in real life as they appear on screen. So, better data is of particular importance to me.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: Today at 05:07:58 AM »
Lee Jay I can't imagine having a cellphone for 7 years!  :o  so curious, what kind is it??

All of them I've ever had, several brands.  I'm only 2 years into my Galaxy S3 at the moment.  Haven't considered upgrading.

I live in Colorado too, the "big landscape state".  I think I've taken about 5 landscapes in my life, and only one of them in Colorado.  That was a big panorama taken with a state of the art camera, a Nikon Coolpix 950!

Different circles then. There are many well known landscape photographers who live in this state. One in particular is exceptionally well known, John Fielder. This IS a big landscape state, and people DO spend a lot of time taking landscape photos here. Go hiking up in the highlands above the Maroon Bells, or in the Uncomphagre wilderness, or San Juan range, and you'll see a ton of people with DSLRs.

I think your less a representative of "the norm" than you might think. ;)

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 05:04:22 AM »
Thanks for the answer. I myself prefer to use LEE GNDs to avoid the need of too many files. Frankly, I'm quite bad in blending (learning about luminance masks at the moment as well as some other techniques) so I try to do all I can in the field so I can ideally work with single files.

But when I do bracket, I bracket like mad: -3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3 is my usual starting point :D

I too use Lee's GNDs. I have a bunch of them, in both soft and hard grad. I really love the Lee filter system (although it failed me recently...i had my 2-stop proglass ND in...and when I was photographing rivers it just slipped out and shattered on the rocks...I am not sure why it did, but it was like a $160 filter. :(). The thing that set me off not long ago was a bunch of scenes where the skies ended up totally blown out when I exposed to preserve some detail in the shadows...and the skies were patchy...not along a nice horizon where a GND filter could actually be used to fix the problem.

I've bracketed crazy-wide like that as well, but in my experience, at least when you have bright highlights (like the highlights in water, or bright skies backing a dark foreground, or the sun in the frame), you end up with posterization or haloing if your exposures differ by a stop or more. Getting the exposure differential down to 2/3rds of a stop seems to smooth out the highlight transitions, so you don't end up with posteriation or funky CA or color issues or things like that after merging to HDR.

Ouch on that ProGlass ND, those things aren't exactly cheap :(

Strange thing about that bracketing range. I can usually push or pull my 6D files +1 2/3 or -1 2/3 w/o any trouble, no posterization or any decay. So one would think, you can easily use whole f-stops for bracketing w/o any detrimental effect on the IQ. Could it be more of a problem in the software? I honestly cannot believe, that one stop difference in editing would somehow crush any file from any recent DSLR. From the sound of it, seems like the problem lies in the software. But since I have only limited experience with Photomatix (can't really start to like this one) and HDRPro from CS6 (still learning to grasp of this one), so I may be wrong, but it just sounds so unlikely...

I use PS CC for HDR Merge, and ACR for 32-bit float (20-stop) toning. It's one of, if not the, best options out there for tone mapping HDR images. The posterization issue with highlights is a well known problem. Bracketing more shots is the only real solution. The ideal would be to get 1/3rd stop differences between each exposure, to minimize the differential in highlights between exposures. You can't really eliminate posterization that way, but it can make it a lot less noticable.

There are plenty of issues with HDR merge. Some people really love it, spend the time to do it right, and get great results. Personally, I don't like to spend that much time on each image. I'd rather have better data to start, that was more workable and flexible, and do what I could with a single file and maybe one single GND.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: Today at 04:59:59 AM »
I suspect you 'needed' to counter my point as a way to compensate for being called on your gaffe regarding the financial data.

I'll cover the financial stuff in financial threads. My need had to do with a post you made that was clearly trying to link purchases of a twelve thousand dollar camera to one specific feature, DPAF. Haven't you been chasing me all over these forums telling me the exact opposite, that it's the complex of features that really truly matters in the end, not one single feature or other? Double standard much?

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: Today at 02:42:10 AM »
I'm sure there are multiple factors that go into it.

Location, for example. I live in Colorado...big landscape state. I think people also generally look to DSLRs to give them better landscape photos than their phones. Once mirrorless quality kicks up, I suspect most will go for the smaller, more portable and easier to use mirrorless options instead of DSLRs. We also have plenty of wildlife here, and two large migration seasons for birds. I see a LOT of average people at the local state parks photographing birds and wildlife with DSLRs and moderately long telephoto lenses.

I imagine things could be different in big cities. People always on the move, the inconvenience of draping a large, heavy camera over your neck in thick crowds, etc. I imagine smaller cameras are probably more desirable there. I don't know for sure...don't like cities much myself, I avoid them. I live in Colorado, and I've barely been to downtown Denver. When I go, it's in for work, out as soon as I can be. :P But it definitely seems like a very different environment, and I can't say I see many people walking around with big cameras.

Still, I see the ILC market as a whole as a big market that still has growth potential. I think economies are still contracting somewhat, and still trying to settle from the recessions. I think there have been BIG demographic shifts among large population groups who have shifted from high paying jobs to low paying jobs, no jobs, or retirement. That changes sales trends. Once that whole shakeout is done, and new generations start moving into the market, I think ILC sales will pick up. It's possible new generations would prefer different kinds of cameras as well...mirrorless over DSLR, highly connected (i.e. WiFi or even LTE web access for direct publishing of photos to online profiles like instagram), etc. New markets as well, with asian and indian markets growing considerably.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: Today at 02:33:59 AM »
Canon's XF Codec is already integrated into a lot of company's workflows. Very few channels broadcast 4k and it's very expensive to post in 4k.

That's why you acquire in 4K, post in 1080p, and keep the original 4K assets for future-proofing, much like many studios did with 16:9 content during the first part of the last decade, when most TV sets were still 4:3.  Then, when you need 4K versions of the content, you import the EDLs, pull in the 4K assets instead, and bring in people to update the SFX for 4K, if necessary.  By the time you actually need the 4K content, computers will be fast enough that much of the 4K post work won't be expensive anymore.  :)

There's a market for 4k in the consumer sphere (youtube distribution), not so much in the professional sphere, that's all 1080p except at the ultra high end. This isn't a consumer device, it's a professional one, and thus it's build on reliability and integrating into conservative workflows, not specs or features alone.

Workflows, though, not acquisition.  It's very shortsighted to do content acquisition in anything other than the highest quality format you can get your hands on.  Downsampling during ingestion should be relatively easy.  If it isn't, either hire a programmer or get better editing tools.  :)

Look at how Arri is destroying Red in broadcast tv and in film... It's not because Arri has the better format (the Alexa does have a better image)... it's because it has an easier to handle, "lower end" codec in a lower resolution.

I'd imagine a big part of it is also reputation and familiarity.  Red isn't even a decade old, whereas Arri has been doing cinema hardware for almost a hundred years.  Folks know the name, and they're used to their gear.

I can do 4K natively on my Samsung Note 3, but not all 4Ks are equal, and 4K is not necessarily better than 1080p. 

Fair enough.  I didn't mean to imply that the 4K quality on a cell phone would even remotely approach that of a DSLR (or even necessarily be as good as 1080p on a DSLR).  I just meant that if a cell phone has the CPU/GPU horsepower to produce 4K output, it's embarrassing for expensive DSLRs to not be able to handle it at all.

+1 Totally agree on every point.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 02:31:14 AM »
Well, what actually knocked some sense into me was when I summed up the total light gathering capacity of each sensor (based on sensorgen information), then factored in noise levels and DR. Once I saw those numbers, there pretty much wasn't any denying it. And actually, based on the numbers, the D810 is still phenomenal at high ISO...the A7s only really pulls away once you get into the ISO 51200 realm and beyond. Then I factored in your low ISO pushing technique to achieve more DR at "effective high ISO" when using lower ISO, and yeah. No contest. :)

There is good detail in the A7r, but to me, it does look visibly noisier than the A7s. Especially in the the objects in the background...much noisier. (And that's in the normalized comparison.)

Regarding the 50mp MF, I guess I was considering that a different class of camera...but, when you throw the 645z into the mix, I guess it really isn't. :P So sure, that one trounces the trouncer.

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: Today at 01:05:48 AM »
as I was pre-ordering my 7d2 today, (uh-hmmm...  cough..) my LCS guy said pre-orders for the 7d2 vs the d750 were running about 15-to-1.
Holy cow!  much more pent up demand hoping for a large improvement over the old 7d than any craving for a new FF Nik body is my interpretation, especially when there's already 2 good options in the 800 and 600 series that many are likely already satisfied with. 
You could spin that as too many FF nik bodies available.. or, quite possibly, a lot of people wanting a better Canon crop body that they will finally get.

I'm not surprised. If I was a Canon user, I'd be getting the D810, no question. The D750 doesn't come of as bad to me, but I think it's kind of difficult to differentiate it from either the D810 or D610. For what I do and what I'd want a full-frame camera for, the D810 is the much better option. If cost was the bigger concern for me, the D750 kind of seems overpriced, where as the D610 seems very nicely priced.

Also, no question there was pent up demand, after five long years. The 7D was WAY long in the tooth, and ironically there still isn't a D400 to really compete with it or the 7D II. :P

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 01:03:42 AM »
...some day, not terribly long into the future, we'll look at the kind of IQ that used to be quite normal a couple years ago like we look at 35mm film photos today.

I was considering getting rid of my 5D2, but you've got me thinking.

In not too long, that thing is going to have loads of retro appeal.
Right now it's is a nuisance, but in 2019 "Canon style banding noise" will be a trademark.
Fuji will make a filter effect just to try and capture that "classic Canon" look, but of course, no filter can produce random lines in lifted shadows like the real thing.
Man that sensor is all sorts of new cool now... or, in five years.

LOL. That may just be a good reason to hang onto my 5D III. :P By 2022, it'll be worth a mint!

What's truly sad, is not even film had the banding look. As retro as film is, it still has a very natural, random grain that is quite appealing. I love scanning the expired film groups of Flickr...the photos aren't even remotely the image of perfection, not in terms of IQ...but they do have this appeal to them, just because of the interesting effects that expired and decaying film adds.

I really wonder if the "Retro Canon" look would ever become a thing. It would be funny if it did. And quite curious. To me, it's about as unnatural and unsightly as it gets...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 305