August 23, 2014, 09:27:20 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 265
1006
How good do you think the IS is at 600mm? It doesn't seem like 4 stops to me.

depends.

how do you calculate that it is not 4 stops?
you shoot handheld with and without VC and look how many stops you need to see no blur from your tremors? ;)

or you just say you should be able to handhold it at ~1/30s. @600mm. ;)
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866
It is claimed in this review that 50% of his shots at 1/40 s are sharp.  Most of mine are blurred at that speed.

Sharpness at such speeds is entirely subjective. Given the kind of use cases this lens will most likely be used for (birds, wildlife and other action with cropped sensor cameras), at 1/40s, your likely going to get considerable blur, even if you have steady hands. Your subjects will be moving, and even a small amount of movement (ESPECIALLY for birds) at anything under about 1/800s results in blur.

I used to try to keep my shutter speed slower with the 7D to keep noise levels lower (and avoid having to go over ISO 1600), however for passerines, they are so jittery and constantly on the move that anything under about 1/800s (and in the case of the really small, super hyper birds like chickadees or bushtits and the like, even shutter speeds of 1/1250s and slower) results in subject blur. This was even the case with the EF 600mm f/4 II on a heavy duty tripod and gimbal (GT3532LS + Jobu Pro 2).

The only time your going to get stable 1/40s shots hand-held is if there is no motion in the scene. I had the luck of getting a 1/6s handheld shot ONCE in my entire time photographing:



Night Heron at Night
Canon EOS 7D + EF 600mm f/4 L II
1/6s @ f/4 ISO 3200


The only reason I was able to get the shot is because the bird was literally motionless for the entire time it took me to uncap the lens, stabilize myself so that I was motionless, configure the right camera settings, and take the shot. This was about a half hour or so after sunset, during the last minutes of civil twilight/first minutes of astronomical twilight. It was truly "night". Unless you intend to go around photographing night herons at night, I don't expect many nature photographers who get the Tammy 150-600 will be getting many sharp handheld shots at such low shutter speeds. ;)

1007
Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?
I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!
Thoughts?
Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook ;)
Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?
Maybe because 6D is relatively large, heavy and expensive, compared to APS-C. It may also be because all zoom lenses for it are large, heavy and expensive, compared with EF-S lenses.
The point is, in the general consumer marketplace, where megapixels sell, you will not see a low megapixel camera because it will not sell. If there ever was to be a specialized low megapixel camera, it would be a FF camera where the pixels will have 2 1/2 times the area of an APSC camera with the same number of megapixels, and thereby, out perform it in low light or high ISO..... and it would not be inexpensive....

Indeed! And, it a'int! It's called the 1D X...and it's about, oh, $6800 bucks. :D

Humor aside, I'd go for a lower mp APS-C camera with greater SNR, if someone made one. Personally, though, I'd really prefer someone do something more interesting with APS-C. Instead of larger pixels, I really think that layered photodiodes would be very interesting. It's been hypothesized and theorized and even patented in a few ways. Foveon is based on the concept...it has a blue, green, and red set of photodiodes layered vertically in each pixel. The colors are somewhat "natural" in that is how light penetrates silicon...blue is filtered out first, then green, then red. I don't see why the concept couldn't be applied to a bayer-type sensor, however. Blue in a bayer sensor tends to include some green as well, so having say two layers of charge-holding photodiodes could theoretically double the FWC. Green could possibly have two or three layers of photodiodes, and red could certainly have three, if not four. I've read about such patents a couple times on ImageSensorsWorld, although it seems all for the video segment so far. Would really be intriguing to see how such a design might improve the sensitivity and dynamic range of sensors overall, but particularly smaller ones like APS-C.

1008
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:04:59 AM »
[..keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.

If 20+ other Canon bodies (let's not even consider the Exmor sensored bodies), often used the same way, did not produce objectionable FPN when pushed then how can you conclude that's a user fault? The 7D is KNOWN to have stripey shadows with only a small push that you can even do in DPP.  Too bad you don't have yours yet so you could provide a lens cap shot so we could see if it had stripes or not.

e.g.
7D non-pushed
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg169599

and crop from same slightly pushed file in DPP
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9770.msg176368#msg176368

The 7D is by far at it's weakest at ISO 100. I think Neuro is more like myself in that more often than not, he's shooting at a higher ISO. Past ISO 400, banding is pretty much non-existent, meaning all of the ISO settings between 400 and 3200 are pretty usable. By ISO 3200 itself and again the camera isn't all that usable.

I don't think anyone denies that the 7D has a banding problem at low ISO. That's well known. At ISO 400 sometimes you don't even need to push anything at all, and banding can be a slight problem in the midtones.

The 7D isn't really a landscape or studio camera, though. It's an action camera. It's an ok one, but lacking the very high ISO capabilities of a FF camera, it's limited in it's usable scope in that arena. The 70D has demonstrated some clear improvements in the area that the 7D used to dominate. It definitely has less noise, it's sharper, more usable at ISO 400 and 3200 (even though it actually has slightly more noise, it's less revolting noise). Not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin.

I think in the long run, between the improvements made in the 70D and even more so the improvements made in the 6D, the next DSLRs from canon should be pretty good on the noise front. If there was ever a "biggest complaint" against the 7D, it would be it's poor handling of noise, in general. Second to that would be the perceived softness due to the AA filter. (Ironically, I personally love the 7D's AA filter, as it's a godsend for bird photography...no moire at all, especially with a big white...but most people are limited to smaller/cheaper lenses, so I understand the outcry for a weaker AA filter.)

1009
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2014, 10:48:26 PM »
... my only fear is what most CR headlines will be about once it's actually released, maybe the rumored 5d4?

Maybe the main page headlines.  The forum topics will mostly be about how bad the IQ of the 7DII will be, due to poor DR at low ISO, FPN, etc...all before its even released.  Once it hits store shelves, Aglet will take one shot with the lens cap on, push the exposure four stops, and declare the 7DII to be DOA, which will lead to the inevitable proliferation of predictions of Canon's imminent demise.   

On a serious note, if the 7DII is Nessie, what does that make the 100-400 II?  A Sasquatch-Yeti-Martian hybrid living in Area 51?
Now that I have a long lens, I need a new body for my quest to take a picture of Bigfoot. Since the naysayers will undoubtably pronounce the af and iq as garbage, this will be the perfect camera. After all, who wants a picture of Bigfoot that isn't out of focus?

LOL.

+1 and +1, one for each! :P


1010
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 21, 2014, 10:47:27 PM »
My impression through the CR forum is that DPReview is the lesser of the two evils, but honestly don't know why when they are so similar to DxO.

Any opinions/comments comparing methodology and results between DxO and DPReview?

The big difference is that DPR's % score attempts to rank the camera (build, ergonomics, IQ, AF, etc.), whereas DxOMark's score is for the sensor and only the sensor.  Pair a great sensor with poor autofocus, you get great DR and low noise...and a blurry image.  DxO doesn't care, to them it's still great.  DPR would mark down the overall score due to the poor AF.

Since people buy cameras, and not bare silicon sensors, DPR's single number score is a bit less useless than DxOMark's sensor score.

It's also a lot clearer that DPRs ratings (which are conveniently percentages, something everyone fully understands) are subjective, based on the reviewers experiences as well as technical tests with the camera.

This is in contrast to some arbitrary number that requires you to go investigating HOW that number is derived, something the very vast majority of DXO viewers DO NOT do. That scalar number is a black box output that does not factor in enough information in order to be truly accurate, and yet it is boldly claimed to be "scientific". It may well indeed be produced via a scientific process, but the number is otherwise utterly meaningless, yet given all to much precedence, by the unwary general public.

That's the danger of DXO...their bold claim to science and yet black box effect.

1011
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 21, 2014, 10:43:57 PM »
There isn't enough bandwidth to support 4k streaming such that it looks significantly better than 2k. I am an avid fan of NetFlix, for example, and their Super HD is good, but not great. But when you get right down to it, even 2k (1080p) is only rightly done off of a BluRay disc. You get the full uncompressed audio and exceptionally crisp, sharp picture. You don't get anything even remotely resembling that with streaming, even some of the higher quality streaming thats showing up online now.

Netflix claims their UHD streams are 15.6Mbps HEVC/H.265 while the 1080p streams max out at 5.8Mbps AVC/H.264. Sure bluray video will likely look better in 2015 but those streams probably don't look so bad, depending on whether h.265 delivers on its promise of doubling the compression ratio at the same quality level as h.264. Anyway you don't get to decide for other people what is valid "4k" or UHD video and what isn't.

I'm not "deciding" anything. It's the type of market. When LCD screens came on the scenes so many years ago, I remember it took about four years for the dominant flatscreen tech, plasma and projection screens, to phase out. I'm expecting about two years for 4k, a 200% increase in adoption rate. It may indeed be less than that, but my point is that it hasn't happened already, which is what would drive a company like Canon to start putting full 4k recording technology in all of their DSLRs. The money that fuels the growth for a new technology like this comes from those few people who demand the absolute best quality possible. Not everyone spends $40k or $20k or even $10k on a TV. It's the videophiles and audiophiles who want true 4k video (not some extensively compressed stream that diminishes quality, but TRUE full resolution 4k, and for a full 2hr video, that can take as much as 200Gb or so).

Anyway, I certainly don't dictate anything. Neither do any of you. It's Canon who will decide, and I am simply betting that they don't jump on the 4k bandwagon for consumer-grade devices yet. They probably won't until next year at the earliest (and then only in the higher end models, likely as a firmware update for existing cameras), and I don't suspect we'll see 4k recording in "all" of their devices until some time after 2016.

1012
One major issue that could be addressed are the huge (forced) margins at top/bottom when using matte art papers, making prints on A4 sized paper rather small on the sheet.

Is this actually a problem? On my 9500 II, I just select the generic Matte Paper, and I can print borderless on pretty much any fine art paper, including Canon's (which is really just Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, and I just use the official Hahnemuhle ICC profile for it.) I've been printing borderless prints for about six or seven years now, and I've never had a single page curl...and I've printed on several dozen types of fine art papers.

If the new PIXMA Pro series models actually force a border on the generic Matte Paper setting, then that would be a SERIOUS reason for me NOT to upgrade. I pretty much live and die on that feature of the 9500 II.

1013
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 21, 2014, 06:42:02 PM »
4k BluRay playback

You forgot to take off your bluray fanboy hat. Everyone else understands UHD video support in current devices (2014) is about network streaming but for you that is somehow not good enough - did you post your comment on bluray disc to this forum?

There isn't enough bandwidth to support 4k streaming such that it looks significantly better than 2k. I am an avid fan of NetFlix, for example, and their Super HD is good, but not great. But when you get right down to it, even 2k (1080p) is only rightly done off of a BluRay disc. You get the full uncompressed audio and exceptionally crisp, sharp picture. You don't get anything even remotely resembling that with streaming, even some of the higher quality streaming thats showing up online now.

Go to a consumer electronics show sometime, and have someone play you a full 4k BluRay video on an 80" TV, and tell me that "UHD" Streaming is even in the same league. It's marginally better than 2k, but no where near what you get from a disc. As I've mentioned, on multiple occasions, 4k streaming is a step in the right direction...but when it comes to the consumers who initially dive this kind of technology, the ones who actually spend the dough on those $40,000 TVs and $1000 BluRay players and the like...they aren't spending that kind of money to get marginally-better-than-2k quality. They are paying for FULL 4k Ultra HD BluRay playback on their GIGANTIC 80" screens, in a home so packed full of high end audio equipment it would make your ears melt and your soul cry (trust me...if you've ever heard a $100,000 audio system, especially the analog ones...it definitely jerks the soul-tears!)

Streaming...eh. Streamed content is already compressed so much we don't need new equipment for it, and technically speaking, downsampling a UHD stream to 2k for display on a 1080p TV or screen would actually improve the results...make things crisper and clearer. (Same deal as with UHD gaming...you don't actually play on a 4k screen...the entire point is to downsample from 3840x2160 to 1920x1080, because the downsampling process cleans up the whole image, makes it vastly superior to a native 1920x1080 signal.)

1014
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 21, 2014, 11:53:43 AM »
Must be nice to be a hypocrite and not give a damn, Dilbert. You have no credibility. You have no respect.

You don't know that...he may be held in highly respected esteem by his fellow DRones and trolls.  Naah, probably not - even most of those folks usually have their facts right, even if they grossly misinterpret or distort the implications of those facts (something dilbert also manages to do, whether his facts are correct or not).    :P

Look, I confirmed it for him and said that I don't give a damn. Does that make it any easier for you?

I look at all the facts and see them pointing in a direction that says 4k will become common place very soon - as in 2H2014 and definitely by CY2015. Other people (such as yourself) read the tea leaves differently.

It's not about reading the tea leaves. There is this thing called humility. You seem to lack it. I even stated ahead of time, even though I was correct in the first place, that I would happily admit if I was wrong if there was evidence that the PS4 already supported 4k BluRay. That, that humility...you haven't exhibited one little iota of it.

The problem is there isn't any evidence one way or the other. Just Sony being wishy-washy which is just crappy for everyone.

Again, there is ZERO evidence for the fact that the PS4 has 4k BluRay playback. That IS evidence for the fact that it does not. That isn't a feature Sony would be squirrely or wishy-washy or obfuscatory about. It would be a high end feature differentiating it from the XBox One, meaning more sales. There isn't any evidence fore it, meaning that in and of itself is evidence against it. The PS4 DOES NOT HAVE 4k BluRay playback. Simple as that. You can't argue your way around this one.

1015
It's still early for USB 3.0. It takes time for manufacturers to eek out the best performance out of a protocol. ...
Thanks for taking the time for this thoughtful post.  I'm still new to a lot of the telecom material, so I appreciated your analysis.  It's helping to have conversations now and again which get me thinking deeper about the stuff.

Welcome. I do have to say, when I first learned about the various forms of network overhead as a kid, I was rather bummed, and for a while I was on a crusade to create a different network protocol that didn't have as much. :P Then...I found UDP. :D Then...I found out why no one really uses UDP.  :o

1016
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 20, 2014, 08:52:42 PM »
Must be nice to be a hypocrite and not give a damn, Dilbert. You have no credibility. You have no respect.

You don't know that...he may be held in highly respected esteem by his fellow DRones and trolls.  Naah, probably not - even most of those folks usually have their facts right, even if they grossly misinterpret or distort the implications of those facts (something dilbert also manages to do, whether his facts are correct or not).    :P

Look, I confirmed it for him and said that I don't give a damn. Does that make it any easier for you?

I look at all the facts and see them pointing in a direction that says 4k will become common place very soon - as in 2H2014 and definitely by CY2015. Other people (such as yourself) read the tea leaves differently.

It's not about reading the tea leaves. There is this thing called humility. You seem to lack it. I even stated ahead of time, even though I was correct in the first place, that I would happily admit if I was wrong if there was evidence that the PS4 already supported 4k BluRay. That, that humility...you haven't exhibited one little iota of it.

All I'm saying, is after you call someone out and namecall as you did with me, it only serves yourself if you fess up to your mistake. Instead, your being belligerent about it, which really doesn't help you one bit.

Anyway, I'm honestly not hurt by it...just, well, I guess I hated having you confirm my opinion of you...

1017
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:44:07 PM »
Hey, I quoted plenty of facts above in URLs.

Yes, but apparently you failed to verify the information (which I have done on rare occasions, but I have the decency to own up to my mistake and apologize for it), and that's assuming you even read the pages to which you linked.  There is a lot of misinformation on the Internet, and it's easy to find a URL to show pretty much anything you want.

Actually it is pretty hard to find a definitive answer on the PS4 and 4K to the point where you could probably argue either way.

And you're singling out one in the face of many others being spot on.

Um, you called me out for supposedly calling Sony liars (which I never did) and called me a Luddite (which I'm not) because you thought something Sony said was correct when it was not. When, in fact, I WAS correct in my belief that Sony did not add 4k support to the PS4.

I mean, are you SERIOUS? Your a raging hypocrite man. RAGING.

So if you want to put your head in the sand and pay attention to the one that is questionable (and by questionable I mean it is damn hard to get a definitive answer either way on the PS4 which is to say it is not possible to say yes or no with any authority) whilst ignoring all of those that are accurate and verifiable, be my guest... but the world is moving forward and the next train stop is 4k, with or without you and jrista.

The only one with his head in the sand here is you. Very hypocritical sand, I might add. And it is easy to say that the PS4 does NOT have 4k playback. If it did, that information would be EASY to find! It would be a HUGE selling point! Sony wouldn't hide that!

1018
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:40:04 PM »
I would even be willing to bet that Canon could add new 4k features and functionality to the 1D X and 5D III as well, if the time comes that consumers really demand it.

If I were a videographer right now, using either the 1DX or the 5D3 since their respective availability, and Canon releases firmware updates enabling 4K recording with these cameras, then ...
  • it would mean that the camera was capable of this functionality right from the start, but Canon chose to "cripple" the camera for some obscure and probably financial reason; and
  • I'd have serious doubts about ever using Canon products again.

But, hey, that's just silly old me!  ;)

Are you being serious? I mean, if this is what gets you to jump ship, then you might as well jump ship now. When the 1D X and 5D III reached the final stages of testing (i.e. pre-release field testing, which was at least six months before their announcements), 4k playback in consumer devices was just a distant blip on the radar. There were only a couple high end 4k TVs, and they cost between $60,000 and $80,000. There was pretty much no 4k content at all, bluray or othewise. There weren't even those interim upscaling players that Dilbert is such a big fan of.

So, your saying that because Canon was not EXCEPTIONALLY EARLY to the 4k game, so early in fact that they might have had a grand total of 10 consumers who would have benefited from their addition of full 4k recording to their new cameras, your going to head STRAIT for the same, tired old "Canon is holding back and screwing over their customers!" and "I'm gonna leave them forever!" arguments? Seriously?

Or are you just playing one of your inane games where you pretend to play some role, without indicating as much, and expect abstract readers on the internet to "sense" that your being "sarcastic"?

1019
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:35:27 PM »
So you're saying I should apologise for a vendor misleading the public on something? I think you're pointing your stick at the wrong person, buddy.

Even if that is the case, it would just mean that Sony missed the boat on 4k. Why? Because they've been talking up the capabilities of their equipment, meaning that is where they want to be, not stuck with 1080p.

Ah! So, I WAS right? Hmm, and...what did I say? Oh, right...that YOU wouldn't MAN UP and admit YOUR faults. Um...see above. Nuff said.

Must be nice to be a hypocrite and not give a damn, Dilbert. You have no credibility. You have no respect.

1020
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:32:53 PM »
...
Um, first off, PS4 isn't 4k capable. Both Microsoft and Sony have been rumored to be investigating support, but neither have 4k support yet. If 4k was as close as you say, they would have both been released with 4k OOTB.

Sony talking about 4K support in the PS4:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/ps4-can-handle-4k-output-but-not-for-games-50010491/

... so it will play 4K content on the PS4. No support for 4K games, but that's different from 4K movies/video.

Are you sure that is 4k BluRay playback? Or is it just high resolution online video playback (which is certainly a step in the right direction).

Bury your head in the sand all you want. This is Sony saying that their equipment will playback 4k movies and you're saying that Sony is wrong? Usually everyone sort of agrees with what the vendor says their equipment is capable of but of you want to say "No, Sony is telling a lie, it won't do that" then by all means, deny it all you want. The rest of the world has and is moving on. The 20th century is back there somewhere behind us, maybe you'll feel more comfortable there? I mean there is no point responding to anything else you say if you're going to deny what the manufacturer is saying about the capabilities of their own equipment. It would be like you saying "No, Canon's 5D Mark III doesn't do 22MP, it really only does 11MP." You lose.

If you want to be a luddite then by all means go and buy yourself a film camera and we'll get off your lawn. But the digital and IT space moves quickly and if you can't keep up (or don't want to keep up) then fine but don't insist that everyone else has to move as slowly as you do.

If you can't adapt to change then you're already prehistoric. This is the 21st century AD, not the 1st AD.

Aye, it says "movies". To my knowledge, the word "movies" is not a synonym for "bluray". Generally speaking, if you have 100gb 4k bluray support, you say as much. Movies could mean a whole hell of a lot of things, including 4k movie streaming off the net. As I said, that's certainly a step in the right direction...but it doesn't confirm support for the only true source of ultra high definition video content: 100Gb 4k BluRay Disk playback.

I never said Sony lies. Its just that their verbiage seems unclear to me. Again, if I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it. (Which is a trait I've NEVER seen you exhibit, btw! I don't expect you to ever man up and admit when your wrong, either.) I just haven't seen any information out there that actually stated the PS4 (or even the XBox One, for that matter) would be capable of playing back 4k movies from BluRay disks. I now the XBox One supports ultra high def content from online sources, but again that's a little different (although certainly a step in the right direction.)

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 265