August 23, 2014, 01:41:09 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 - poias

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12
61
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

62
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.

63
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.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 27, 2012, 02:07:40 PM »
If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary?  Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses?  What?  Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift?  That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

Canon's latest sensors are simply outdated in terms of detail resolution. You cannot bring superior images out of mushy low ISO capabilities. And 36mp for landscape/architecture is NOT overkill. LF, which is the ultimate choice of pro landscape/architecture photogs, goes to hundreds of equivalent MPx. And MF backs can yield 60+ MPx.

Basically, 36mpx is not enough when detail is needed. Canon is simply either incapable of bringing something to the market at competitive pricepoints, or they are milking their fanboys for their worth. Either way, it does not look good to impartial customers.

65
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:34:40 PM »
If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

66
EOS Bodies / Funny thing happening across the camera world
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:13:00 PM »
Within the camera/dslr world, based on the rumor sites, Canon-Sony-Nikon seem pretty active.

Nikon Rumors has D600 updates, Sony Alpha Rumors has FF mirrorless and camcorder updates, while Canon Rumors has Canon printers updates? And CR1-rated "EOS 3D" Buzz about low priced FF? No knock of CR, but is it that hard to get Canon info?

Either Canon is really good at keeping secrets, or they are asleep at their wheels.

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 21, 2012, 11:27:28 AM »
"Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native  :P

High MP cameras is not about high ISO performance, it is about high DR at base ISO. If your applications require high ISO they don't require high MP, and then there's 5Dmk3 and 1DX.

If it will offer 12 DR stops @ ISO 6400 then why forbid them go so far?  :D

I would be happy if it has 12 DR stops @ ISO 100, considering Canon's classic blown-out sky feature in the past.

68
the pictures were quite amusing. one photographer just stood there with a smile and forgot to shoot (D: ) curious if he just smashed it in automatic mode, or the settings just happened to be right.

but it was a nikon... unfortunately :P

That was the photographer from whom Bolt took the camera.

69
EOS Bodies / Re: Cool Stuff - PimpYourCam.com
« on: August 10, 2012, 06:21:41 PM »
Only if I can make a Nikon look like a Canon.........

All you need to do is lower DR, higher banding, lower resolution, and higher pricing.

70
Canon should run an ad campaign to tout how the best use Canon! If Bolt uses Canon, you can bet a lot of impressionable folks will be lining up to buy 5DM3 and 1DX! Boy, I can't want to be a fly on the wall in one of the Canon marketing conference rooms.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:46:25 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005?
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?

We are not comparing 5D3 to powershots and coolpixes. The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:37:01 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

It looks like you are content with 5D2's IQ. Others like myself are not. My point is that people are showing their denial and even blaming DxO for not giving their 5D3 a good IQ score. The fact remains, IQ wise(which I personally consider the HEART of a camera), 5D3 has no improvement, thus a failure in my opinion. That is not to say that good photographers cannot take awesome shots. They have and will continue to do so.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:16:32 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 17, 2012, 07:56:01 PM »
I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

75
The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.

With Canon's archaic sensor tech, I really doubt they would want to fiddle with sensor sizes. They even had to get rid of the APS-H sensor. Canon can compete by offering other value added features such as frame rates, JPG engines, touch screens, 4K video, 60 to 120p, rate buttons, print buttons, email buttons, and even Facebook browsing.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12