November 27, 2014, 07:00:36 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 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 311
1051
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.

1052
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 29, 2014, 12:15:32 AM »
I hope it is a really great camera, and sets some new standards.  Will I switch?  Nope.  I love the competition that will make things better for us all.

Frankly I wish Nikon well, but I'm not that interested in what they do.  To be honest, I have a lot invested in lenses, bodies, giizmos, etc., and I spend a lot of time and effort improving my photographic skills.  What I have discovered is that it isn't the hardware that is my limiting factor. 

Improvements in technology will help me get better, but so far, my beloved 5DIII, pooped on or not, still has plenty of head room for me to improve.

sek
Ditto that

Ditto again!

1053
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 28, 2014, 06:35:47 PM »
A patent showing a 5 layer image sensor from Canon has appeared. UV and IR layers help with color reproduction especially for skin tones.</p>


New Patent here new Sensor there
New Patent here new Sensor there
New Patent here new Sensor there

Canon it is time to give us a camera(s) with this new technologies, let us testing how good it is  ;D

Hah! I agree. Canon has a lot of really good patents for camera sensors...they just never seem to apply them. 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.

Well if you were to read the canonrumors forums, you could be forgiven for thinking that even 24MP is too many (for an APS-C sensor) given how much extra noise is there and that 36MP makes working with raw files too slow to be practical. And you're suggesting that Canon bring out a camera with 4 times as many MP as the high in a current FF DSLR?? Are you just being facetious or are you being serious?

Oh, I've made no claims that 120mp images would be "nice" to work with. They would be an utter pain to work with. Even my beast of a new computer, with 32Gb ram and an overclocked 4930K would have trouble. Doesn't change the fact that if Canon stuffed their ALREADY EXISTING 120mp APS-H sensor in a 9.5fps camera, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

With that many pixels, you would always be downsampling, unless you were printing 40x30" 300ppi prints (which would be the native size for a 120mp image, or ~90x60" 150ppi !!!  ;D). For "normal" prints or even display at full size on 4k screens, the IQ, in terms of noise (although minimally, you would still be suffering a little from having less total area than FF), but especially in terms of color fidelity, crispness of detail and sheer resolution, of downsampled output images from processed 120mp images would trounce anything out there, even if the pixels weren't technologically the best.  I'd deal with the processing hassle for that. It would be a significant enough of an improvement in raw resolution that few other factors would matter...

The D800? It's fantastic at low ISO, which makes it excellent for landscapes. At high ISO? In practice, the difference is minimal at best, and at worst the D800 exhibits more color noise than the 6D, 5D III, or 1D X at high ISO. Not enough of a raw resolution margin, and certainly not enough frame rate, to make me go out and buy one in a heartbeat like a 120mp 9.5fps sensor would. A 36mp sensor isn't even twice as many pixels as the 5D III, 5D II/1Ds III, etc. A 120mp APS-H on the other hand...that's more than FIVE TIMES the pixel count as a 5D III, and still over three times that of a D800.

Let me put this another way. If Nikon or Sony debuted a camera next week with a 120MP APS-H sensor, what do you think the forums here would have to say about it?

If they debuted a CAMERA next week with a 120mp APS-H sensor, it would be big news. If they debuted a 120mp SENSOR next week...eh, copycats. Already done.

APS-H is Canon's thing. I believe they hold patents for it. That renders the point moot.

So what if SoNikon drop a 120mp FF sensor on everyone next week? Again, not going to happen. Sony already has 50mp sensors...but the only cameras using one of them are MFDs. So again, renders the point moot. There is no IF about Canon's 120mp APS-H...it has actually been done, the thing exists...Canon is just sitting on it until it becomes a more lucrative product (logically, and from a business standpoint, jumping suddenly from 20-30mp sensors to 100mp range sensors is a BIG jump...it cuts out a lot of interim improvements that Canon could be making money off of for....YEARS.) It'll be interesting to see if Nikon uses one of the FF versions of that in a camera...then we would be talking about a 2x pixel count improvement over anything Canon has...that would be interesting. Again, from a logical and business standpoint, probably not going to happen. Especially for Nikon...Nikon desperately NEEDS to milk, and I mean REALLY MILK, EVERY advantage they have to restore their business to health. If they rapidly jump from 36.3mp to 50mp or so, they are wasting opportunities. It would be a terrible business decision. That's not to say they won't...Nikon execs don't seem to have the business sense that many of their competitors, especially Canon, have. Nikon burns a lot of resources on too-rapid R&D cycles, niche and fad products, etc. and it's hurt their bottom line.

1054
no

Wow. That may be the most succinct, to the point, and accurate posts on these entire forums! :P

1055
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 28, 2014, 03:44:23 PM »
Let me put it another way:
neuro: bashes every camera/lens manufacturer except Canon, regardless of how good/bad the product is.
dilbert: bashes any company that dilbert sees as having a weak product

So, you admit that your raison d'être on these forums is to bash companies.  Mine is not.

Well what do you want me to do, applaud Canon for failing to deliver sensor performance improvements?

If you're happy to accept whatever Canon dishes out to you as gold, fine, but I'm not.

The problem isn't that Canon has failed to deliver sensor performance improvements. The problem is that Canon has failed to deliver sensor performance improvements that match or exceed one particular brand's one particular camera line that you personally in particular have an infatuation with.

Canon HAS been producing improvements in their sensor performance. Canon's High ISO performance across the board has improved DRAMATICALLY since the introduction of the 5D III and 1D X. The 6D's high ISO performance trounces pretty much everything out there (and as a result, is rapidly becoming one of the DSLR cameras of choice for entry-level night sky & astrophotography...it has exceptionally low noise.) The problem here is that the performance improvements Canon HAS made are simply not the improvements YOU want.

You've whittled down the "acceptable performance improvements" argument to ONE SINGLE factor of sensor performance: LOW ISO DR. That's it. Everything else is 100% completely meaningless as far as you, Dilbert the Magnificent, are concerned. You, personally, yourself, have decided hat Canon falls into the top of your bucket of "Bad companies that deserve to be bashed (and, bashed without repercussion or retaliation of any kind upon yourself on a CANON-CENTRIC FORUM full of CANON FANS, BY GOD!! *!!smashfist!!* *stern face*)" because of ONE SINGLE IQ factor.

The problem here is not Canon.


Nor is it Neuro. Nor is it the throngs of Canon fans who like to exhibit their brand preferences or affinities here in Canon Rumor central. No...none of these things or these people are the problem...


Quote
Maybe you missed the several posts where I explicitly stated the D800E/14-24 combo is ideal for landscape shooting, and if that were my main focus I'd already have bought one?  So you are wrong...as usual.

Here's a tip for you: rent the D800E and 14-24 from a place local to you in SFBA, drive over to Yosemite, take just that camera and that lens (along with battery, cards, etc.) See if it really is the "ideal" combination for yourself because you won't believe me if I say you're wrong. (Hint: Yosemite is one of the ideal locations to do landscape photography so it should be a match made in heaven ....)

And yes, it is entirely possible I missed where you said the D800E/14-24 is (in your words) ideal for landscape photography simply because I don't make a point of reading every post that everyone makes.

Neuro has said that so many times on these forums I've personally lost count. How can you miss someone saying something so frequently? Unless it's just part of your highly selective process of eliminating the evidence that doesn't support your argument...

1056
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 28, 2014, 01:20:32 PM »
Don, this is going to be really a meaningfull innovation when an actual product will hit the shelves ... untill then this remains only a patent.

It still represents a commitment to R&D, which is important.  But not everything you throw at the wall sticks.

Aye. This is basically "'photoshopping' in a chip". :P Lately, it seems for many people and photographers who do portraiture, 'photoshopping' has kind of fallen to the wayside. Ultra crisp, ultra sharp, ultra detailed portraits, with all the blemishes, seems to be a growing "in" thing these days.

1057
If they did make it APS-H, It would have a APS-C crop mode if the mirror would clear EF-s lenses. Then it makes complete sense as you'll get alittle more coverage with EF lenses but not costing FF and crop mode when you need it. Win-Win.

I wonder if they can still do EF-s with APS-H. None of Canon's previous APS-H bodies were compatible with EF-s. To continue using EF lenses, the registration distance would have to be the same, and since no APS-H body to date was short-back compatible, I am willing to bet the mirror is too large. Maybe Canon could create some kind of folding mirror assembly to gain the necessary clearance...but that sounds like needless complexity, when there are a few good EF-s lenses for what they are, but none that compare to the IQ of a proper L-series lens.

I think the image circle of an EF-s lens is a bigger (unsolvable) problem the the miror size ...

That wouldn't be an issue if you were using an APS-C sized crop mode, something akin to Nikon's 1.2x crop modes. A read would ignore the outer border of the sensor, and only actually read an APS-C sized central region. The size of the image circle wouldn't matter then (and since it's EF-s, it would be at least large enough for APS-C.)

1058
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 28, 2014, 03:39:07 AM »
Wow! Wonderful shots over the last dozen pages, everyone! Truly. Too many to call out explicitly, but there are quite a number of talented bird photographers here.

1059
If they did make it APS-H, It would have a APS-C crop mode if the mirror would clear EF-s lenses. Then it makes complete sense as you'll get alittle more coverage with EF lenses but not costing FF and crop mode when you need it. Win-Win.

I wonder if they can still do EF-s with APS-H. None of Canon's previous APS-H bodies were compatible with EF-s. To continue using EF lenses, the registration distance would have to be the same, and since no APS-H body to date was short-back compatible, I am willing to bet the mirror is too large. Maybe Canon could create some kind of folding mirror assembly to gain the necessary clearance...but that sounds like needless complexity, when there are a few good EF-s lenses for what they are, but none that compare to the IQ of a proper L-series lens.

1060
APS H format serves not useful purpose in digital anymore. Sensors are so good now, a C size one will do just fine.

Not really. Different sensor sizes give you different balances between image quality and effective reach. All else being equal, an APS-C sensor will never be as good as an APS-H sensor which will never be as good as an FF sensor when it comes to image quality.

IQ is ultimately affected by TOTAL sensor AREA (not pixel area, sensor area). Reach is ultimately affected by pixel size. The interesting thing about this is that, there is nothing to prevent a FF sensor from having similarly small pixel sizes as any smaller sensor. It could happen (technically speaking, it has happened, with Canon's prototype 120mp APS-H sensor, which would TROUNCE any APS-C sensor on the market before or since it's press release). In practice, smaller pixels are generally the domain of smaller sensors, so in practice, most of the time, smaller sensors are generally offered the benefit of reach over larger sensors, however unlike IQ (which is affected by total sensor area), smaller sensors will NEVER compete with larger sensors for IQ.

1061
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 11:07:57 PM »
A patent showing a 5 layer image sensor from Canon has appeared. UV and IR layers help with color reproduction especially for skin tones.</p>


New Patent here new Sensor there
New Patent here new Sensor there
New Patent here new Sensor there

Canon it is time to give us a camera(s) with this new technologies, let us testing how good it is  ;D

Hah! I agree. Canon has a lot of really good patents for camera sensors...they just never seem to apply them. 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.

1062
You are all wrong!

It's going to be a mirrorless micro four thirds camera.....

EEEEWWWWwwwww.....

Just as likely as APS-H.....

I agree. Personally, I've never liked the 4:3 aspect ratio for photos...always preferred the wider 3:2 aspect ratio.

1063
You are all wrong!

It's going to be a mirrorless micro four thirds camera.....


EEEEWWWWwwwww.....


1064
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 27, 2014, 01:29:31 PM »
I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.

The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with the highlighted bit. Crop and FF both have their place, and there is no way crop is a better tool for "nearly everything". For that matter, it's debatable whether crop is better for even a slim majority of things. FF does better in almost every circumstance. It is larger, so gathers more total light. Usually has bigger pixels. Usually has more pixels. Allows thinner DOF with lenses of any given aperture. Allows for truly ultra wide field of view, much wider than anything available on APS-C (i.e. 8mm fisheye is only a true 180 degrees on FF...on APS-C, that true fisheye view is...cropped!), allows you to get closer with any lens when filling the frame (ideal for portraiture and macro photography, especially macro w/ extension), etc. etc.

The one primary case where crop is better is when you need reach and spatial resolution. Crop "gets you closer" when using longer lenses. That will remain true so long as crop sensors have smaller pixels than FF sensors. Someday, however, it is entirely possible that a larger sensor will come along with pixels just as small as crop, with just as high a frame rate. When that happens, the one true advantage of crop will evaporate, and there will be no reason to use it. The FF image would simply need to be...cropped.

Agreed.  IMO, the main thing at which a crop sensor is better is being in a more affordable camera body.

Aye. There is that too! That is probably the single most important factor for crop...reach would be secondary, although still very important. (Heh, I rarely take cost into account...only time I really have is the 1D X...so I usually don't care about cost.)

and portability.... I must confess to being tempted by the M for portability.....

I think that would be  mirrorless vs. DSLR argument. My 7D is roughly the same size as my 5D III. Slightly thinner, slightly taller. Overall they weigh about the same, feel about the same, work mostly the same, the major differences are the AF system, frame rate, and frame size. I wouldn't say the 7D is more portable than the 5D III, though.

1065
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 27, 2014, 11:40:11 AM »
...
You approach every thread relating to sensors with your DxO "score book" and you rattle on and on about dynamic range. We all get it -- the Sony sensors DO have better dynamic range; but I can list off a bunch of things the Canons still do better than competing brands, including Nikon. If your Canon isn't meeting your needs, and you need all the DR you claim, and print the size of a school bus then why don't you switch already? Nikon seems the most reliable for delivering what YOU want. Canon will continue to make all-round "meet-most-of-consumer-demands" style cameras and be very successful until the market indicates they need to change. So far, their approach is winning and Nikon's recent updates show they aren't. Bummer.

Whatever aglet does is his own concern. Maybe it is neuro's alter-ego ;)

Quote
Also, just to defend Neuro a bit here: he has spent countless hours posting on this forum, and his technical knowledge is second to none. To be honest, I don't know how he does it sometimes, because watching you argue with him is a bit like watching someone hit their head against a brick wall; he refutes your claims and your so-called "facts" and then you either misinterpret or ignore a point he has made and continue to prater on with Aglet in-tow. Neuro does deserve a pat on the back if for only having the patience to politely continuing to respond to you.

It is one thing for you say he deserves a pat on the back but it is completely different for him to say that of himself. I hope you recognize why. Actually, most of the time neuro criticises me he picks on me for mistaking a rather large lens for being a complete camera.

But I will say this - I almost never criticise a person for what they've said, my beef is always with the companies that produce the stuff we consume. I find little to no reason to get personal in arguments because it will never end well. Finally, I'm not going to get into a conversation about personal behavior or posting. If you think I'm an idiot for posting what I do, good for you - it won't make any difference to me or my life. (Nor will anyone else saying that or whatever other opinion they have.)

You may not often directly criticize people, however you very often come off as berating them. You are constantly antagonistic. People are here on CR forums to talk about, and rumormonger a bit about, CANON cameras. Were all happy, having a fun time doing that...until you come along. Then it's just antagonize, antagonize, antagonize. You just can't let it rest, despite the fact that 90% of the time, you only account for ONE IQ factor, and ignore all the rest, and that 90% of the time, your claims about cameras are FLAT OUT WRONG.

So, why do people criticize YOU personally? Because your antagonistic, because you directly and purposely interfere with the benign and otherwise enjoyable experience that people come to these forums for. Your the anti-Canon guy, you personally have decided, not just for yourself but for everyone, that there is only ONE thing that has any meaningful impact on IQ, and by god your GOING to FORCE people to acknowledge YOUR view on why Canon just flat out sucks, and is unworthy of ANY admirers.

Seriously, Dilbert...you actually wonder why people criticize you personally when ^^ THAT ^^ is your M.O.?

Why not let people do what they came here to do, without having to fear being berated by you because they like something you personally consider inferior? The explicit purpose of THIS place specifically is CANON brand discussion. It is NATURAL for people who have an affinity for CANON to come to THIS forum, and ENJOY talking about THEIR PREFERRED brand. They also have a RIGHT to be able to chat about their preferred brand WITHOUT fear of someone, like you, coming down on them for it.

Oh, and, just for the record...while you may not "directly" or "obviously" criticize anyone, you are a master at inferring that criticism when you want to, and in the case of Neuro and often myself, it's often quite obvious.

So...why not just back off for a bit. Give the people here a chance to breath and speculate on CANON-dedicated forums (even if it's the "Third Party Mfg." forum, were still all primarily Canon fans here, and we have a right to express our preferences without being ridiculed or berated for it).

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 311