November 24, 2014, 02:15:35 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 ... 309
1006
People just like to hate on Microsoft, even when they've done good. Windows 8 is the only truly universal platform that runs multiple devices, in multiple operating modes, simultaneously. Not even Apple has topped that, and I don't think they will. I purchased an original Surface Pro, because I'd been waiting for years to be able to have a fully touch-capable device for when I'm out roaming around, while not actually having to leave my full Windows desktop capabilities at home. I was probably one of the first people using Lightroom, Photoshop and EOS Utility on a Windows 8 tablet, tethered to my Canon 7D, out in the mountains, taking landscape photos and processing them with a pressure sensitive pen on the spot with a fully featured photo editing software (not some limited or otherwise gimped "app" as is the case on iPad.)

I also think a lot of people miss the magnitude of this.

W8 is essentially the same interface across a phone, tablet/laptop and desktop PC.

You don't have a bunch of stuff that no longer works with OS upgrades like the fruity side. Proprietary connectors that get changed every other generation so the accessories no longer work...

If the top Nokia Lumia phone was available on T-Mobile instead of AT&T, I would have got one. Big mistake on Nokia's part.

I think MS dropped the ball with the "RT" version of the Surface.

I would also immensley prefer the iPad 4:3 screen on a Surface.   

I'll grant that the W8 interface is different from XP and 7. I like W8 on a touchscreen but my desktop isn't touch, so I'm a little leery of setting it up. My computer has an included upgrade to W8.1 if I decide to try it.

I have had only 2 issue with my older hardware not working in W8, and as far as I can tell, it stems from the manufacturer no longer supporting the product- so not the fault of MS. Everything else I have works. Even downloading Epson 3800 drivers to a Surface Pro2.

Any insights on using W8 in a non-touch environment?

Windows 8 is a dual-mode operating system. On a desktop, if you prefer, you can still use the classic windows desktop all the time. You can boot to it and use it pretty much exclusively. The only explicit change is the removal of the start menu for the start screen. But the start screen works 100% perfectly well with mouse and keyboard (and, for that matter, it also works with a TV remote when using a Media Center remote control). There is absolutely NOTHING about Windows 8 that makes it difficult to use on the desktop with a kb/mouse. I've been doing it since day one. This is Microsoft's greatest mistake...not properly educating their customers as to what their OS can do. Windows 8 is Windows 7, with more. That's it. There hasn't been a loss of compatibility.

I'm pounding away on a keyboard right now, in Chrome, on the desktop, on a standard computer with no touch screen...in Windows 8.1. Touch is not a requirement in Windows 8. It's an option.

1007
Your living in a past 20 years old, now. Microsoft and Windows have changed CONSIDERABLY from their 90's and early 2000's phase.

Was vista 20 years ago?  :P Not starting an argument, just poking the bear  ;D

Vista itself wasn't bad. It ran quite fine. The debacle with Vista was that Microsoft and vendors weren't on the ball BEFORE it's release to ensure that the OS had an adequate driver base, for both existing and new hardware. The initial rash of hate blogs on Windows Vista were all related to the driver issues. From there, the MS haters just piled on, and did everything they could to rip the OS to pieces. (If you make a concerted effort to find something wrong with...anything...you'll find something wrong...and then something else, and then something else...we aren't perfect, nor are our creations...I could go on for days about the things that went wrong with all my apple devices, including my Apple CinemaDisplay that keeps flipping out on me). It seems to be human nature to hate change, and to pile on hate when it's flying fast and furious...and thus, the Vista death spiral. If it hadn't been for the driver issues, the hate ball wouldn't have ever started rolling, and Vista would have been a fine, respected OS.

Windows 8 is also hated, but that's just hater's hating. Windows 8 has so far been an extremely stable, fast, and highly compatible update to Windows 7. It still has the same old desktop (I use the desktop every single day, it's no different than in Windows 7, except it's all flat now instead of slightly 3D and glassy...I prefer flat and simple.) Windows 8 boots in seconds, it has a significantly smaller memory footprint, it is more energy efficient, and it is compatible with EVERYTHING (I've run Windows 8 on all my computers here, which include several laptops, a couple high powered desktops, a media center PC, and some older bits and pieces of hardware I've had floating around for the better part of a decade and a half.)

And yet, people still hate it. I think a lot of that is change...people don't like change if they didn't ask for it, and replacing the start "menu" with a start "screen" just seemed to piss a lot of people off. There is nothing wrong with Windows 8 itself, just like there was nothing wrong with Windows Vista. Yet, the haters piled on. All it took was someone, somewhere, to B&M about something, and a whole horde of decades-old Microsoft/Windows haters were just waiting in the wings to get the hate ball rolling again. The driver debacle with Vista was a real thing, an honest problem, but it was resolved pretty quickly, and once it was resolved, there really weren't any true issues with the OS. The Windows 8 start screen isn't a problem. For one, if you wanted the start menu back, free or very very cheap utilities would restore it...so it really wasn't a problem. There were also free and very very cheap utilities to boot right to the desktop in the original Windows 8, so again, not really a problem. But still the hate. Not just hate, but vehement hate. Nasty, mean, angry hate.

People just like to hate on Microsoft, even when they've done good. Windows 8 is the only truly universal platform that runs multiple devices, in multiple operating modes, simultaneously. Not even Apple has topped that, and I don't think they will. I purchased an original Surface Pro, because I'd been waiting for years to be able to have a fully touch-capable device for when I'm out roaming around, while not actually having to leave my full Windows desktop capabilities at home. I was probably one of the first people using Lightroom, Photoshop and EOS Utility on a Windows 8 tablet, tethered to my Canon 7D, out in the mountains, taking landscape photos and processing them with a pressure sensitive pen on the spot with a fully featured photo editing software (not some limited or otherwise gimped "app" as is the case on iPad.)

I think Microsoft has moved well past the age where they were deserving of a hateful bad rap. It's been the better part of two decades since their monopolistic/anti-trust issues. It's been over seven years since Vista, Windows 7 is one of the most reliable and heavily used operating systems on the planet, (as was Win XP before), etc. etc. If your still holding a grudge for things Microsoft made you mad about in the 90's...I'd say the issue lies somewhere other than Microsoft or it's products...holding grudges like that ain't good for the health. :P

1008
I've been a Windoz hater for over 20 years. The reason I did not buy a Nokia Lumia 930 was, you guessed it, Windoz Phone 8. BTW I use a 2006 LG flip-phone, so please don't call me an Apple fanboy :)

If a Canon camera comes along that I'd normally buy. But it uses MicroSoft code, I'll have to pass. Back in the day, when I did HTML coding (by hand), I learned to h8t MS, and their non-standard (and buggy) Windoz Explorer. Been there, done that and I ain't going back :( YMMV.

Your living in a past 20 years old, now. Microsoft and Windows have changed CONSIDERABLY from their 90's and early 2000's phase. The products Microsoft sells today are vastly superior to what they used to be, and deserving of a little more respect than 20-year old unfounded hate.

I've been using Microsoft products since the early 90's, and I've been writing software for the Microsoft platforms for about the same amount of time. (I also develop software for other platforms, in the 90's I did Java, C/C++ on Linux. Today I'm heavily JavaScript/HTML5/CSS3 based...web platform and JS stack, and I love it...so it isn't like I'm a Microsoft-only die-hard here...I've gotten around.) I've also been using linux/unix since that period, and I've had more than enough encounters with Macs and iOS. There is no perfect platform, there is no one platform that stands out leagues above the rest. They all have their pros and cons, they all have their bugs, and they all have their shining points. Having used enough Apple products over the years, they are the farthest thing from flawless. I remember generations of iPhones that excelled at everything but being a phone. I remember experiencing malware issues on multiple versions of MacOS. I remember many hardware issues that required a visit to the Apple store (and I know for a fact I'm not the only one...that's one of the PRIMARY uses of Apple stores, for their Apple Care.) I've experienced more than enough linux over the years. While it is no doubt an incredibly powerful and flexible OS, that's pretty much all it is...power and flexibility. That kind of power and flexibility gets in the way of productivity at times, and certainly puts it out of reach of the general populace unless it's HEAVILY glossed over with a very iOS or Windows like UI (i.e. Android...and anyone who's used Android phones knows how buggy and shoddily built they are...their only saving grace is their customizability and open app platform.)

I'm the first to admit Microsoft had a couple phases where their products were RIDDLED with bugs and security flaws. I remember the early NT days, and I utterly LOATHED them. I enjoyed Windows 95 and 98, hated ME. I loved XP, and personally never had any issues with Vista. Windows 7 is the worlds most popular consumer-grade operating system for good reason. Today, Microsoft is one of the most secure OS and enterprise software developers on the planet, their first-party products are just as refined as the competitions, and third-party product compatibility is better on Windows than any other platform.

Might want to poke your head up and smell the winds of change every once in a while. :P

1009
I'm a big fan of Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8. Not that I think this would lead directly to a Canon WP camera, but I think it is an interesting possibility for smaller cameras...compacts, mirrorless with touch.

I think that's the less valuable outcome, however. I think the biggest thing is better support for Canon hardware on the Windows platform (across the device range), maybe even some deeper integration between the two. I'd welcome that. It may also mean the integration of Canon devices into Microsoft tablets and phones, XBox, maybe future Microsoft devices? Dunno...interesting stuff.

It's certainly been nice having Apple-patented features in Windows phone (like the rubber band scrolling) and not have to worry that Apple is going to go ape-S___ and sue Microsoft into the next millennium over such a trivial thing (Apple's aggressive litigation against Android makers over ludicrous things like rounded-corner icons REALLY soured me against them. I was never a big fan, but now I rather dislike the company. I've had plenty of apple devices over the years, they have been ok, nothing ever worth their fanatical following IMO...but I don't like it when an innovative company turns aggressive and predatory.)

1010
Canon lens classification is very specific.

Telephoto is a designation that includes 135 to 300 mm non-zoom lenses.

It does not include anything else.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

My wild guess is an Image Stabilized 135mm f/2 for want of any better idea.

A telephoto lens is a lens that uses a telephoto group to allow the physical lens length to be shorter than the actual focal length. Before telephoto lenses, longer lenses were simply called "long lenses" or "long focal length" lenses. Similarly, for the most part, wide angle lenses with a focal length less than the registration distance of the camera usually require a "retrofocal" design. It's very similar to a telephoto design, only for the opposite purpose. They use reversed telephoto groups to allow the physical length of the lens barrel to be longer than the actual focal length of the lens.

Canon, BTW, DOES have "Telephoto Zooms"...on the very page you linked. The focal range with their telephoto zooms goes from 28mm to 400mm, so I wouldn't say that 300mm is the limit for a "telephoto" lens...all that really matters is that the physical length of the lens be shorter than the focal length itself.

1011
It's a CR3 about the fact that the NDA/embargo will expire. That's really it. I wouldn't call this a CR3 about the 7D "replacement" (cleverly worded ;)) itself. Don't get your hopes up too much...all this is is reporting the fact that Canon will be lifting NDAs and allow people to speak freely about certain upcoming products starting in Sept., however we still don't know what those products are. Just that it's the 7D "replacement"...whatever that is...7D II? 3D? 4D? 2D? Something still APS-C? Something maybe APS-H? Something with 10fps? Something with more FPS? It's all still the same old questions...we still don't know anything. We just know now that we WILL know more clearly, but possibly still not for sure, in a few more months. :P

1012
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 30, 2014, 04:07:09 PM »
5D2 + 24-105L

Wonderful shot! Such a cute trio.

1013
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 1.03x Magnification APS-C Viewfinder
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:28:54 PM »
18 months?  My last one took over six years from submission to award.

The 18-month turnaround is just the typical. There are some patents on thermistor-controlled voltage regulators that I was looking at this weekend (trying to build myself a cold box for my DSLRs that is regulated by temperature feedback) that were granted in the early 70's that sometimes took many years from date of filing to actually be awarded. I found that to be the case with quite a number of patents, many of which were from some pretty major corporations (like 3M).

1014
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 1.03x Magnification APS-C Viewfinder
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:25:31 PM »
"A note about the sensor patent, we have heard that Canon is holding back some sensor patents until the camera is announced to the public, as all patent information is public domain"

Remember this next time someone says that something is not possible because they have not seen the patent......

Very interesting. Wonder if that's why Canon's basically been in a "dead zone" as far as sensor patent news is concerned for the last couple of years...

1015
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 12:21:25 PM »
Hi,
   Got one question to ask: Does readout noise increase when resolution increase?

   Have a nice day.

In practice, no. Actually, in practice, it often seems to be the opposite, particularly in the case of Canon. Canon sensors have historically seen a drop in read noise as pixel size shrinks. The 1D X has nearly 39e- read noise. The 5D III has 33.1e-, while the 7D and it's other 18mp siblings have about 8e- read noise. Sony Exmor sensors tend to have around 2.7e- to 3.3e- read noise at all ISO settings regardless of pixel size.

Read noise is not specifically dependent upon pixel size when it comes to many CCD astro imagers as well. Some older generation KAF (what were originally Kodak, and now TrueSense Imaging sensors) CCD sensors, like the KAF-11000 series, which have 9┬Ám pixels, used to have very high read noise...as much as around 40e-. Today, newer cameras with those same sensors have about 10e- read noise. Similarly, older KAF-8300 CCD cameras used to have 25-30e- read noise. Today, they often have as little as 7e- read noise.

Read noise is often a term used to describe the conglomeration of potential electronic sources of noise in a sensor. In more specific terms, read noise is the noise introduced by the readout electronics. Dark current is probably better kept separate (and in CCD cameras, read noise and dark current usually are specified independently). Dark current is a variable type of noise...it accumulates over time, and the rate of accumulation is ultimately dependent upon temperature. Dark current is a form of noise that is intrinsic to all electronics, including sensors, and is therefor the one type of noise that may specifically be caused by sensor electronics.

Read noise, on the other hand, is usually introduced by "downstream" electronics. When the sensor signal is shipped over a bus and through processing electronics, such as amplifiers (in the case of CCDs) and ADC units, that's where it can pick up a lot of noise. Higher frequency components tend to add more noise, and with the exception of a very few sensors, most use high frequency downstream ADC units in external components that are one of the primary sources of read noise, and one of the primary reasons that dynamic range often falls off and flattens out at lower ISO.

CCD cameras often resort to alternate readout speeds as a means of lowering read noise. Some CCD cameras might take several seconds to read out one frame, and one frame of significantly lower resolution (maybe as little as a few megapixels) compared to your average DSLR sensor. This very low readout rate can reduce read noise by a significant degree. When it comes to astrophotography, that is often not a big deal. You are usually going to be doing other things while readout is occurring anyway, such as dithering (basically, moving the mount ever so slightly to offset the star positions, which helps greatly in reducing random noise once you stack). In the case of DSLRs, where high frame rate, often as high as 10fps or so, is a critical feature, then high frequency components are to be expected, and so is an increase in read noise.

An increase in parallelism, or the number of units dedicated to high workload tasks, such as reading out pixels and converting them to digital units, is one way of reducing the need for high frequency output. Canon has also filed a patent for dual-scale ADC units, where they have the ability to switch to a slower readout rate, and thus a lower operating frequency, when a high readout rate is unnecessary. This could lead to even lower noise images for types of photography that are inherently "slow"...such as landscapes. The reduced noise leads to higher dynamic range, and everyone is happy.

So no...there really isn't any reason to link read noise with pixel size in general, and especially not with smaller pixel sizes. Read noise is a much more complex beast than that, and multiple things factor into determining how much read noise a given camera has.

1016
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 11:49:45 AM »
Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance. Total sensor area and quantum efficiency matter. It doesn't matter how finely you divide the light your receiving and converting into free charge. If you increase the amount of light your receiving (more total sensor area) and increase the rate of incident photon strikes to electron conversions, then you have better high ISO performance. It wouldn't matter if you had 10mp, 50mp, 120mp, or 500mp.

I get this, but I've wondered whether there might be some truth to the myth, though not in the way many people imagine.  While I accept that your explanation is true, it applies when using identical tech throughout the sensor.  I've wondered whether it's disproportionately more expensive to make high-density sensors and whether some compromises would be made to keep the costs of the higher MP sensors within reason.   The practical result would be that higher MP had worse low-light performance, but only because it's not identical sensor tech.

There has certainly been a LOT of research into making smaller sensors (which pretty much always have smaller pixels) more sensitive to light. That research undoubtedly has cost billions. That said, most of the research into making better small pixels has been done to make ultra tiny sensors viable...the kinds of 1/3" down to around 1/8" sized sensors found in small compact cameras, tablets, phablets, phones, and every other device that uses a microscopic sensor. Each of those sensors is usually a tiny fraction of the cost of one APS-C or FF sensor, though, despite having considerably smaller pixels (between 1 to 2 microns these days, with a new generation of sub-micron pixel sensors coming very soon.)

<snip>

You've written about all that before and, again, I don't disagree with any of it.  I may not have made my point very clearly:  I'm not talking about R&D, but about actual production costs.  I presume that P&S sensors can tolerate a higher pixel defect rate than SLR-quality sensors, so yield is pretty high for those sensors.  I assume that keeping the defect rate down in order to get a reasonable yield is easier (hence cheaper) with recent, but not leading edge, technology.  It's my non-expert understanding that there are many refinements that occur to get a beautiful new design to produce a high yield.  I'm assuming that this problem is increased for smaller pitch pixels and the needed smaller circuitry.  Of course, once you get those production problems worked out the yield is comparable.

Regarding your very specific point, I'm honestly not sure. I don't know that the costs of fabricating a sensor with any of the modern pixel sizes is more expensive just because of the pixel sizes. Sensor transistors are pretty large these days...I mean, 180nm, 90nm? CPUs are using 22nm, with 14nm on the way. Yield certainly becomes a bigger issue with smaller pixels, however even sensors with pixels in the 1-2 micron range are still much more capable of handling defects than a processor. Based on ChipWorks analysis on multiple chips from camera manufacturers across the board, it is not uncommon for companies to farm out help for designing and fabricating their DSPs like DIGIC or EXPEED. On the other hand, Canon has continued to fabricate their own sensors.

Why hasn't Canon moved to a smaller process yet? Building a fab is a monster investment. That's hundreds of millions to a couple billion dollars just for one, depending on how small you need to fabricate transistors. I'm more inclined to assume Canon put that off simply because it's a gargantuan up-front outlay that they haven't critically needed until now. Up through the 5D III, I don't think Canon's use of an old 500nm fabrication process was hurting them. Now? I think that there is certainly a perception that Canon is really starting to lag behind the competition from a low-level technical standpoint, and spending a billion on a new high tech fab that can produce sensors with huge photodiodes and tiny transistors on large wafers is probably a worthwhile expenditure, both from a perceptual and technological standpoint. Would they do it because making sensors with smaller pixels is too expensive? They already make sensors with smaller pixels on a 180nm process using copper interconnects. They have been for years, and that is their cheaper fab (I think it's already on 300mm wafers). I think that there are increased costs when building any sensor, with any size pixels, when your just working out the kinks in a particular process. Whether the pixels are big or small, I think moving to a more modern, advanced fab capable of creating more sensors on larger wafers with smaller transistors will actually, in the long term, be a huge cost saver, even (and maybe particularly when) they move to much smaller pixels.

1017
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 06:21:52 AM »
Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance. Total sensor area and quantum efficiency matter. It doesn't matter how finely you divide the light your receiving and converting into free charge. If you increase the amount of light your receiving (more total sensor area) and increase the rate of incident photon strikes to electron conversions, then you have better high ISO performance. It wouldn't matter if you had 10mp, 50mp, 120mp, or 500mp.

I get this, but I've wondered whether there might be some truth to the myth, though not in the way many people imagine.  While I accept that your explanation is true, it applies when using identical tech throughout the sensor.  I've wondered whether it's disproportionately more expensive to make high-density sensors and whether some compromises would be made to keep the costs of the higher MP sensors within reason.   The practical result would be that higher MP had worse low-light performance, but only because it's not identical sensor tech.

There has certainly been a LOT of research into making smaller sensors (which pretty much always have smaller pixels) more sensitive to light. That research undoubtedly has cost billions. That said, most of the research into making better small pixels has been done to make ultra tiny sensors viable...the kinds of 1/3" down to around 1/8" sized sensors found in small compact cameras, tablets, phablets, phones, and every other device that uses a microscopic sensor. Each of those sensors is usually a tiny fraction of the cost of one APS-C or FF sensor, though, despite having considerably smaller pixels (between 1 to 2 microns these days, with a new generation of sub-micron pixel sensors coming very soon.)

The reason those sensors have problems with noise, again, isn't because of the small pixels...its the small sensor area. They are WAY smaller than even an APS-C. A couple orders of magnitude smaller at least, if not many more. To have enough pixels to be useful on such small sensors, the pixels themselves have to be tiny. That doesn't increase noise...all it means is that the sensor is "resolving" and/or "exhibiting" noise at a higher frequency. Blend a 2x2 matrix of pixels together with a median algorithm, and you would have the same noise as a sensor with pixels twice as large (linearly, 4x as much area...again, assuming similar tech, however within a given generation of cameras, sensor tech is usually very similar). These tiny sensors in tiny cameras in all the tiny devices we have these days perform so well because they actually use significantly better technology that what is found in our DSLRs. These tiny cameras employ some cutting edge science to increase their light gathering capacity, increase photodiode surface area, increase quantum efficiency, use per-pixel memories to increase charge capacity, etc. If a full-frame DSLR had the same kind of technology as a 1/8" sensor, we would have something like a 864mp 15fps ISO 1.6 million megapixel MONSTER that used color splitting (rather than color filtration) with at least 24 stops of dynamic range thanks to multi-bucket memories, digital readouts, black silicon (basically silicon that uses the same general technology as nanocoated lens elements to eliminate reflection), and a host of other advancements. A full-frame sensor in a DSLR that used the same technology as the microsensor used in the upcoming iPhone or Android would be utterly mind blowing. (Not to mention space guzzling...we would need a new kind of storage technology to handle 2.7Gb per RAW. :))

BTW, when I talk about noise in this context, I am pretty much referring to random sources of noise. That is primarily photon shot noise, as well as a bit of random noise from dark current and the random component of read noise. Pattern noise, which is always due to the electronics, is a different story. That is a matter of specific technological construction, materials, and sensor design. Pattern noise is usually buried very deeply within the signal, though, and unless your lifting your shadows by many stops, it is usually a non-factor. Photon shot noise and dark current are really the big ones. In normal photography, dark current is pretty much inconsequential, as CDS takes care of it (in astrophotography, dark current can be your worst enemy, as it accumulates with time....ugh...)

Its this difference in noise frequency...all noise frequency, particularly random noise frequency, where image normalization matters (LTRLI will like this). Dynamic range is talked about a lot, however it's usually talked about in the context of editing latitide: "How many stops can I lift my shadows?" That is certainly a factor of dynamic range, and clearly the one that everyone cares about today. Increasing dynamic range in such a way that you gain editing latitude means reducing read noise such that the original RAW, unscaled or anything like that, has less noise in the shadows, thereby increasing the usable range of bit depth in the RAW image. Dynamic range is also affected by other sources of noise than just the pattern read noise, however. All random sources of noise affect it as well, though, and that includes random noise introduced during read as well as the primary source of random noise, photon shot noise.

In order to compare noise of cameras with different size sensors, one must normalize their outputs. Scale them to the same size. It really doesn't matter if you scale up or down, however scaling down to a common target is usually the approach taken. Assuming you downsampled the images from a number of cameras all with different sensor sizes, but all with the same pixel count, to the same image size, say an image with 2000 pixels on the long side, you'll find that the larger the sensor, the lower the noise. If we instead had a set of cameras where the larger sensors had fewer pixels and smaller sensors had more pixels, again we would still see that the larger sensor had less noise...however we would also find that the smaller sensors had more detail. The thing about detail is, especially when there is a lot of it, it tends to drown out noise. This is a perceptual matter...the noise of the smaller sensors with smaller pixels is still higher, statistically speaking (i.e. if it was measured), however that higher level of noise would be more readily recognized when it occurs in smooth areas, gradients and solid areas (i.e. background boke).

The perceptual factor is difficult to nail down, it's highly subjective, but it does play a role in whether we as humans THINK one camera is noisier than another. This is actually one of the big problems with the 7D. It still has a very high resolution sensor...it's pixels are still a lot smaller than those of the 5D III, 6D, and most other DSLRs on the market with the exception of less than a handful (i.e. the 70D, a couple Nikon APS-C cameras). The reason the 7D is perceived as noisy is because it has a tendency to be a bit soft. It's got a "strong" AA filter (personally, I think it's just right for the job it was designed to do, but it does blur more than a lot of AA filters on newer cameras these days), and that strong AA filter eliminates a certain amount of high frequency detail...high frequency detail that would otherwise drown out noise. (The other problem is that the 7D doesn't actually gather as much light as newer counterparts, even including some of the lower end Rebels that ended up with the same sensor...the 7D can only gather a charge of about 20ke- per pixel, vs. say the 70D, which gathers nearly 27ke- per pixel...per SMALLER pixel, which indicates the 70D is gathering almost 50% more light than the 7D within the same sensor area).  The 7D isn't necessarily much noisier than its counterparts and competitors...it just SEEMS noisier because it's a bit softer, and that softer detail has a harder time drowning out noise with meaningful information. I also think, in practice, that the 7D's noise is more difficult to clean up, as photon shot noise isn't "crisp" and just per-pixel...it kind of "bleeds" into multiple pixels (probably because of the AA filter).

Anyway, when it comes to sensors of the same size, the biggest differences are usually quantum efficiency and read noise (and, for some applications, dark current). The Sony Exmor, for example, is a superior sensor in all three of those categories. It has quite a bit more Q.E. than any Canon sensor (by as much as 15%), it has significantly lower read noise, and it actually also has less dark current (which only really matters for longer exposures.) Full frame Exmors are still the same area as the sensors in the 5D III and 1D X, but they gather a lot more light, and they introduce far less noise into the deep shadows. That's the only real difference. Assuming one created an exposure where the lowest pixel level was well above the read noise floor...you would find little of significant difference between cameras with these sensors that actually had anything to do with the sensor (you would find differences, but if you really looked into the reasons for those differences, I am willing to bet good money you would find the AF system, metering system, frame rate, and ability of the photographer to work quickly with the camera to change settings, find their subject, focus it, etc. as the key factors driving the differences in IQ.

I had an increasingly tough time with my 7D getting it to focus consistently...using the 5D III is EFFORTLESS...it practically works itself, and when I need to do anything, it's like it knows my mind. It's that factor right there, the ability to expend little effort using a camera to get good results, that makes Canon king of the DSLR. Canon is at the pinnacle of DSLR design. Their current generation of cameras are truly exquisite when it comes to making it easy, making it effortless, for the photographer to be a photographer, instead of a camera operator. I put off the 5D III for a good long while, largely because I wanted to see what the 7D II turned out to be. I rather regret that decision now, as even if the 7D II turns out to be phenomenal, and is just as effortless to use as the 5D III or 1D X...I spent an extra year hassling around with the 7D when I didn't really have to.

If you want low noise, go with a bigger frame, regardless of pixel count or size. If you want more detail, go with a smaller frame and more pixels. That's all that should really go into the decision making of whether to get a FF camera or an APS-C camera. Once you've picked one of those two things, then it's time to figure out what of all the other features will best serve your needs...and in my experience, it's all those other factors that are WAY, WAY more important. "Effortless"....that should really be Canon's new ad campaign. That's what Canon's current cameras do for you...they make photography effortless. I couldn't really give a crap about the minutia IQ when I can just point and shoot and the camera just does what I need it to.

1018
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:06:35 PM »
Another one, again from the Cygnus region. This massive region of our galaxy is just PACKED with amazing nebula, most of which are part of the monstrous Cygnus Molecular Cloud.

This time, Veil Nebula. Thought to be a remnant of a supernova, it certainly has some of the most intricate and delicate looking detail I've yet seen in a nebula. It's a bi-colored set of hydrogen-alpha filaments (red) veiled in oxygen sheathes (blue).



Going to work on getting some more data for this tonight, and I may be able to extract even more detail.

1019
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 29, 2014, 08:02:55 PM »
I'd love to have a 120mp APS-H that can do 9.5fps...I really wonder why they haven't stuffed that wonder into an actual DSLR and just trounced all the competition.

Its a wonder for Photographers who need much MP.
 I want a camera with extremely lowlight performance (like or better than Sony a7s). A 120 MP Sensor hasn't it  :-\

Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance. Total sensor area and quantum efficiency matter. It doesn't matter how finely you divide the light your receiving and converting into free charge. If you increase the amount of light your receiving (more total sensor area) and increase the rate of incident photon strikes to electron conversions, then you have better high ISO performance. It wouldn't matter if you had 10mp, 50mp, 120mp, or 500mp.

The notion that pixel size affects noise is largely a myth. All pixel size does is make noise finer. On a normalized basis, i.e. when you render images at the same size, there is little difference in noise but a huge difference in detail and resolution when moving to a higher resolution sensor. The only reason there is a TINY (and imperceptible to the human eye) difference in noise with smaller pixels is fill factor...with more pixels, you have more sensor area dedicated to transistors and wiring, and less to photodiode. You need mathematical tools to determine the difference, though (Something like PixInsights Statistics script, which can derive a whole host of details about an image, including noise STDevs, could tell you, and it you significantly magnified, overlayed, and compared by alternating back and forth, you MIGHT be able to tell the difference with your bare eyes...but on a normalized basis...there is never anything bad about having more pixels.)

1020
If Canon bring back the APS-H, It must be in the niche market and meet the following requirement.
1. Smaller than the 6D for portability
2. Same pixel density(or even smaller) than the 1Dx for low light/high ISO performance.
3. Very fast FPS for sports photographer due to lower MP.
4. At least half of the price of 1Dx
Question is at this day of age, how many photographer can live with a 10 to 12 mp camera as a general purpose camera?


Why does it have to be smaller than the 6D when you're going to be hanging big whites off it?
I think a 7D size 24+MP APS-H body would be attractive since the 1D4 is 16MP and $3500 complements the current line alongside the 5D3
Why it has to be paired with the Big White.  It  can also pair with the shorty 40 To be carried around as "king of low light" for family event.

I think someone is confusing what they would like it to be versus where it should fall in regards to performance within the lineup. 

I don't see a aps-c/h having better low light performance than the current full frame models for at least 10 years... but maybe I'm being pessimistic...
APS-H Does not fit the existing line up either. You already have 6D as low cost FF, 5DIII as mid range FF then the 1DX at the top, 7D as top APS-C. Where does the APS-H fit in??? So if I  want a APS-H I need to think outside of the box and propose what I WANT. I agree that my proposal does not fit the existing line up. So is a general APS-H proposal without any substance. At least my proposed APS-H have a chance to beat or equal to the 1DX in terms of low light and frame rate with the portability of the 6D. What more can I ask for? Only draw back is that it has a low MP count. But Sony has just done  that. There must be someone out there want such type of camera. The existing APS-C cannot match the FF in low light is due to the MP race. With the same technology and same pixel density( read it as pixel size), the APS-C will equal the FF in low light.

Sorry, but that isn't quite how it works. Pixel size isn't actually what matters when it comes to noise performance. Total sensor area is really, ultimately what matters. When it comes to equal framing, larger SENSOR will win every time. Assuming a reduced output size, if comparing on a normalized basic, pixel count, then, doesn't really matter. Two full-frame sensors with equivalent technology will gather the same amount of light for an equally framed subject. A full-frame sensor and an APS-H sensor with equivalent technology will NOT gather the same amount of light for an equally framed subject.

This is where equivalence comes into play. To produce identical output (same framing, same image size, same overall noise), which is possible when comparing FF with APS-H, assuming equal sensor/pixel technology and equal pixel counts, the FF sensor would need a 2/3rd stop higher ISO setting. The fact that the FF sensor would require a 2/3rds stop HIGHER ISO setting to become equivalent to the APS-H is indicative of it's superiority...as at the SAME ISO, the FF sensor's noise would be lower. Ignoring pixel size, assuming you downsample to the same output image size, pixel size becomes irrelevant as far as noise is concerned...the only thing that really matters is total sensor area, which affects the total amount of light gathered.

The big thing that changes from generation to generation of sensors with the same sensor size is Quantum Efficiency. For generation of sensors now, Q.E. consistently improves. With higher Q.E., more light is gathered in any unit time by any given sensor area. Two FF sensors of differing generations will not perform the same. Usually, the newer generation will gather more light in a given amount of time, therefor performing better. This is another key factor for high ISO performance...higher Q.E. means more REAL sensitivity, allowing a lower gain setting to be used, which results in less noise. Other technological changes can affect read noise (which only affects the deep shadows), color noise (again, deep shadows), dark current (again, mostly deep shadows except for very long exposures in very dim light...i.e. astrophotography), etc. But for the most part, these sources of noise are trivial in comparison to photon shot noise, which is primarily affected by total sensor area and quantum efficiency.

Smaller pixels are still meaningful in the big picture. Smaller pixels means more spatial resolution...more detail. If you are reach-limited, then you are, by definition, incapable of achieving the same framing with the same camera and lens with a larger sensor. At that point, then pixel size becomes a truly significant factor. As smaller sensors tend to have smaller pixels, this is the area where APS-H and APS-C sensors have a practical, and practiced, advantage over FF. They resolve more detail, for a given area of sensor, than FF. Since it's the same total sensor area, regardless of total sensor size, that is involved here, the total amount of noise for the area of interest in the frame (regardless of frame size) will have the same general levels of noise (all else being equal...i.e. same sensor technology, same generation.) Crop the same physical area (say 7mmx5mm) from any sensor frame regardless of the total size, sample to the same image dimensions, and smaller pixels will resolve more detail at the same noise levels.

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 309