Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

« on: October 03, 2012, 06:13:53 PM »

I would rather have a good 1 point AF sensor than 9 bad ones. I would rather than 22 good mega pixels than 36 bad ones. I would rather have good menu system than sensor specs. I would rather have integrated WIFI and GPS units than not. I would rather have the EF lens support than not. I would rather have good customer support than not. I would rather have my Canon than not!

17

EOS Bodies / Canon 3D has a competition?

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:18:35 AM »

This was also leaked by BHPhotography similar to Canon 3D

18

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3 vs. Nikon D600

« on: September 28, 2012, 10:33:33 PM »

I could have done something wrong. This is just the 16th photo that I have taken with my D600.

All I say is take more shots, especially RAWs if you are concerned about image quality in tests, as RAWs have full data, while JPGs only have very limited data like max 7 DR, while D600 DR at base ISO exceeds 14 (2.5 stops better than 5D3)!

In high ISOs, D600 clearly holds more detail even with aggressive noise reduction. In image quality (RAW processing), d600 clearly trounces 5D3... it is confirmed by many sources the world over, including empirical testing.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3 vs. Nikon D600

« on: September 28, 2012, 10:08:31 PM »

From our experience done on D600 and 5D3, it is the exact opposite in RAW. JPGs we do not use so not tested it. We're a dual shop (although now mostly N than C) and 5D3 has clearly inferior images coming out than any of the new Nikons, even D600. They have almost identical resolution but the shades of 5D3 is inferior, including its rendition of red, also you can clearly see banding upon small increase in shadow.

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ

« on: September 26, 2012, 01:56:03 PM »

This visually explains quite a bit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcdead/7091087059/#

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

« on: September 25, 2012, 11:46:29 PM »

Atleast you admit that having that ABILITY is nice, unlike those who claim that sensor does not matter.

Now imagine having all 14.4 stops of D800 DR rather than 11 DR that 5D3 has.

22

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 19, 2012, 02:08:47 PM »

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:
1) is biased, or
2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or
3) is meaningless because I can bracket and get high DR, so low DR is not big deal

DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon. If we as Canon consumers (whether we like the brand or, more importantly, stuck to it due to sunk costs) live in denial, Canon has no incentive to improve. Result? we get shafted while competition has better cameras. Period!

23

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D!

« on: September 17, 2012, 11:19:00 PM »

Here we go again. APS-H will reappear when one of two things happens:

• Nikon and Sony release an APS-H body, or
• Someone captures a verifiable action shot with their 6D of Bigfoot riding a unicorn.

I think the Bigfoot/Unicorn shot has the better odds.

Nikon D800 already has "APS-H" mode yielding 25mpx @ 6fps.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

« on: September 16, 2012, 08:55:42 PM »

wow ... http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,D600,D800

D600 sensor has same DR as D800 ... 6D will suck air.

Lol, do you think that matters with Canon or the customers? Sensor is the last thing that matters to regular public. They will more likely attracted by the bundled package including free UV filter, lens cleaning brush, and of course Canon's award winning customer service.

25

EOS Bodies / Re: Fullframe War

« on: September 16, 2012, 05:11:09 PM »

That memo is an attempt at humor, but the premise is just stupid. Canon has nothing to fear. They can continue to push inferior tech (relative to the competition) and people buy them gladly or are stuck with them, thus making Canon enough money from sales revenue and profit to be the giant. Reminds me of Microsoft.

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Announcement Soon? [CR1]

« on: September 07, 2012, 07:09:33 PM »

Seriously, does anyone believe in 6D? All of these have been anonymous web "tips", aka wishful thinking. Canon will not release a cheap FF until either 5D3 sales stop, or Nikon officially releases and proves that cheap FF will take off enough to make money.

There will be no 3D, 6D, or even 7D2 anytime soon. Canon, is done with 1DX, 5D3, 7D, and a bunch of rebels for 2012. Their sales have been successful with those... why bother when all you have to do is release a second rate sensor and everybody starts drooling all over.

27

EOS Bodies / Re: Announcements Before Photokina

« on: September 05, 2012, 06:00:24 PM »

First you all complain of new higher prices, then complain when there is nothing new to buy.

May be they just want something new (tech wise), but not intended to milk its customers. Ahem Nikon ahem.

28

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: IMAX is 220 megapix, Canon's max STILLS are 22 megapix.

« on: August 30, 2012, 06:51:23 PM »

4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.

Imax Digital uses two 2K projectors, but they are working on a 4K system.  All the theatres are heading that way.
Why not read up before posting inaccurate information.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax

Real IMAX, not lieMax that is going on. The IMAX sensor size is 8x the super35, considering it is film and has off the charts DR, the resolution+DR is unmatched by any digital. Of course, Canon's decade old sensor is probably the least competitive.

Real IMAX???
With the scratchy film and all?
I like IMAX, but they often upsize movies taken with 35mm film, and conventional video cameras, the quality is not all that great.
They are going to digital to improve the quality.  Good riddence to scratchy flickering film.

Are you dense? I said real IMAX, as in large format IMAX such as 1570, 1070 etc. Not the liemax near your mall. True large format video with 8x resolution than your typical super35.

Learn something before pretending to know http://www.lfexaminer.com/formats.htm

29

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: IMAX is 220 megapix, Canon's max STILLS are 22 megapix.

« on: August 30, 2012, 01:09:11 PM »

4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.

Imax Digital uses two 2K projectors, but they are working on a 4K system.  All the theatres are heading that way.
Why not read up before posting inaccurate information.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax

Real IMAX, not lieMax that is going on. The IMAX sensor size is 8x the super35, considering it is film and has off the charts DR, the resolution+DR is unmatched by any digital. Of course, Canon's decade old sensor is probably the least competitive.

30

Third Party Manufacturers / IMAX is 220 megapix, Canon's max STILLS are 22 megapix.

« on: August 30, 2012, 11:36:43 AM »

4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.